***CIR UNIQUENESS***
CIR – FYI – What it Does
FYI – What the Senate Immigration Reform Bill does
White, July 2013 - Staff report for the Des Moines Register
(Iowa View: 'Gang of Eight' immigration proposal is a good idea
for all, White, Mark, Des Moines Register, 13 July 2013., , ProQuest Database )
In the past 27 years we have witnessed unprecedented economic change, advancements in science and technology, growth in global interdependency and a historically long
period of neglect of our immigration policy. The result is a severely disabled immigration policy, particularly the legal immigration processes. It is a system so woefully broken
that it interferes with the daily functioning of our economy and enforcement of minimal immigration laws. These circumstances have spurred the development of the
"Gang of Eight" proposal. Regardless of its final details, its foundation represents the most comprehensive
immigration reform effort in the nation's history. It provides specific funding for reform of visa issuance, visa
allocation and immigration law enforcement. It expands legal immigration and clarifies the classifications and
rules, making citizenship a realistic goal while reducing incentives to immigrate illegally. On the regulatory side, it
clarifies and simplifies employer regulation and mitigates the enforcement bias against small employers.
Economically, it modernizes our work visa program to enable freer labor movement, minimizes labor market
distortion, creates a mechanism to address labor shortages in critical markets and implements reforms aimed
to address abuse in the current law.
CIR – Obama Pushing Immigration Reform
Obama is pushing for immigration reform now – personal campaign
Fox News, July 16 2013 [Fox News Latino, “Obama Kicks Immigration Reform Push Into High Gear With Personal Appeals”, Fox News,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/07/16/president-obama-kicks-immigration-reform-push-into-high-gear-with-personal/#ixzz2ZKqeSMba, accessed 7/18/13]
Obama is scheduled to do interviews from the White House Tuesday with Spanish language television stations from Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles and New York. The
White House says the president will argue that immigration reform is in line with the nation's values and in the
country's economic interests. Obama's personal appeals come amid deep uncertainty over the future of the
immigration overhaul that is a centerpiece of the president's second term agenda. The Senate has passed a
sweeping bill but GOP leaders in the House say that legislation is flawed. House Speaker John Boehner says many of his members
want to deal with immigration but in a methodical, step-by-step fashion.
Obama is Pushing for the Immigration now
Munoz, July 10 2013 – Director of the Domestic Policy Council et al [ Muñoz, Sperling, Krueger, and Mathews Burwell
7-10 [Cecilia, the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Gene, the Director of the National Economic Council, Alan, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors,
Sylvia, the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, “The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” The White House Blog, July
10, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/10/economic-benefits-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system, accessed July 17, 2013]
The President urges the House of Representatives to take action and move this bill or similar legislation
forward, and stands willing to work with all parties to make sure that commonsense immigration reform
becomes a reality as soon as possible. During a meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus this morning, the President released a
White House report highlighting the extensive economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform – and the
significant costs to our country and our economy of failing to act at this critical time. Economists, business leaders, and American workers agree – we must take
advantage of this historic opportunity to fix our broken immigration system. At stake is a stronger, more dynamic, and faster
growing economy that will foster job creation, higher productivity and wages, and entrepreneurship.
Immigration is top of the docket, was Obama campaign platform.
Carney, 2013 – reporter for Businessline.com (US immigration reform important for nation and economy: Jay Carney, Businessline is a
reporting agency, 29 Jan 2013, ProQuest.)
Immigration reforms to strengthen US economy Obama is scheduled to announce his vision for a comprehensive immigration reform in Las Vegas tomorrow. "Our new
immigration system must be more focused on recognising the important characteristics which will help build the American economy and strengthen American families," the
Senators said. "Additionally, we must reduce backlogs in the family and employment visa categories so that future immigrants view our future legal immigration system as the
exclusive means for entry into the United States," they said. "This is a big deal. This is an important development. This is in keeping with the principles the president has been
espousing for a long time, in keeping with bipartisan efforts in the past and with the effort this president believes has to end in a law that he can sign," Carney said in response
to a question. Carney said this is the right thing to do out of fairness to the middle class to make sure that everyone play by the same set of rules. " The
President is
travelling to Nevada tomorrow, where he will continue a conversation with the American people how we need
to move forward and why we need to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform, why it's
important," he said. "It's something that he talked about a lot during the campaign. He campaigned on this. And it is something that
he has spoken about quite frequently since his re-election and made clear his commitment to act on this early
in his second term. It's now the second week of his second term, and he is acting on it," Carney said. No more delays
in reform Carney said there is no reason to delay on moving forward with this. "The President has supported it for a long time. It fell short in
2010 because of congressional opposition to it. And he believes that we are at a moment now where there seems to be support
coalescing at a bipartisan level behind the very principles that he has long put forward and behind principles
that have in the past enjoyed bipartisan support, that appear now again to be winning bipartisan support, and
that is a very positive thing," the White House Press Secretary said. "When it comes to border security, anyone who looks at this honestly will note the
tremendous strides we have made in the past four years in protecting our borders. In fact, they have never been better enforced than they are now," Carney said. "Over the
past four years, this
administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, taken important
steps to make interior and worksite enforcement of our immigration laws smarter and more effective," he said.
"We
have made historic investments in manpower, technology and infrastructure to help secure our borders. Our borders now are more secure than they have ever been in history.
That works continues," he said.
CIR – Will Pass
Immigration will pass, their evidence cites a vocal minority
Elliott July 15, 2013 (Grover Norquist, Rahm Emanuel: House will pass immigration, REBECCA ELLIOTT, 7/15/13 ,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/immigration-grover-norquist-rahm-emanuel-94235.html#ixzz2ZMSrkuAN, REBECCA ELLIOTT is a staff writer)
Two political figures with very distinct ideologies but similar outlooks on immigration reform — Chicago Mayor Rahm
Emanuel and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist — predicted Monday that House Republicans will ultimately get
behind a reform bill despite the outspoken opposition lately of many of them. “There will be a strong
Republican vote for this,” Norquist said of immigration reform at an event hosted by The Atlantic. “This should be second nature for
Republicans.” Immigration reform legislation passed the Senate overwhelmingly in June but has run into stiff resistance in the House among House Republicans. Given
Boehner’s pledge not to call an immigration bill to a vote without majority support of his conference, there is a growing belief that the reform effort
is headed toward a slow death in the House. (PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform) However, Norquist and Emanuel
said that a vocal minority of conservatives, not the heart of the Republican Party, is responsible for most of the
opposition to immigration reform. “Volume does not reflect depth,” Emanuel said. “Leaders in the Republican Party
have allowed the screamers … to define who the Republican Party is.” Norquist fingered “tongue wagging” talk radio hosts for stoking
conservative ire over the reform effort. Their rhetoric, the head of the anti-tax group surmised, distorts the true level of opposition among Republican lawmakers. (Also on
POLITICO: Rahm Emanuel visits White House)
Immigration Reform will pass – Napolitano resignation placates Republicans
Alden July 2013 - senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, [Edward, “Napolitano stumbled on immigration,”
CNN, July 13, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/12/opinion/alden-napolitano-resignation/index.html?hpt=hp_t4, accessed July 13, 2013]
(CNN) -- There is no reason to believe Friday's
resignation announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
also
suggest that President Barack Obama believes immigration reform -- which could be the signature legislative accomplishment of his
second term -- faces a better chance in the Republican House of Representatives with someone else in charge at the
Department of Homeland Security. The president should move quickly to name a replacement with stronger credibility on
both sides of the aisle who can help push the bill over the finish line. Napolitano's legacy at DHS will be mostly
a positive one. Since the department's creation in the aftermath of 9/11, the primary job of DHS has been to prevent major terrorist attacks, and the ones that occurred
is anything other than her jumping at a better job offer -- the chance to be the next president of the University of California system. But the surprise move may
under her watch (Boston, Fort Hood, Texas) were, thankfully, relatively small and probably impossible to have pre-empted. Emergency response to disasters, another core
DHS responsibility, was vastly better in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy than it was after Hurricane Katrina. Janet Napolitano: Fast Facts But Napolitano
was
chosen for the job in 2009 because of her reputation as a tough-minded Arizona governor who appeared to have a better chance than anyone
else of building national consensus for immigration reform. For her to leave in the middle of the fight shows how far she fell short. Why
House GOP isn't likely to help Obama Where the U.S. is most vulnerable Was the government ready for Sandy? Since the collapse of the last major immigration reform effort
in 2007, the strategy of both the Bush and Obama administrations was to bolster border security and enforcement to reassure Republicans that legalizing 11 million
unauthorized immigrants wouldn't bring a new surge across the border. Job
No. 1 for Napolitano was to make that case, and the president endured
there has
harsh criticism from his supporters while she continued the buildup of Border Patrol agents and fencing, and maintained record levels of deportations. But
been little political payoff. Following a key meeting Wednesday of House Republicans to decide on an immigration strategy, for instance, the House GOP
leadership issued a statement saying that "this administration cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws." Napolitano's supporters will
say that she did her job, and Republicans kept moving the goal posts, and there is truth to that charge. But she
was her own worst enemy in her
inability to make the case to Congress and the public. To take one example: DHS had long measured progress in border security in terms of the
"miles under effective control" by the Border Patrol. It maxed out in 2010, when 44% of the border with Mexico was deemed under control. The next year DHS simply
abandoned the measure, promising a better set of metrics but then failing to deliver them. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, one of the persuadable opponents of the Senate
immigration bill, wrote this week that he has spent the past year asking DHS for a report on border security performance and metrics to define security, and has never received
a detailed response. A second example: Napolitano has promised since 2011 to present Congress with country-by-country data on the number of those who overstay visas and
remain in the United States illegally, but again she has yet to deliver. Overstays are thought to make up more than 40% of the unauthorized population, and many in Congress
believe the Obama administration has done nothing to address the problem. In fact, overstays appear to have dropped sharply in recent years, but Napolitano's refusal to share
the data with Congress has left the mistaken perception that DHS has continued to ignore the issue. The result has been predictable skepticism to Napolitano's repeated claims
that the border has never been more secure. In the absence of hard evidence, she was left asking Congress to trust her. Obama's
choice for her successor
should be someone who can restore credibility with the fence-sitting Republicans who will make or break the
immigration reform effort, and finish the job that Napolitano left undone.
Immigration reform will pass now – the Gang of 8 is targeting representatives
Foley July 16, 2013 - reporter for the Huffington Post in Washington, D.C.,
[Elise, “Gang Of Eight Targets 121
House Republicans On Immigration Reform,” Huffington Post, July 16, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/gang-of-eight-house
republicans_n_3607357.html?utm_hp_ref=immigration, accessed July 17, 2013]
WASHINGTON -- Members of the Senate "gang of eight" met with pro-immigration reform business, agriculture, faith and conservative groups on Tuesday to discuss plans
for moving a comprehensive bill forward in the House, where many Republicans have vowed not to touch it. They
distributed a list (see below) of 121
Republicans whom they see as persuadable on immigration reform. Groups in attendance included Republicans for Immigration
Reform, the Mark Zuckerberg-founded FWD.us, the faith group Sojourners and others, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting. The list largely aligns with the
targets of other reform groups. Seven
members of the group that crafted the Senate immigration bill were present: Sens. John
McCain (R-Ariz.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.). Sen.
Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) decided not to attend, said spokesman Alex Conant. "We have a badly broken
immigration system that is in dire need of reform, and Sen. Rubio worked hard to produce and pass the best
proposal possible in a Democrat-controlled Senate," Conant said in an email. "The Senate's work has created
an important opportunity for the House to advance reform further, but they should be given deference to decide their own way forward."
After the gang of eight bill passed 68 to 32 in the Senate with "aye" votes from 14 Republicans, it's been met
with little interest -- and some hostility -- from House Republicans, many of whom say its legalization measures are a deal-breaker.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he will not bring the Senate bill to the floor because a majority of his
conference opposes it, and he will instead pursue piecemeal legislation. Pro-reform groups hope they can put
pressure on Republicans to come around to the idea of comprehensive reform, particularly using allies in the faith, business and
conservative communities.
Will pass - Republicans will compromise on immigration reform—the alternative is political
loss
Bash et al., 2013—staff reporter from CNN [Dana, Ted Barret, and Tom Cohen, 6/20/13, staff reporters from CNN, “Senate immigration
deal includes tougher border security”, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/politics/immigration-senate, accessed 7/18/13]
More moderate
GOP leaders and legislators believe Republicans risk worse electoral damage if the party is blamed for
blocking immigration reform. In last year's election, Obama won a strong majority of the Hispanic vote in defeating
GOP nominee Mitt Romney, and Republican strategists warn of similar results if the party is considered hostile to
immigrants. Conservative Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, another Republican in the "Gang of Eight," said the alternative to immigration
reform was keeping in place a broken system that has led to problems cited by opponents of the legislation.
Will Pass – bipartisan support for fairness and the economy
Singer 2013 - senior fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. [Audrey Singer, Feb 22
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/02/22-fair-immigration-policy-singer] LG
Unexpected before the fall presidential election, comprehensive immigration reform is moving ahead at a fast
clip. A pleasant surprise has been the chumminess between normally warring factions, a necessity to
accomplish the difficult and complicated task of federal reform. Last month the bipartisan Gang of Eight in the Senate put out principles of
reform. Then yesterday the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a joint statement of shared principles regarding worker visas to guide forthcoming
legislation. Citing the aspects of immigration policy that have contributed to a malfunctioning system—its rigidity, unwieldiness, and inefficiencies—they hope their
principles will guide a more fair, flexible, and forward-looking worker program. First, fairness is a term tossed around a lot in the immigration policy debate. If you follow the
arguments, there are many different groups of people that immigration policy must be fair to: immigrants who have been waiting in line to enter the country, immigrants
already living here without legal status; international students we have trained, and foreign workers we have employed who we then ask to leave the country. On top of that, we
also need a policy that is fair to U.S.-born workers. The AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce principles embody this fairness in its first principle, which is “American workers
Second, it is sensible to consider immigration policy that is good for the U.S.
economy and communities. In the more than 20 years since the last immigration policy overhaul, the world of
work has changed, national economies have developed abroad, and the global economy has created a new order
with demand for a globalized labor force. In order to make the system and our economy work better,
immigration policy will have to abandon some of the structures of today’s policy, rooted in an earlier time when
the national interest in immigration was less attuned to economics. The second principle acknowledges that
creating a mechanism that is responsive to the market yet protects workers is a big challenge. But our
admissions scheme should have a worker program that is flexible and swift to respond to changes in the labor
market. Third, the AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce principles look ahead and realize that being both fair and flexible requires openness to change and a vision that
should have a first crack at available jobs.”
goes beyond the here and now. That understanding calls for better knowledge of how our system works—and how it doesn’t work. Their third principle puts data and analysis
front and center as a way to stay up-to-date on behavior and trends in the labor market, adding transparency and insight to our visa system. They advocate for a federal agency
Balancing fairness and flexibility
will require tough compromises. Knowing, however, that the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce can
come together—just as the Senate’s Gang of Eight did with their bipartisan framework for comprehensive
immigration reform—shows great promise.
with political independence akin to the Bureau of Labor Statistics to monitor and inform both the public and Congress.
CIR - AT: Delayed Past Recess
Immigration reform will pass even if it is delayed – the recess will give time to convince
Republicans
Nakamura, July 15, 2013—staff writer from the Washington Post [David, “Obama pushes for path to citizenship in
immigration bill”, The Washington Post, 7/15/13, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-pushes-for-path-to-citizenship-in-immigrationbill/2013/07/16/63142a26-ee38-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html, accessed 7/18/2013]
Obama said that he remained optimistic that a comprehensive package would pass Congress in the fall, suggesting
that members would be able to talk more to their constituents during the summer break next month. He added
that if Boehner allowed a vote on the Senate bill, “It would pass tomorrow.” “We’ve been working on this for
years now. Everybody knows what the debates are,” Obama said in the Telemundo Dallas interview. “It’s time for us to stop worrying about
politics and worry about doing the right thing for the country.”
Delay on Immigration reform will not kill momentum – it’s just a few weeks
Foley July 16, 2013 - political writer for The Huffington Post, [Elisse Obama On Immigration Reform: 'I Think It Would Pass
Tomorrow' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/obama-immigration-reform_n_3606965.html)
WASHINGTON --
President Barack Obama insisted on Tuesday that a month-long delay on immigration work
during the August recess won't kill momentum for reform, and could even help win over House Republicans wary of getting involved. "If in
fact the House recognized the smart thing, the right thing to do, was to go ahead and send the Senate bill to the floor for a vote, I think it would pass tomorrow," Obama told
Norma Garcia of Telemundo Dallas in a series of four interviews with Spanish-language news stations at the White House. "But
the House Republicans I
think still have to process this issue and and discuss it further, and hopefully, I think, still hear from
constituents, from businesses to labor, to evangelical Christians who all are supporting immigration reform," he
continued. "All this means that we may have to go through several more weeks of work before we actually pass the
bill. So it probably will -- hopefully happen in the fall."
CIR – AT: Citizenship Dooms Reform
Compromise on citizenship is possible
Silverleib and Cohen July 12 2013, CNN Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter [Andy, Tom,
Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter, “Five reasons immigration reform isn’t close to the finish line,” CNN Politics, 7-12-13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/immigration-reform-5-things/index.html, Date Accessed 7-17-13]
The labels and definitions of legal status will be a major sticking point in the continuing debate, but also could
be a source of compromise. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia told Wednesday's GOP caucus
meeting that children of undocumented immigrants brought illegally to America through no fault of their own
should be provided a path to legal status, a position strongly favored by Democrats. The backing of Cantor and other House
Republicans for such a provision showed room for maneuvering exists . After meeting with Obama at the White House on Thursday,
GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona called on House Republicans to negotiate an immigration bill. "We are ready to sit down with you and negotiate
and bring this issue to a conclusion," said McCain, part of the bipartisan Senate "Gang of Eight."
CIR – AT: Obama won’t Enforce Border Security
Obama will enforce border security as part of immigration reform – Republican doubters have
no proof
Fitz and Wolgin, July 11 2013—Director of Immigration Policy and Senior Policy Analyst for
Immigration at the Center for American Progress [Marshall and Philip E., “The Top 4 Reality-Defying Arguments against
Immigration Reform”, Center for American Progress, 7/11/2013, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/07/11/69282/the-top-4-reality-defying-argumentsagainst-immigration-reform/, accessed 7/16/2013]
Myth No. 3: The administration will simply decline to implement border security and enforcement. Kristol and Lowry,
as well as Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID), have alleged that the administration’s decision this week to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate—which
requires that businesses provide health insurance for their workers—gives them reason to believe that either this or a future administration will simply decline to implement
any of the border-security or enforcement provisions of S. 744. Fact:
Trying to leverage Obamacare implementation as an argument
against immigration reform is breathtakingly cynical. It attempts to distract readers from the bill itself by
ginning up an emotional response to a wholly unrelated issue. As Slate’s Matthew Yglesias puts it, “This plays well to the hard-right
prejudice that Barack Obama is too much of a black Muslim socialist foreigner to be a legitimate president, and that his very presence in office suspends the ordinary rules of
constructive governance.” The
bill itself includes specific triggers, before which no immigrants can complete the pathway
to citizenship. If the Obama administration or a future administration chooses to delay or not implement the
border-security provisions in the bill—including doubling the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern
border, building 700 miles of fencing, deploying $40 billion in technology, implementing mandatory E-Verify
for all employers, and implementing a full electronic exit system to track visa over-stayers—then not a single
person with the temporary Registered Provisional Immigrant status can become a permanent resident. It is as
simple as that. Believing that the administration would somehow decline to secure the border flies in the face of
increasingly harsh and expansive immigration-enforcement policies that have taken place over the past 20
years. The pundits calling for border security to precede other reforms willfully ignore that our national policy has been to spend a king’s ransom on adding more personnel
and technology onto the southern border than ever before. In addition to the literal militarization of the border, with the stationing of National Guard troops there, we have
deported more than 3 million people over the past 10 years, with record-breaking numbers—more than 400,000 people per year under the current administration. The United
States currently spends more each year on immigration enforcement than on all other federal law enforcement combined. At 21,394, the number of Border Patrol agents is
more than double the number of agents a decade ago, and apprehensions at the southern border, which the Department of Homeland Security uses as a proxy for the number
of people who try to cross each year, are at their lowest point in 40 years. As The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page points out, “For some Republicans, border security has
become a ruse to kill reform.”
CIR – Won’t Pass
Won’t pass – Democrats dislike spending and Republicans are against granting citizenship
Clement July 19, 2013 - survey research analyst for Capital Insight (Scott. “In poll, big majority backs fortifying Mexican
border”. The Washington Post.
An even larger majority, 64 percent, supports adding 20,000 new Border Patrol agents and the hundreds of miles of fencing along the border with Mexico. But support
drops by 11 percentage points, to 53 percent, among the random half of respondents who were also told the
measures came "at a cost of 46 billion dollars." Respondents were randomly assigned to hear the proposal with
or without the cost; results for each group are reported separately. While the Senate bill's two cornerstones each enjoy majority
support, the overlap is far from complete and breaks down along well-worn party lines. Democrats express wide support for a
pathway to citizenship, but fewer than half (43 percent) support border controls for the price of $46 billion.
Republicans overwhelmingly support heightened border controls, but are against the idea of a citizenship path.
The new Post-ABC poll also underscores the competing priorities that Americans see on the immigration issue. The 11-point drop in support for border
measures indicates that some people support border-control efforts only up to a point and that most are wary of the high costs. In the House,
Republican leaders said this week that they are beginning to draft legislation that would establish how the children of immigrants here illegally could seek legal status or
citizenship. The House Judiciary Committee is slated to hold a hearing on the topic next week before Republicans complete writing their bill.
Won’t pass – GOP will only support an incremental approach, which Democrats reject
Foley July 16, 2013 - political writer for The Huffington Post, [Elisse Obama On Immigration Reform: 'I Think It Would Pass
Tomorrow' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/obama-immigration-reform_n_3606965.html)
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has vowed not to bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill -including the one that passed 68 to 32 in the Senate last month -- to the floor unless a majority of his conference supports it, even if it
would likely pass with Democratic votes. It's a source of frustration for advocates for reform, who argue that if
most members of Congress support it, it's wrong to block a vote. The president is one of those critics, and he
argued for comprehensive reform in interviews with local Telemundo and Univision anchors on Tuesday. Obama previously endorsed the Senate
bill, saying that even though it wasn't exactly what he would have written, "if you're actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken immigration system, this is the vehicle to
do it." House
Republican leaders have said they will push for immigration reform, although not in the form of the
Senate bill. Instead, the House will pursue piecemeal legislation, which so far doesn't include any proposals for
a widespread path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The one announced plan that addresses undocumented immigrants is the
yet-to-be-drafted KIDS Act from Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), which would legalize young people brought
to the U.S. as children. Obama
cautioned against an approach that leaves out a path to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants, which he and other Democrats have said is a dealbreaker. "You know, it does not make sense to
me, if we're gonna make this once in a generation effort to finally fix the system, to leave the status of 11 million
people or so unresolved, and certainly for us to have two classes of people in this country, full citizens, and people who are permanently resigned to a lower
status," Obama told Maria Rozman of Telemundo Denver in a separate interview. "I think that's not who we are as Americans." A piecemeal approach could
lead to a result that addresses some problems, such as border security, but leaves out others, Obama said.
"There's a tendency I think to put off the hard stuff until the end, " he told Garcia. "And if you've eaten your dessert before you've eaten
your meal, at least with my children, sometimes they don't end up eating their vegetables. So we need to, I think, do this as a complete package."
Won’t pass – neither side will compromise on a path to citizenship
Fox News, July 16 2013 [Fox News Latino, “Obama Kicks Immigration Reform Push Into High Gear With Personal Appeals”, Fox News,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/07/16/president-obama-kicks-immigration-reform-push-into-high-gear-with-personal/#ixzz2ZKqeSMba, accessed 7/18/13]
Obama also has said he would not sign a bill without a path to citizenship. Several House Republicans have said that
such demands may mean Democrats end up with no bill at all. Many of the most conservative members of Congress say
providing undocumented immigrants a path to legal status is tantamount to rewarding law breakers, and will
encourage more illegal immigration. But for many opponents of comprehensive immigration reform, the most vexing issue is what to do about those who
are already in the U.S. illegally. The Senate bill offers a 13-year path for most, contingent on paying fines, learning English
and meeting other qualifications. People brought to the United States as youths and agriculture workers would
have a faster route. House Democrats met earlier this month with the Senate Democratic authors of the bill and emerged to declare that nothing short of that would
suffice. "America has stood for citizenship," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. "We have a Statue of Liberty here. It never has said you
come here and you'll be second class. We will not stand for it. It will not happen." Proponents of a path to legal
status say that it is unrealistic to expect the country to track down and deport the millions of undocumented
immigrants already here, and that it is in the United States' best interest to bring them out of the shadows.
Won’t pass – Boehner won’t even bring it up
Batley July 13, 2013 - Political Journalist and Social Commentator for the Huffington Post [Melanie,
“Gang of Eight Targets House Republicans on Immigration,” Newsmax, 7-17-13, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gang-eight-immigrationHouse/2013/07/17/id/515556, Date Accessed 7-17-13]
The group faces an uphill battle, given the fact that House Speaker John Boehner has already said he has no
intention of bringing the comprehensive Senate bill to the floor because a majority of his conference opposes it .
"The House will not take up the Senate immigration bill. There are many issues related to immigration reform on which the business
community, religious groups, and House Republicans can find common ground, but advocating for the House consideration of the Senate
immigration bill is simply a waste of their time and resources," one House GOP leadership aide told Politico.
Won’t pass – GOP won’t compromise
Brooks July 12, 2013 - The New York Times columnist (David. “Pass The Bill!”. The New York Times. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
It's beginning to look as though we're
not going to get an immigration reform law this year. House Republicans are moving
in a direction that will probably be unacceptable to the Senate majority and the White House . Conservative
commentators like my friends Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry are arguing that the status quo is better than the comprehensive
approach passed by the Senate. The whole effort is in peril.
Won’t pass – GOP doesn’t believe Obama will enforce border security measures
Taxin, July 15, 2013—Associated Press writer [Amy, 7/15/13, “Questions over who should get citizenship could split Obama, GOP on
immigration”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-make-personal-appeals-for-immigration-this-week-in-spanish-language-tvinterviews/2013/07/15/fbdc8a0a-ed57-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html, accessed July 18, 2013]
If the White House had its way, the House would simply and swiftly take up a sweeping Senate bill that passed
with bipartisan support. But House Speaker John Boehner has already rejected that notion, preferring to tackle
the nation’s immigration laws in “bite-sized chunks.” Boehner’s approach reflects the intense skepticism of the GOP rank-and-file, who say
they don’t trust Obama will fulfill border-security requirements in the Senate-passed bill. Although Republicans generally
acknowledge they must broaden their appeal to Hispanic voters whose influence in elections is rapidly growing, many say they fear primary challenges
from the right if they support a new path to citizenship. One exception that could gain traction among Republicans would be to offer a
citizenship path only to those brought here as children. Allowing only those individuals to obtain citizenship could shield Republicans from attacks by conservatives that
they’re giving a free pass to those who voluntarily broke the law.
Won’t pass – House and Senate bills will not compromise over legalization and border security
Wilson and Bies July 10 2013 - associate fellow and principal researcher at the Metropolitan
Policy Program. [Jane H Wilson and Kelly Bies, “Getting our House in Order on Immigration”, 7/10/13, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/upfront/posts/2013/07/10-house-immigration-reform-wilson-bies]
House Republicans are huddling today in a closed-door meeting to discuss their strategy for immigration
reform legislation. The meeting comes almost two weeks after the Senate passed the Border Security, Economic
Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The bill overhauling the immigration system passed by a 68-32 margin (including 14
Republican votes), thanks in part to a late compromise authored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND). Known as the “border surge,” their amendment was
But the House leadership
has vowed to do things their own way. So far, House committees have taken a piecemeal approach, passing bills
encompassing interior enforcement, an agricultural guest worker program, an employer verification system,
high-skilled immigration, and border security, all of which are covered in the Senate’s bill. The big question in the House’s
put forth as a means to rope in more Republican support in order to pass with a solid margin to give it momentum going to the House.
approach is what to do with the 11 million residents living in this country without legal status, something the Senate bill addresses with an earned legalization program. Over
the last several months, Republicans
in the House have hinted at their support—or lack thereof—of such a program.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the chair of the Judiciary Committee which passed four immigration bills so far,
argued for no “special pathway,” but is open to legalization, especially for undocumented youth. Others want
strict border security measures to be enacted before they are even willing to consider legalization. From a
purely political perspective, immigration legislation that fails to include some kind of legalization will not pass
in the Senate. But beyond the politics, there are important policy reasons to support an earned legalization.
Won’t pass – reform is stalled – Republicans will push it past the deadline
Werner, July 15 2013—Associated Press staff reporter for the White House[Erica, 7/15/13, “Obama concedes
Congress won’t meet August deadline on immigration overhaul”, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/questions-over-who-should-getcitizenship-could-split-obama-gop-on-immigration/2013/07/15/f5fb4946-edac-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html, accessed 7/17/13]
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday conceded
that an immigration overhaul cannot be achieved by his
August deadline. With House Republicans searching for a way forward on the issue, the president said he was hopeful a bill could be
finalized this fall — though even that goal may be overly optimistic. The president, in a series of interviews with Spanish language
television stations, also reiterated his insistence that any legislation include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million people in the U.S. illegally. Many House GOP lawmakers
oppose the citizenship proposal, hardening the differences between the parties on the president’s top second-term legislative priority. “It
does not make sense to
me, if we’re going to make this once-in-a-generation effort to finally fix this system, to leave the status of 11
million people or so unresolved,” he said during an interview with Telemundo’s Denver affiliate. The White House sees the president’s
outreach to Hispanics as a way to keep up enthusiasm for the overhaul among core supporters even as the legislative prospects in Washington grow increasingly uncertain.
Some Republicans view support for immigration reform as central to the party’s national viability given the growing political power of Hispanics. But many House GOP
lawmakers representing conservative — and largely white — districts see little incentive to back legislation. The
president said the lack of consensus
among House Republicans will stretch the immigration debate past August, his original deadline for a longelusive overhaul of the nation’s fractured laws. “That was originally my hope and my goal,” Obama said. “But
the House Republicans I think still have to process this issue and discuss it further, and hopefully, I think, still hear from
constituents, from businesses to labor, to evangelical Christians who all are supporting immigration reform.”
Won’t pass – Republicans demand impossible reductions in immigration
Los Angeles Times July 9, 2013 (Los Angeles Times “The border isn’t the problem”. Los Angeles Times. July 9, 2013. LexisNexis)
Republicans in that
are once again insisting that the border between the U.S. and Mexico be sealed as a prerequisite to approving
broader reforms. Unless 90% of illegal border crossings are stopped once and for all, they say, they will not support
any plan to grant legal status to the 11 million immigrants who are already living in the country illegally. Such requirements, however,
are pointless. The reality is that the border is more secure today than at just about any time in this nation's
recent history. The number of immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally at the nine major crossing points from California to Texas fell by an astounding 86% between
Now that the Senate has passed a sweeping bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, it's the House's turn to act. But as expected,
chamber
2006 and 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office. Overall, the number of immigrants coming illegally to the United States is at a 40-year low, having
dropped from slightly more than 1 million in 2005 to fewer than 365,000 in 2012 and 2011, according to the Border Patrol.
Won’t pass – strong GOP opposition
The White House Bulletin July 15, 2013 (The White House Bulletin.“GOP Opposition To Immigration Overhaul Said To Ignore Economic
Benefits“.The White House Bulletin. July 15, 2013. LexisNexis)
In Time's "Curious Capitalist" column, RanaForoohar says the opposition of many
House Republicans to immigration is "utterly baffling,"
GOP opposition likely
dooms the bill passed by the Senate, as conservatives "continue to insist that creating a path to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants would unleash a torrent of new low-skilled workers from Mexico that would drive
down US wages." However, Foroohar notes, net immigration from Mexico has slowed and is "likely to reverse later this year" because of increased economic
because immigrants are "the key reason" that the US population and economic growth exceed that of most of the industrialized world.
opportunities across the border. In addition, increased legal immigration would increase revenue for Social Security, reduce the Federal budget deficit, and economic growth.
Immigrants, further, play a key role in business and job creation. US News Weekly (7/15, Fox) reports the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released a new study that
"concludes that the economic impact of legalizing immigrants is positive, not the financial drain some have claimed." Permitting immigrants the opportunity to work legally in
the US "could help boost state and local revenues by $2 billion a year. States would get an extra $1.6 billion in income tax, $420 million in sales tax, and $76 million in
property tax."
Won’t pass – No Republican support
Hunt July 10, 2013 - American political consultant (Albert. “Battle over Immigration Reform; Morality and Politics”.The Charlie Rose
Show. July 10, 2013. LexisNexis)
While a comprehensive immigration bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support, House Republicans are resisting.
Former President George W. Bush has urged lawmakers to reach a positive resolution to the debate. But a number of
other voices opposed such a measure. Conservatives like Bill Crystal and Rich Lowry are arguing that House Republicans
should kill the bill. Joining me now is Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, one of the 14 Republicans and the chief architect of that senate-passed immigration bill.
Won’t Pass – the House doesn’t feel the Urgency to pass it.
Rubin July 11, 2013 (Immigration reform grinds to a craw, The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubinis a journalist for the Washington post, 11 July 2013, ProQuest
databse, 11 July 2013.)
Rather than pursuing a step-by-step, common-sense approach to actually fix the problem. The president has also demonstrated he is willing to unilaterally delay or ignore
significant portions of laws he himself has signed, raising concerns among Americans that this administration cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border
and enforce laws as part of a single, massive bill like the one passed by the Senate.
It reads like a hostage statement -- formulaic and designed to prevent a firestorm. This
is plainly a House leadership with very little running
room. Behind closed doors Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) reportedly appealed to House Republicans to
act. After all, most have them have described the illegal immigration problem in dire terms so passivity now seems
disingenuous. In fact, it isn't even clear that the series of bills Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has talked about will make it through committee or to the floor. Some
staunch conservatives including Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) insist the House will pass comprehensive reform,
but a significant bloc of House Republicans see no benefit in fixing the broken immigration system (even if they promised their constituents
they'd do something about it) and believe the president will choose to implement only the parts of the bill he likes (as he has done with health-care reform). The latter problem
can be solved by implementing the bill the day he leaves office, but I suspect that issue is merely a placeholder for the "I don't want to do anything" crowd. We are, in short,
back to square one. That means House
Republicans have to be convinced to do anything. And then they have to be
convinced to pass one or more (likely a series of three to five) bills that will address major areas like E-verify, H1-B visas
and border control. Even raising knottier issues like a pathway to citizenship or visas for low-skilled workers would be premature. That is how things stand now.
But it remains to be seen whether House members will be convinced of the necessity of moving forward on their
own promises (as they did on a balanced budget, for example) or whether they can get away with standing still.
Many of those most irate about the Gang of Eight have spent years decrying the lack of a conservative solution. Now they have their chance, but they
may well decide to pontificate rather than legislate.
Republicans don’t Trust Obama to enforce the plan
Dinan and Sherfinski July 11, 2013 - Reporters at The Washington Times (Stephen Dinan and David Sherfinski.
“Immigration reform unlikely this year with GOP approach”. The Washington Times. July 11, 2013. LexisNexis)
House Republican leaders struck out on their own path on immigration Wednesday, saying they don't trust
President Obama to secure the borders and rejecting the broad approach the Senate took in favor of tackling
the issue in pieces - a move that severely dims chances for a final deal this year. "The American people want our border secured, our
laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. But they don't
trust a Democratic-controlled Washington," the Republican leadership said in a joint statement after they emerged from a two-hour-long meeting
with all House Republicans.
Won’t pass – structural reasons – too many interest groups, competing congressional
committees and anti-immigrant sentiment
West 2011 - founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. [Darrell M West,
“Creating a "Brain Gain" for U.S. Employers: The Role of Immigration”, January 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/01/immigration-west] LG
Achieving an Improved Immigration Policy It
will be difficult to achieve comprehensive, coherent policy reform in the face of
many competing goals and interest groups and in the current polarized political environment. The task is made
more difficult by the divided authority over immigration matters within Congress, involving several
committees and subcommittees with competing interests and different political dynamics. Individual members of Congress tend to focus on
local concerns, forestalling consideration of broad, long-term national interests. In the past, elected officials have
overreacted to specific episodes of problems related to immigrants or anti-immigrant sentiments in developing
policy, rather than taking into account long-term national economic priorities. Just as deleterious, stalemate and inaction have prevented needed reforms, despite a
frustrating status quo for employers who need talented scientists and engineers, and who could hire many more Americans if they could fill key slots with skilled workers they
cannot find in their local workforce.
Won’t pass – Path to citizenship divides the GOP
Silverleib and Cohen July 12 2013, CNN Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter [Andy, Tom,
Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter, “Five reasons immigration reform isn’t close to the finish line,” CNN Politics, 7-12-13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/immigration-reform-5-things/index.html, Date Accessed 7-17-13]
The conundrum of citizenship/legalization While the Senate measure provides a multi-year path to citizenship
for most undocumented immigrants, House Republicans made clear Wednesday they remained split about 5050 on the matter. Reasons for opposing any kind of legalization range from punishing lawbreakers to political
protectionism, with conservatives fearing that most immigrants given what they call amnesty and the eventual right to vote will lean Democratic. However, the issue of
legalizing immigrants is broad and complex, creating lots of uncertainty. For example, the Senate bill would automatically give immigrants living illegally in the United States
temporary legal status as "registered provisional immigrants." Only when certain border security steps had been taken could they apply for permanent residency, or green
cards, as a step toward potential citizenship in process that would take more than a decade. Many
House Republicans made clear they don't
want any kind of legal status for undocumented immigrants until the borders are secure. Even those open to
legalization don't want it to include a path to full citizenship.
Immigration Reform won’t pass – partisanship in the House
Silverleib and Cohen July 12 2013, CNN Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter [Andy, Tom,
Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter, “Five reasons immigration reform isn’t close to the finish line,” CNN Politics, 7-12-13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/immigration-reform-5-things/index.html, Date Accessed 7-17-13]
However,
House Republicans made clear Wednesday they opposed the comprehensive approach of the Senate and
intended to consider the issue in a series of bills that will take months to reach final votes. Agreeing to disagree
on immigration In addition, the House GOP caucus was deeply divided on the question of eventual citizenship for
undocumented immigrants, with some calling for a path to legal status while others opposed any kind of what they labeled amnesty for those who broke the
law. While House leaders warned the party faced political harm if it failed to act on immigration legislation, a vital issue for Hispanic Americans who comprise the nation's
largest minority demographic, the
piecemeal approach and divisions over the legalization issue portend a messy and
uncertain future for the issue. Here are five reasons why: Bipartisanship necessary in Senate, not the House. A 60-vote
majority is needed to push major legislation through the 100-member Senate, which means Senate Democrats
and Republicans usually have to work together to get anything substantive accomplished. The House, however, does
not often require such a super-majority. As long as a simple majority sticks together, it can do virtually
anything it pleases. Mix that rule with increasing ideological orthodoxy and a decreasing willingness to compromise -- particularly within the conservative ranks of
the majority House GOP -- and you have a recipe for stalemate with the Democratic-controlled Senate. "Passing any version of the
Gang of Eight's bill would be worse public policy than passing nothing," conservative pundits Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry argued Tuesday in National Review Online. "House
Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart." In
today's hyper-partisan political climate, doing nothing is
the easiest path for House Republicans to take and even a bragging point for tea party conservatives who came to
Washington to shake up the status quo.
CIR – AT: Border Security Compromise
Won’t pass – Republicans don’t trust the border security compromise
Seper July 12, 2013 - The investigative editor for The Washington Times (Jerry. “Ex-agents scoff at plan for border;
Find criminal aliens, they say”. The Washington Times. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
The Congressional Budget Office "has reaffirmed that
immigration reform reduces the debt and grows the economy," said Sen. Charles
E. Schumer, New York Democrat and chief sponsor of the bill. "It also shows the Corker-Hoeven amendment further substantially reduces the
flow of illegal immigrants, even using a methodology that underestimates how effective immigration reform
will be in reducing that flow." House Republicans have not been as receptive. Rep. Michael T. McCaul of Texas,
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the Senate bill was
"a bunch of, you know, candy thrown down there - a bunch of assets thrown down there to gain votes - but
without a methodical, smart border approach." In a separate statement, Mr. McCaul described the Senate's "border surge"
as a "textbook example of government waste," adding that it arbitrarily throws resources at the border without a long-term national strategy or
required outcomes. He said the Department of Homeland Security has never developed a comprehensive plan to achieve operational control of the border, which is why the
government continues to see illegal border crossings shift.
Won’t pass – it will never satisfy demands for security
Marsden July 13, 2013 - city editor for The Gazette (William. “Floundering Obama needs a victory in immigration reform; Gop-held
house has dug in its heels against president”. The Gazette. July 13, 2013. LexisNexis)
Blocked by Congress on gun control, climate change, a budget and the smooth enactment of ObamaCare, Obama's
domestic program is floundering. On the international front, his successes in tracking down Bin Laden and in the withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Afghanistan have been overshadowed by criticism that he has failed to give the U.S. a clear political voice as civil war continues in Syria, Egypt erupts and terrorist groups
spread across North Africa. In his search for fugitive National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden he has managed to outrage South American leaders by forcing the
Bolivian leader's plane to land in Vienna, where it was searched. So immigration
should have been a happy story that would pull 11
million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. But as the debate progressed, many lawmakers
hesitated because of concerns raised among supporters in their home districts. Republicans - and some Democrats
- worried that border security remains weak. They also worried that, as Arizona Republican congressman Paul Gosar stated this week,
"rewarding people for illegal behaviour " by granting them citizenship did not send an appropriate message. Many
lawmakers say they will not move on any reform bill until they know that the border is secure. Boehner said he
wants to know border security "will in fact stop this unlimited flow of undocumented workers from coming into
our country" before he considers bringing any bill to a vote. That could take a long time since nobody has
defined what constitutes a secure border.
Won’t Pass – GOP opposes amnesty Even With the border security amendment
Bash et al., 2013—staff reporter from CNN [Dana, Ted Barret, and Tom Cohen, 6/20/13, staff reporters from CNN, “Senate immigration
deal includes tougher border security”, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/politics/immigration-senate, accessed 7/18/13]
However, some conservative
GOP senators remained skeptical that the proposal would address their concerns . Alabama
Sen. Jeff Sessions said the compromise means "amnesty will occur," and he complained that despite all the promises
made by its sponsors and supporters, no written version had been produced so far. Sessions also noted that the compromise only came about in
reaction to revelations about shortcomings in the original bill uncovered by critics including himself. Roy Beck, president of a group that opposes the
immigration reform measure, called the compromise "a desperate political move by pro-amnesty forces to
provide cover to pass a bill that would otherwise not pass." The amendment "allows the massive increase in
foreign workers that the CBO says will lower American wages and increase unemployment," said Beck, president of
NumbersUSA.
Immigration reform mandates Border Militarization prior to increasing immigration – this
delays reform for years
Bash et al., 2013—staff reporter from CNN [Dana, Ted Barret, and Tom Cohen, 6/20/13, staff reporters from CNN, “Senate immigration
deal includes tougher border security”, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/politics/immigration-senate, accessed 7/18/13]
No green cards for the 11 million immigrants living illegally in America until those steps and others to enhance
border controls are taken. And none of it increases the federal deficit or debt. A bipartisan group of senators
unveiled a compromise on Thursday intended to ensure Senate passage of a major immigration reform bill
with enough Republican support to persuade the GOP-controlled House to also take up the measure that is a priority of President
Barack Obama. The bipartisan amendment would require 20,000 more border agents, completing 700 miles of fence
along the boundary with Mexico, and deploying $3.2 billion in technology upgrades similar to equipment used by U.S. forces in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The
proposal, negotiated by a group of senators from both parties known as the "Gang of Eight," also insists on stronger worker
verification and border entry-exit controls. Only after those five conditions have been met and verified by the
Department of Homeland Security can undocumented immigrants get permanent residency, supporters said. GOP Sens.
John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee introduced the compromise amendment, saying it incorporated proposals from other senators to try to fix a
broken immigration system. Hoeven noted the
bill would allow immigrants now living illegally in the country to get temporary
legal status as "registered provisional immigrants," but the increased security measures must be in place before they can get
green cards to make them permanent residents. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the "Gang of
Eight," noted it would take "a couple of years" to train and deploy the new agents in an expansion that would almost
double the current force. The Department of Homeland Security would verify when the triggers for improved border
security had been met to begin issuing green cards, Graham added. He also said the measure would include increased fees
and other mechanisms to pay for the cost expected to exceed $30 billion, citing a Congressional Budget Office report that showed the
broader immigration measure would bring in $197 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.
Won’t pass – GOP doesn’t believe Obama will enforce border security measures
Taxin, July 15, 2013—Associated Press writer [Amy, 7/15/13, “Questions over who should get citizenship could split Obama, GOP on
immigration”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-make-personal-appeals-for-immigration-this-week-in-spanish-language-tvinterviews/2013/07/15/fbdc8a0a-ed57-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html, accessed July 18, 2013]
If the White House had its way, the House would simply and swiftly take up a sweeping Senate bill that passed
with bipartisan support. But House Speaker John Boehner has already rejected that notion, preferring to tackle
the nation’s immigration laws in “bite-sized chunks.” Boehner’s approach reflects the intense skepticism of the
GOP rank-and-file, who say they don’t trust Obama will fulfill border-security requirements in the Senatepassed bill. Although Republicans generally acknowledge they must broaden their appeal to Hispanic voters whose influence in elections is rapidly growing, many say
they fear primary challenges from the right if they support a new path to citizenship. One exception that could gain traction among Republicans would be to offer a citizenship
path only to those brought here as children. Allowing only those individuals to obtain citizenship could shield Republicans from attacks by conservatives that they’re giving a
free pass to those who voluntarily broke the law.
CIR – AT: Obama Push Ensures Passage
Won’t pass – Boehner is resisting Obama’s political capital – his base is too important
Clement July 19, 2013 - survey research analyst for Capital Insight (Scott. “In poll, big majority backs fortifying Mexican
border”. The Washington Post.
The bipartisan Senate immigration measure approved last month would establish a 13-year process for millions of undocumented immigrants to eventually seek permanent
legal status or U.S. citizenship. The measure also mandates spending $46 billion to double the size of the U.S. Border Patrol and to construct 700 miles of fencing along the
U.S.-Mexico border. The stricter border security provisions were added to the bill to ensure sufficient Republican support. With
pressure on the House to
take up the issue, President Obama demanded this week that lawmakers include a way for undocumented
immigrants to become citizens. But House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested Thursday that those
immigrants shouldn't expect any "special treatment" as Congress overhauls the nation's immigration laws. The
opinions of Obama and Boehner are reflected in their political bases. While most Democrats (69 percent) support finding ways to grant
citizenship, 58 percent of Republicans oppose a path to citizenship. Most independents (55 percent) also support establishing opportunities for
citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Won’t pass – House will delay it – Obama’s push is backfiring
Rubin July 11, 2013 (Immigration reform grinds to a craw, The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubinis a journalist for the Washington post, 11 July 2013, ProQuest
databse, 11 July 2013.)
Immigration reform is not going to be a quick or easy process in the House. Whatever House leaders' personal views, this is
probably the most difficult issue they have faced in terms of garnering consensus. Following a caucus immigration meeting on
Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner and others in the GOP leadership released a statement, which read: Today House
Republicans affirmed that, rather than take up the flawed legislation rushed through the Senate, House committees will
continue their work on a step-by-step, common-sense approach to fixing what has long been a broken system. The American people want
our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. But they don't trust a Democraticcontrolled Washington, and they're alarmed by the president's ongoing insistence on enacting a single, massive,
Obamacare-like bill.
Obama is not spending political capital on Immigration – he knows it would alienate
republicans, so he is backing off
Holland, July 14, 2013 - staff writer for the Orlando Sentinal (Obama stays on borders of immigration fight, Holland, Steve;
Bohan, Caren., Steve Holland is an l, Caren Bohan is a lead correspondent covering President Barack Obama's campaign., ProQuest database, 14 July 2013, journalist for
Washington Post,
President Barack Obama is treading carefully in deciding how visible a role he should play during perhaps the
most delicate stage in the effort to overhaul U.S. immigration laws. The Democratic president, having fought
with conservatives in the Republican-controlled House over everything from budget cuts and tax hikes to the
health care overhaul and environmental policy, is aware they are in no mood to compromise or be lectured. So
far, Obama has held back from major criticism of his political opponents even when it appears they could stall a
central objective of his second term. House Republicans are adamantly opposed to the Senate version of
legislation and are talking about instead passing several bills that address various immigration problems, but not necessarily legalizing the estimated 11 million people
living in the United States without legal status. Unlike the public relations blitz that accompanied his health care law in 2010,
Obama has made no sweeping travel plans to campaign for the legislation or delivered any major speeches on
the subject in the weeks since the Democratic-led Senate approved an immigration bill that he backed. Instead, he
has held meetings with groups like the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and sent out top economic adviser Gene Sperling and others to make the case
publicly that a path to citizenship will prove an economic boon for the United States in the long run. Obama on Thursday heard words of caution about his role from
Sens. John McCain, a Republican, and Charles Schumer, a Democrat, two members of the Gang of Eight senators who shepherded the Senate version . McCain said
the challenge was to get recalcitrant House Republicans behind some form of immigration legislation and that
it was important they not feel they were being unduly pressured by Obama. "So I think the president is walking
a careful line here, and I think it's the appropriate thing," he said.
CIR – AT: Senate Momentum Ensures Passage
Political capital kills immigration – empirically proven by Senate passage
Rubin July 11, 2013 (Immigration reform grinds to a craw, The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubinis a journalist for the Washington post, 11 July 2013, ProQuest
databse, 11 July 2013.)
The president's intention to run around the country campaigning on immigration is a bad sign indeed. If he
wants a bill rather than an issue to run on, he'd pipe down like he did during the Gang of Eight debate in the
Senate. That he is going on the road suggests he at least thinks the House will do nothing on immigration and
he'll have a golden opportunity to blame Republicans. (To the extent he'd choose to blame House Republicans, he'd have a point.) The ball is
now in the House. Mr. Goodlatte, what say you?
CIR - AT: Republican Leaders are Pushing It
Won’t pass – Key Republican figures are against immigration reform
Levey July 1, 2013 - Los Angeles Times staff writer
(Noam N. Levey. “House GOP firm on immigration bill; Lawmakers emphasize
their opposition to the compromise passed by the Senate, and promise a fight”. Los Angeles Times. July 1, 2013. LexisNexis)
Leading House Republicans reiterated their opposition Sunday to the immigration compromise passed by the Senate last
week, highlighting the uncertain prospects for enactment of a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. "The Senate bill is not going to pass in
the House," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Good- latte (R-Va.) said on CNN's "State of the Union," echoing statements made by House Speaker John
A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other senior Republican lawmakers. Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading supporter of the Senate legislation,
acknowledged the difficult path the bill faces in the Republican-controlled House. "I'm concerned about the task ahead," he said
on "Fox News Sunday." "It's not going to be easy." Boehner has said that he will not bring up an immigration bill for a
vote that does not have the support of the majority of the GOP House caucus. Goodlatte noted Sunday that the vast majority of Senate Republicans
voted against the Senate bill, which would create a system to confer legal status on 11 million immigrants in the country illegally while bolstering border
security and tightening employment rules through an electronic system to check workers' immigration status, known as E-Verify. But many conservative lawmakers say the
security provisions of the Senate bill are inadequate and may never be implemented.
CIR – AT: Conservative Lobbies Ensure Passage
Won’t pass – Conservative groups pressuring congress to deny an immigration vote
Fitz and Wolgin, July 11 2013—Director of Immigration Policy and Senior Policy Analyst for
Immigration at the Center for American Progress [Marshall and Philip E., “The Top 4 Reality-Defying Arguments against
Immigration Reform”, Center for American Progress, 7/11/2013, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/07/11/69282/the-top-4-reality-defying-argumentsagainst-immigration-reform/, accessed 7/16/2013]
Less than two weeks after the Senate passed a historic immigration reform bill by a bipartisan 68-32 margin, opponents of
reform have already started peddling a bevy of reality-defying excuses about why the House of Representatives
should not follow suit. Faced with overwhelming support from stakeholders and groups across the political
spectrum—from the Service Employees International Union, the AFL-CIO, and the National Council of La Raza, to the American Action Forum, Americans for Tax
Reform, and the American Conservative Union—opponents of reform are grasping at straws in their effort to block reform from
happening. In potentially the most extreme example, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Rich Lowry of the National Review laid their cards
on the table, urging the House to refuse to bring any bill to conference with the Senate for fear that
immigration reform might actually pass. In their desperation, this small group of immigration opponents has
coalesced around the following four arguments against the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, or S. 744,
each of which requires a suspension of reality: The Senate shut the American people out of the process of immigration reform by
writing the bill behind closed doors. Immigration reform will hurt working-class Americans. The Obama
administration will refuse to implement the border-security and enforcement strategies written into the bill.
Republicans can simply ignore Latino voters and continue to win elections by maximizing their share of white
voters.
CIR – AT: Business Lobbies Ensure Passage
Won’t pass – new Republicans will ignore business interests – they are populists
Weisman and Parker July 19, 2013 – Staff writers for the New York Times (Supporters of Immigration Overhaul,
Seeking Momentum, Look to Business Groups Lexis New York Times
Maybe 40 to 60 conservative legislators view business groups based in Washington with suspicion, but many of
them were never going to side with business on immigration. Still, the skepticism toward business is pervasive
in certain sectors. Some Republicans, especially those who came into the House in the Tea Party wave of 2010,
are instead looking to conservative groups like Club for Growth and Heritage Action for guidance. “So many of
them have come to the well so many times for their corporate welfare handouts that they have lost all
credibility with the base of the Republican Party,” said Representative Mick Mulvaney, Republican of South
Carolina. “The days of the Chamber of Commerce being the gold standard may be coming to an end if they
aren’t already in the past.” Indeed, when they have had the chance, Republicans have relished the opportunity
to strike a populist stance against big business. T
CIR – AT: Democrats Ensure Passage
Won’t pass – Democrats won’t support reform due to union backlash
Navarette, July 11, 2013 (lBraxter County Newspaper, Democrats keep on playing games with immigration bill, Ruben Navarrette Jr. is in the Post Writers
Group, ProQuest database, 11 July 2013)
SAN DIEGO -- Now that the immigration debate has moved to the House of Representatives, the
dominant media narrative is that Republicans
are itching to kill the reform bill. Yet few journalists scrutinize the left. Democrats have an itch of their own. They
want to appear to champion immigration reform to please Latino voters, but they can't afford to go too far lest
they make enemies of blue-collar workers who fear that legalizing the undocumented will lower wages. Democrats -- who didn't go
anywhere near the issue from 2009 to 2011, when they controlled Congress and the White House -- have little
interest in walking into the 2014 election as the party that brought "amnesty" to America. Democrats need
Republicans to throw a public tantrum, and kill the legislation. They get the preferred outcome, and their hands are clean. Democrats don't deliver
much leadership, but they're good at gamesmanship. They toy with the opposition. They try to manipulate their opponents into making mistakes. The
immigration debate resembles the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and Democrats are winning every match. They have two advantages: A helping hand from the news media
and a Latino community willing to believe that the Democratic Party is their friend. Plus, many Republicans have shown a boneheaded tendency to say and do the wrong thing
The Democrats' game-playing has gotten so bad that, every time a Democratic leader says
anything at all about immigration, it's time to look for the angle.
when it comes to immigration.
CIR – AT: GOP Fears Losing Hispanic Vote
Republicans don’t think they need to vote for immigration to preserve Hispanic Voters – they
have a different strategy
Carrol July 13 2013 - senior writer for The Washington Examiner [Conn, author of its daily "Morning Examiner" and
served as assistant director for strategic communications for the Heritage Foundation, “Economic populism, not Gang of Eight immigration reform, will boost GOP's future,”
Washington Examiner, 7-13-13, http://washingtonexaminer.com/economic-populism-not-gang-of-eight-immigration-reform-will-boost-gops-future/article/2533017, Date
Accessed 7-17-17
Sean Trende, RealClearPolitics.com's senior elections analyst, rattled Washington this month when he challenged the conventional wisdom that
the Republican Party must give citizenship to current illegal immigrants if it ever hopes to win a national
election again. Trende argued that instead of pandering to every demographic group, Republicans should
instead adjust their agenda to better appeal to Reagan Democrat/Perot Independent voters who stayed home
last November. "Ultimately, the basic prescription for the GOP is a healthy dose of economic populism," Trende writes.
"This includes a lot of changes Democrats would presumably enjoy, such as jettisoning the pro-big business, Wall Street-style conservatism that characterized the Romney
campaign." Sign Up for the Morning Examiner newsletter!
Most republicans don’t fear Hispanic voters – they come from majority white districts
Silverleib and Cohen July 12 2013, CNN Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter [Andy, Tom,
Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter, “Five reasons immigration reform isn’t close to the finish line,” CNN Politics, 7-12-13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/immigration-reform-5-things/index.html, Date Accessed 7-17-13]
Sweeping reform isn't popular with GOP in either chamber. There may be more Senate GOP support for
comprehensive immigration reform, but not that much. Only 14 of 46 GOP senators backed the "Gang of Eight" bill heralded in its
creation as a triumph of bipartisanship in a sharply divided Congress. Why should House Republicans be more in favor? Remember that all politics is still
local -- especially in the House. Many House Republicans represent ruby red districts with few Hispanics,
where any path to citizenship is unpopular and the big fear is a primary challenge from the right . Which leads us to ...
The Hastert rule House Speaker John Boehner has made clear that the House will only take up immigration reform
that is backed by a majority of its Republican members. That is keeping with the maxim of former House Speaker
Dennis Hastert that prevented votes on legislation that lacked strong support from the controlling party.
Democrats contend the Senate version would pass the House with a few dozen Republicans joining them to overcome opposition by most of the GOP caucus. While it is
unclear if that's true,
permitting it to happen would antagonize many of Boehner's fellow Republicans.
Republicans won’t pass Immigration Reform – they don’t fear a backlash
Silverleib and Cohen July 12 2013, CNN Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter [Andy, Tom,
Congressional Producer and CNN Staffwriter, “Five reasons immigration reform isn’t close to the finish line,” CNN Politics, 7-12-13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/immigration-reform-5-things/index.html, Date Accessed 7-17-13]
While moderate House GOP leaders call for passing some kind of immigration legislation to avoid a potential
political backlash, conservatives in the rank-and-file say such fears are unfounded as voters will reward
Republicans for opposing what they call a bad Senate bill. Republicans don't trust Obama on border security.
Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp might have said it best. The two-term conservative Republican tweeted Wednesday that "trusting Obama (with)
border security is like trusting Bill Clinton (with) your daughter." Ouch.
***CIR INTERNAL LINKS***
CIR – Political Capital Internal Links
Obama capital key to Immigration Reform – it builds public and bipartisan support
Carney, 2013 – reporter for Businessline.com (US immigration reform important for nation and economy: Jay Carney, Businessline is a
reporting agency, 29 Jan 2013, ProQuest.)
Immigration reforms to strengthen US economy Obama is scheduled to announce his vision for a comprehensive immigration reform in Las Vegas tomorrow. "Our new
immigration system must be more focused on recognising the important characteristics which will help build the American economy and strengthen American families," the
Senators said. "Additionally, we must reduce backlogs in the family and employment visa categories so that future immigrants view our future legal immigration system as the
exclusive means for entry into the United States," they said. "This is a big deal. This is an important development. This is in keeping with the principles the president has been
espousing for a long time, in keeping with bipartisan efforts in the past and with the effort this president believes has to end in a law that he can sign," Carney said in response
to a question. Carney said this is the right thing to do out of fairness to the middle class to make sure that everyone play by the same set of rules. "The
President is
travelling to Nevada tomorrow, where he will continue a conversation with the American people how we need
to move forward and why we need to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform, why it's
important," he said. "It's something that he talked about a lot during the campaign. He campaigned on this. And it is something that
he has spoken about quite frequently since his re-election and made clear his commitment to act on this early
in his second term. It's now the second week of his second term, and he is acting on it," Carney said. No more delays
in reform Carney said there is no reason to delay on moving forward with this. "The President has supported it for a long time. It fell short in
2010 because of congressional opposition to it. And he believes that we are at a moment now where there seems to be support
coalescing at a bipartisan level behind the very principles that he has long put forward and behind principles
that have in the past enjoyed bipartisan support, that appear now again to be winning bipartisan support, and
that is a very positive thing," the White House Press Secretary said. "When it comes to border security, anyone who looks at this honestly will note the
tremendous strides we have made in the past four years in protecting our borders. In fact, they have never been better enforced than they are now," Carney said. "Over the
past four years, this
administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, taken important
steps to make interior and worksite enforcement of our immigration laws smarter and more effective," he said.
"We
have made historic investments in manpower, technology and infrastructure to help secure our borders. Our borders now are more secure than they have ever been in history.
That works continues," he said.
CIR – Boehner Internal Links
Boehner is key to Immigration reform – he is necessary to overcome GOP division
Douthat July 14, 2013 New York Times columnist (Ross. “The House’s Immigration Dilemma”. New York Times. July 14, 2013.
LexisNexis)
THE first thing you need to know about the House Republican
view of immigration reform, the fate of which now rests with John
Boehner’s restive caucus, is that there is no single House Republican view of immigration reform. Instead, as the
Democrats have come to march in lock step on the issue -- dropping the old union-populist skepticism of low-wage immigration in favor of liberal cosmopolitanism and
Hispanic interest-group pandering -- many of the country's varying, conflicting opinions have ended up crowded inside the Republican Party's tent. So there
are
Republicans who would happily vote for the Senate bill as is, no questions asked, and Republicans who might never vote
for a bill that contains the words ''comprehensive'' and ''reform,'' let alone ''immigration.'' There are law-and-order
Republicans who care only about border security and E-Verify, pro-business Republicans seeking new guest-worker programs and
religious-conservative Republicans for whom amnesty is a humanitarian cause. There are libertarian Republicans who
believe ''the more, the better'' is the only answer on immigration policy and communitarian Republicans who worry about the impact
on wages, assimilation and cultural cohesion. There are calculating, self-interested Republicans who think immigration reform will save
their party from extinction, and calculating, self-interested Republicans who worry that it will create millions of new Democratic voters. This diversity
of views makes it difficult to game out exactly how the House might proceed on the issue. But right now, there seem to be
two directions that Republicans could ultimately take. The first is a kind of lowest-common-denominator approach suggested by the majority leader, Eric Cantor. It would
advance two ideas that command broad Republican support -- more spending on border security and more visas for high-skilled immigrants -- alongside an idea many
Republican representatives opposed in the past but seem to be warming to right now: a new version of the Dream Act, which would offer citizenship to illegal immigrants who
arrived as children. This
combination would probably poll well, minimize intra-Republican divisions and focus on the
policy area, high-skilled immigration, where there is the strongest consensus about the benefits to the nation. It
would also vindicate the Republican Party's (often notional) commitment to offering incremental alternatives
to bloated liberal bills.
Boehner key to Immigration – he garners House Support
O’Keefe, June 2013 - a congressional reporter with The Washington Post, (Boehner draws hard line on
immigration, The Washington Post , O'Keefe, Ed, Ed O’Keefe is ProQuest database, 19 June 2013, )
The fate of the sprawling immigration reform proposal winding its way through Congress may now be in the
hands of some of the most conservative members of the Republican Party. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said
Tuesday that he will not advance any bill that did not have the support of a majority of the House GOP, which will mean
engaging some of the proposal's biggest detractors and harshest critics. "I have no intention of putting a bill on the floor that will violate the principles of our majority and
divide our conference," Boehner told his party colleagues in a closed meeting Tuesday, according to GOP aides present. " One
of our principles is border
security. I have no intention of putting a bill on the floor that the people in this room do not believe secures our
borders. It's not gonna happen." In comments to reporters after the meeting, Boehner added that "I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the
floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans." That tricky political calculation is one that Boehner has faced repeatedly in the past two years in trying to pass
controversial legislation on issue after issue. The approach has often led to failure, as a solid bloc of conservatives has often emerged to derail whatever compromise Boehner
and his leadership team managed to work out. But it also required Boehner at the start of the year to depend on Democratic votes to approve federal assistance to communities
ravaged by Hurricane Sandy and to adopt the "fiscal cliff" deal. Despite his closed-door comments, Boehner didn't rule out relying on Democrats to pass a final version of
immigration legislation that could be negotiated between the House and the Senate in the coming weeks, telling reporters Tuesday: "We'll see when we get there." The
speaker's sharpened resolve and his decision to declare it came at a critical moment in the months-long debate over the issue, as the Senate began voting on amendments to its
comprehensive bipartisan proposal and bipartisan talks in the House remained at a stalemate over several lingering concerns .
Boehner also faces a sensitive
meeting Wednesday with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who are pushing aggressively for
Congress to finally enact changes to the nation's immigration laws. Boehner's comments came at the weekly
closed-door meeting of House Republicans, held Tuesday at Republican National Committee headquarters around the corner from the Capitol. He
spoke as some of the most conservative Republican lawmakers and well-financed conservative groups are seeking to change internal House
GOP rules by blocking legislation from the House floor that does not have "majority-of-the-majority" support. Boehner admitted that the "Hastert
rule" - named after former House speaker Dennis J. Hastert (R-Ill.) - was violated this year when he had to rely on Democratic votes to
approve the fiscal-cliff spending deal and federal funding for communities ravaged by Hurricane Sandy, according to senior GOP aides who attended the meeting.
On immigration, however, Boehner said that Republicans have "plenty of leverage" and will not need to rely on
Democratic votes to pass a bill. Aides said privately that Boehner needed to toughen his resolve with colleagues
after telling reporters last week that he expected to continue earning "strong bipartisan majorities" for bills
brought to the floor. Boehner acknowledged the tensions with a smile when a reporter asked him whether Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) was accurate by suggesting this week that the speaker would lose his job if he brought an immigration bill to the
floor with insufficient Republican support. "Maybe," he said as members of the House GOP leadership team standing behind him laughed.
CIR – Bipart Internal Links
Bipartisanship is key to pass Immigration reform – it is the only way to get enough votes
Weber July 10, 2013 – leading political strategist for National Review (Vin. “Battle over Immigration Reform;
Morality and Politics”.The Charlie Rose Show. July 10, 2013. LexisNexis)
And then change comes in their editorial only if the Republicans take the White House and both Houses of Congress and maybe by the Senate by 60 senators. It seems like
they`re saying this may -- may never happen. I just think that that`s a mistaken way of looking at this.
There`s an argument actually perversely because we said as difficult as this is, this is the right environment in
which to try to change immigration bills because it has to be bipartisan. I understand that sounds a little odd right now because we`re
facing these great difficulties. The Senate Democrats can`t come to terms with the House Republicans but at the end of
the day on an issue like this, we would be better off if we had a bipartisan bill that would address some of the
concerns Ramesh is raising on border security and things like that while establishing a path to legalization and
citizenship for immigrants. It can probably be better done with both parties having a stake of the action.
CIR – AT: Obama’s Political Capital Backfires
No chance Obama’s political capital hurts Immigration – he knows how and when to use it
Holland, July 14, 2013 - staff writer for the Orlando Sentinal (Obama stays on borders of immigration fight, Holland, Steve;
Bohan, Caren., Steve Holland is an l, Caren Bohan is a lead correspondent covering President Barack Obama's campaign., ProQuest database, 14 July 2013, journalist for
Washington Post,
There is some skepticism at the White House that if Obama speaks out about immigration, it will drive away
House Republicans, as many want to kill the legislation regardless of whether he talks about it. One White House official
said any presidential activity on the subject would be based on a calculation of whether it was needed and would
be helpful. "We'll speak out, we'll travel, we'll do things with different decibels, depending on what we think
will help move the ball," the official said. On Saturday, Obama used his weekly address to urge Americans to press the House to approve the Senate bill. Obama
also seized on comments from his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, who has thrown his support behind the overhaul effort. When faced with a
high-profile debate in Washington, Obama has frequently argued his case to the voters in travels across the
country, but with mixed success. Republican Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho, who served until recently on a working group on immigration and is open to a
comprehensive bill, said Obama's effort to pass gun legislation this year was an example of why he did not think the
president traveling to pitch immigration reform would help. "All I remember is that the last time he traveled
for a big issue, he killed it," Labrador said. "He might actually want to rethink that."
Obama is pushing immigration reform – but he is not Dictating it which avoids a GOP backlash
Taxin, July 15, 2013—Associated Press writer [Amy, 7/15/13, “Questions over who should get citizenship could split Obama, GOP on
immigration”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-make-personal-appeals-for-immigration-this-week-in-spanish-language-tvinterviews/2013/07/15/fbdc8a0a-ed57-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html, accessed July 18, 2013]
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama
is using his presidential pulpit to press the Republican-controlled House to
embrace a path to citizenship for all 11 million people living illegally in the U.S., while a top Republican says those brought to
America as children should be given the highest priority. With prospects shaky for passing an immigration overhaul in the House, the
White House insisted Monday that to garner Obama’s signature, any bill must satisfy the president’s principles — the
path to citizenship chief among them. But Obama is leaving the particulars of how Congress gets there up to
lawmakers, wary of strong-arming the process and handling Republicans an excuse to vote no. “I cannot even
begin to count the number of possibilities that could emerge through the House process. So I’m not going to,”
said White House spokesman Jay Carney. “What I’m saying is that the end result has to meet the president’s principles if he’s going to sign it into law.”
CIR – AT: Congress is pushing Immigration Reform
Even if Obama isn’t pushing too hard, his capital is still important to peel off Republicans who
are worried about elections
Taxin, July 15, 2013—Associated Press writer [Amy, 7/15/13, “Questions over who should get citizenship could split Obama, GOP on
immigration”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-make-personal-appeals-for-immigration-this-week-in-spanish-language-tvinterviews/2013/07/15/fbdc8a0a-ed57-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html, accessed July 18, 2013]
Obama has kept his distance from the back-and-forth in Congress, knowing that the political imperative for
Republicans will likely be more persuasive than any pressure he applies — and that aligning himself too closely to
any legislation could actually make it harder to attract GOP support. Still, with a major component of his legacy
on the line, Obama is ratcheting up his efforts to make clear to Republicans that without meaningful action on
immigration, Republicans will be hard-pressed in future elections to peel Hispanic support away from
Democrats. More than 70 percent of Hispanics backed Obama in his re-election last year.
Obama is pushing for immigration reform now – personal campaign
Fox News, July 16 2013 [Fox News Latino, “Obama Kicks Immigration Reform Push Into High Gear With Personal Appeals”, Fox News,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/07/16/president-obama-kicks-immigration-reform-push-into-high-gear-with-personal/#ixzz2ZKqeSMba, accessed 7/18/13]
Obama is scheduled to do interviews from the White House Tuesday with Spanish language television stations from Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles and New York. The
White House says the president will argue that immigration reform is in line with the nation's values and in the
country's economic interests. Obama's personal appeals come amid deep uncertainty over the future of the
immigration overhaul that is a centerpiece of the president's second term agenda. The Senate has passed a
sweeping bill but GOP leaders in the House say that legislation is flawed. House Speaker John Boehner says many of his members
want to deal with immigration but in a methodical, step-by-step fashion.
CIR – Polls Impossible
Polling on Immigration is impossible – too many different dimensions and policies
Milner and Tingley 2011 - Professor of International Affairs at Princeton and Professor of
Government at Harvard [Helen, Dustin, director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, The
Economic and Political Influences on Different Dimensions of United States,” 2011,
http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/working%20papers/The%20Economic%20and%20Political%20Influences%20on%20Different%20Dimensions%20of%20United%20St
ates%20Immigration%20Policy.pdf, Accessed 7-16-13]
With globalization resulting in the increased movement of people around the globe, immigration
has become a significant political issue in
most developed countries. In the United States and Europe, immigration policy has been at the center of large
public demonstrations and sustained political debate. As a result, the politics of immigration policy need to be
better understood. By its nature, immigration policy is multidimensional, and hence the supporters and opponents
of different types of immigration policy will vary.1 Asking who supports and who opposes immigration
overlooks the fact that some individuals will have incentives to support some types of immigration policies but
not others. Unfortunately much of the literature appears to miss this, in part because public opinion research often is based on generic questions about increasing or
decreasing levels of immigration. Actual immigration policy is differentiated not only by the type of immigrant affected, but
also by the types of instruments (e.g., border control, visas) used to manage immigrants. For example, a recent
literature focuses on the public finance dimension of immigration, but not all policy decisions about
immigrants involve fiscal issues. Indeed recently, the politics of immigration have increasingly centered on border
security. From our study spanning 27 years of votes in the US House of Representatives, we provide clearer tests of economic and ideological theories by studying the
varying influence of these factors on different types of immigration policy votes. Immigration policy includes many distinct issues; here, we
consider six main types of immigration legislation, which we think captures most legislation on the issue. The
six types are: high-skill employment visas, low-skill employment visas, welfare benefits for immigrants,
employer constraints, border security, and final passage of over-arching immigration reform.
CIR – Political Capital Resps
Obama isn’t Key - Religious groups are pressuring House Republicans to pass immigration
reform
Goodstein July 19, 2013 - New York Times religion writer (Laurie.“ Catholic Educators Push Immigration Bill”. The New York
Times. July 19, 2013. LexisNexis)
The presidents of 93 Catholic colleges and universities have sent a letter to the House speaker, John A. Boehner, and the
minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, urging them to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship
for undocumented immigrants. Roman Catholic bishops have been lobbying hard for such a bill, but the college presidents' organized
involvement is new. They announced on Thursday that they plan to personally call their members of Congress and will hold
events with local church leaders to get Catholic laypeople to pressure their representatives to pass a bill.
Obama isn’t key – Catholic groups are pressing Republicans to pass it
Constable July 19, 2013 The Washington Post staff writer (Pamela Constable. “Catholic educators call on Congress to pass
immigration reform”. The Washington Post. July 19, 2013. LexisNexis)
More than 90 Catholic university heads Thursday urged their fellow Catholics in Congress to pass
comprehensive immigration reform, saying that their faith "values the human dignity and worth of all
immigrants." "We remind you that no human being made in the image of God is illegal," they said in a public letter addressed to all 163 Catholic legislators, including
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In the letter, the university presidents called for a path to
legalization for all undocumented immigrants. The group asked the lawmakers to resist pressure from
"powerful interest groups" and said that as Catholics, they have a "serious responsibility to consider the moral
dimensions" of policies. The letter comes as Congress has been grappling with proposals for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. immigration laws. Last month, the
Senate passed a bipartisan measure that would give illegal immigrants a chance to become U.S. citizens, step up border security and increase visas for legal and skilled
immigrants. The House of Representatives, however, is sharply divided on the issue, and conservative leaders want to break it into smaller individual bills addressing border
security, legal immigration, employment and illegal immigration. Supporters of immigration reform say this would effectively kill any chance of meaningful change. In a
leading Catholic educators
called on Congress to end what they called the abuse and exploitation of illegal immigrants and to enact
legislation that would take a humane approach to the issue.
conference call with journalists Thursday, the presidents of the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University and other
Obama’s political capital is not key - Republicans are pushing Immigration reform post
compromise
Corker July 10, 2013 – Republican Representative (Bob.“Battle over Immigration Reform; Morality and Politics”.The Charlie Rose
Show. July 10, 2013. LexisNexis)
BOB CORKER: So Al, I actually am not near as negative as other people are. I mean, the way legislation works, as you know, the House
can pass a bill out a
bill that maybe deals with border security, maybe it deals with high tech workers. Maybe it deals with other
aspects of immigration where there`s a lot more, you know, solidarity, if you will. When they pass the bill out, you end up having a conference. And
so look, I think that the House really wants to do something on immigration. I don`t think they want to just stall. I think
they may well pass something out. And when they do, you have a conference. Certainly the House`s imprint on it will be huge, but you can end up in
conference coming out with something that`s even a better product than we have coming out of the senate. So I know there are people over there who
really want to try to solve this problem. And I`ve spoken with a few of those. And hopefully they will carry the
day. So I`m a little bit more optimistic than most on this. And certainly hope -- hope that as a body collectively, we`ll rise to the occasion and
put this behind us.
Congress key to Immigration reform passage – they will pressure House GOP
Werner, July 15 2013—Associated Press staff reporter for the White House[Erica, 7/15/13, “Obama concedes
Congress won’t meet August deadline on immigration overhaul”, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/questions-over-who-should-getcitizenship-could-split-obama-gop-on-immigration/2013/07/15/f5fb4946-edac-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html, accessed 7/17/13]
Supporters are working on strategy to get the House to sign off on an overhaul. On Tuesday, most
members of the so-called Gang of Eight — the
bipartisan group of senators that authored the Senate immigration bill — met in the Capitol with a large group of advocates from
business, religious, agriculture and other organizations to urge everyone to work together to move the issue
through the House. The senators distributed a list of 121 House Republicans seen as persuadable in favor of the bill and discussed honing a message
for Congress’ monthlong August recess, when House members will meet with constituents and potentially
encounter opposition to immigration legislation. “When we go into the August break we want to be sure
everybody’s working hard and trying to make our case,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., after the meeting.
Obama’s not key to immigration – Republican leaders are using business groups to push it in
the House
Weisman and Parker July 19, 2013 – Staff writers for the New York Times (Supporters of Immigration Overhaul,
Seeking Momentum, Look to Business Groups Lexis New York Times
With political momentum behind an immigration overhaul flagging, advocates are counting on business groups
to turn up the pressure on skeptical House Republicans who are much less susceptible to that lobby than they have been in the past. The
changed dynamic illustrates the difficulty of guiding immigration legislation through the House as well as the
challenge for business interests to reassert themselves to the more ideological brand of Congressional
Republican. “I’ve heard from all sides on the immigration bill, certainly our Kansas Chamber of Commerce,” said Representative Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, a member of
the House Republican leadership. “But I will tell you, a majority of Kansans that I visit with are not as eager. And the power lies with the people, at least in Kansas.” The
prickly relationship between House Republicans and business groups large and small will complicate efforts to move legislation to increase immigration of highly skilled
Yet advocates
of such a comprehensive approach say the business world may still be their last, best shot, and business groups
are mobilizing for an immigration offensive expected to kick into high gear by August. “The business
community is solidly behind this — small business, large business, the chamber, the Business Roundtable, you
name it, they’re all solidly in,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and an author of the bill approved by the Senate last
workers, expand guest worker programs and establish a path to legalization or citizenship for the 11 million immigrants already in the country illegally.
month. “We need them to weigh in, very frankly, on this issue, because we advertise ourselves as the party of business. Perhaps they can have some effect.” In a meeting on
Tuesday with seven of the eight senators who drafted the original bill and members of various advocacy groups, a frustrated Mr. McCain took business to the woodshed.
Their efforts so far to lobby House Republicans, he explained in a stern tone, have not been sufficient. Their side is
losing the battle to define the message, he said, and the next few months, including the August recess, will make or break the
immigration effort. This week, Speaker John A. Boehner said he welcomed any sales pitches from business, noting that
the majority of House Republicans had never been faced with immigration legislation. “The more education that
we have for our members, the better we’re going to be able to facilitate dealing with a very thorny issue,” he said. In
a broad immigration overhaul, businesses desire an injection of highly skilled workers who have found it increasingly difficult to enter the country, an expanded pool of lower
skilled but energetic immigrants and a way to legally employ workers in the country illegally who have been mainstays of the labor force in many parts of the country.
Many business groups have been working on the issue for more than a year. Last month, during the annual summit meeting of the
National Association of Manufacturers, the group’s members held meetings with lawmakers to discuss immigration and other issues. Several of the
association’s members, including Caterpillar and Cargill, recently participated in an immigration briefing for
House staff members hosted by Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “It does us no
good to bring in the best and brightest in the world, train and educate them, and then send them home,” said Joe Trauger, the association’s vice president of human resources
policy, in summing up the group’s message. Last month, Mr. Goodlatte also met with 20 chief executives of some of the largest corporations in the country through the
Business Roundtable, an association of major-company C.E.O.'s, said Greg Brown, 52, the chairman and chief executive of Motorola, who heads the group’s immigration task
force.
Obama’s Political Capital isn’t Key – Local business lobbies are pushing immigration and are
critical in congress
Weisman and Parker July 19, 2013 – Staff writers for the New York Times (Supporters of Immigration Overhaul,
Seeking Momentum, Look to Business Groups Lexis New York Times
Engagement with local and state chambers of commerce has been constant. “The goal is to get a duplicate
message, an echo chamber,” said Bruce Josten, the chamber’s longtime chief lobbyist. But, he said, “The House is entirely different from
the Senate.” Business lobbyists say that hostility in the House may be overstated. Maybe 40 to 60 conservative legislators view
business groups based in Washington with suspicion, but many of them were never going to side with business on immigration. Still, the skepticism toward business is
pervasive in certain sectors. Some Republicans, especially those who came into the House in the Tea Party wave of 2010, are instead looking to conservative groups like Club
for Growth and Heritage Action for guidance. “So many of them have come to the well so many times for their corporate welfare handouts that they have lost all credibility
with the base of the Republican Party,” said Representative Mick Mulvaney, Republican of South Carolina. “The days of the Chamber of Commerce being the gold standard
may be coming to an end if they aren’t already in the past.” Indeed, when they have had the chance, Republicans have relished the opportunity to strike a populist stance
against big business. The entire House Republican leadership has been castigating President Obama’s decision to delay for a year the mandate that large employers buy their
workers health insurance, but press on with an insurance-buying mandate for individuals. “Obama gave big business a pass,” Ms. Jenkins said in an interview. “That was a
major shift. The administration represents big business.” Club for Growth does not see itself as a business group, said its president, Chris Chocola. “We’re a pro free-market
group,” he said, which is not always in line with business interests. Club for Growth does do one thing that explicitly pro-business groups do not. “We participate in primary
To that end, many business
groups are trying to reach members of Congress where it matters most — in their home districts. John Feinblatt, the
elections; they don’t,” Mr. Chocola said. “And the greatest motivating factor for a member of Congress is keeping their job.”
chief policy adviser for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and chairman of the Partnership for a New American Economy, said his group has drawn up a list of roughly
40 House Republicans to watch, and the group plans to mobilize in 14 states, and even more districts, during the August recess. “The bottom line is, this is
not a fight
that’s going to be won in Washington,” Mr. Feinblatt said. “It’s going to be won in districts across the country as
representatives hear from local business owners, from local chambers of commerce, from job creators at home,
all saying that passing immigration legislation is crucial to the success of their local economy.”
Senate will push for Immigration Reform – they will mobilize pressure on Boehner
Foley July 16, 2013 - Writer at huffington post, [Elise Gang Of Eight Targets 121 House Republicans On Immigration
Reformhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/gang-of-eight-house-republicans_n_3607357.html)
WASHINGTON -- Members
of the Senate "gang of eight" met with pro-immigration reform business, agriculture,
faith and conservative groups on Tuesday to discuss plans for moving a comprehensive bill forward in the
House, where many Republicans have vowed not to touch it. They distributed a list (see below) of 121 Republicans whom they see as
persuadable on immigration reform. Groups in attendance included Republicans for Immigration Reform, the Mark Zuckerberg-founded FWD.us, the faith group Sojourners
and others, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting. The list largely aligns with the targets of other reform groups. Seven members of the group that crafted the
Senate immigration bill were present: Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Bob
Menendez (D-N.J.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.). Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) decided not to attend, said spokesman Alex Conant. "We have a badly broken immigration
system that is in dire need of reform, and Sen. Rubio worked hard to produce and pass the best proposal possible in a Democrat-controlled Senate," Conant said in an email.
"The Senate's work has created an important opportunity for the House to advance reform further, but they should be given deference to decide their own way forward." After
the gang of eight bill passed 68 to 32 in the Senate with "aye" votes from 14 Republicans, it's been met with little interest -- and some hostility -- from House Republicans,
many of whom say its legalization measures are a deal-breaker. Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he will not bring the Senate bill
to the floor because a majority of his conference opposes it, and he will instead pursue piecemeal legislation.
Pro-reform groups hope they can put pressure on Republicans to come around to the idea of comprehensive
reform, particularly using allies in the faith, business and conservative communities.
Congress is key to pushing immigration reform – they are the ones spending the political
capital – the Senate empirically proves
Batley July 13, 2013 - Political Journalist and Social Commentator for the Huffington Post [Melanie,
“Gang of Eight Targets House Republicans on Immigration,” Newsmax, 7-17-13, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gang-eight-immigrationHouse/2013/07/17/id/515556, Date Accessed 7-17-13]
Some Senate Gang of Eight members are ratcheting up the pressure on House Republicans by enlisting the
support of companies, conservatives, and nonprofit groups in an effort to target a list of 129 congressmen who may
be willing to vote for a comprehensive immigration-overhaul bill. According to The Huffington Post, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined New York Democrat Chuck Schumer in a meeting with pro-reform
groups Tuesday to discuss how to help move an immigration bill through the House. Groups represented included Mark
Zuckerberg's FWD.us; tech giants Microsoft, Google, and Intel; the faith group Sojourners; and Republicans for Immigration Reform. Noticeably absent was Florida
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who helped get the Gang of Eight reform bill through the Senate on June 27 by a vote of 68 to 32. "We have a badly broken immigration system
that is in dire need of reform, and Sen. Rubio
worked hard to produce and pass the best proposal possible in a Democratcontrolled Senate," Rubio spokesman Alex Conant told The Huffington Post in an email. "The Senate's work has created an important opportunity for the House to
advance reform further, but they should be given deference to decide their own way forward." Graham suggested in the meeting that groups
should get people to target Republicans at town hall meetings, while Schumer said pastors might use their
sermons to highlight the importance of immigration reform, Politico reports. McCain suggested a strategic
option of introducing the bill piecemeal in order to increase the likelihood of building momentum for ultimate passage.
Schumer, who spearheaded immigration reform in the Senate, said the group plans to reconvene in 10 days to review what large corporations
are doing to help put pressure on Republicans, Politico said. "In an effort to grow support in the House for immigration reform, members of the Gang of Eight met with
supporters of immigration reform and discussed how to spread the word, both why this is good for members' districts and the country," said Matt House, a spokesman for
Schumer.
Obama’s political capital isn’t key – the Congress is pushing immigration reform, not Obama
Ortiz July 15, 2013— a Republican strategist at Crane and Crane Consulting [Javier, 7/15/13, Fox News Latino,
“Latinos Look to GOP to Lead—Immigration Included, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/07/15/latinos-look-to-republicans-to-lead-immigrationincluded/#ixzz2ZKr0trRv, accessed 7/18/13]
After weeks of political legwork, the
U.S. Senate recently passed a comprehensive immigration reform package. While far from perfect,
Republicans must now
lead on the immigration issue and move quickly to pass legislation. The Latino community in particular, but
not exclusively, is now looking to the Republican Party to take this leadership opportunity and show the
American people that our party understands the necessity for reform and the need to use this as a means to
secure our nation and improve our economy. Obama administration has avoided finding realistic bipartisan
solutions to address our broken system. Instead, they have been focused on playing politics. Knowing immigration reform
and the economy are top priorities for so many people, the U.S. House must choose to lead on the issue instead
of solely reacting. Even if the House does not take up the Senate bill, it can pass one or more pieces of legislation which would chart the course for repairing our
it sets the stage for meaningful debate as details continue to be hammered out among members across the political spectrum. House
broken immigration system and help to create jobs. Despite campaigning on the promise of immigration reform, the We cannot continue to maintain the status quo of ignoring
the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows of our country, which is tantamount to amnesty. The
Latino community is watching
Congress closely as they work toward reform. Moreover, they are expecting results. The most recent poll conducted in March by Latino Decisions
found 75 percent of registered Latino voters responded that they have read or heard about the immigration reform legislation in Congress.
Political capital kills immigration – empirically proven by Senate passage
Rubin July 11, 2013 (Immigration reform grinds to a craw, The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubinis a journalist for the Washington post, 11 July 2013, ProQuest
databse, 11 July 2013.)
The president's intention to run around the country campaigning on immigration is a bad sign indeed. If he
wants a bill rather than an issue to run on, he'd pipe down like he did during the Gang of Eight debate in the Senate. That he is going on the
road suggests he at least thinks the House will do nothing on immigration and he'll have a golden opportunity
to blame Republicans. (To the extent he'd choose to blame House Republicans, he'd have a point.) The ball is now in the House. Mr. Goodlatte, what say you?
***CIR GOOD - IMPACTS***
***Economy Debate***
CIR - Key to Economy - High Skilled Workers
Expanding high skilled visas key to the economy – they fill high skilled labor shortages, create
new jobs, and raise wages
Sherk and Nell 2008 – Senior Policy Analyst and research programmer at Heritage [James and
Guinevere, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” The Heritage Foundation, April 30, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/more-h-1b-visas-more-american-jobs-a-better-economy, Accessed July 19, 2013]
American employers cannot find enough highly skilled workers to fill essential positions. There
are not enough American workers with
advanced skills in computer, engineering, and mathematical occupations to perform the work that many hightech companies need. This shortage of skilled labor has forced many companies to outsource operations
abroad.Raising the cap on H-1B visas for skilled workers would allow American businesses to expand
operations here in the United States, creating more jobs and higher wages for American workers. Increasing the H-1B
cap would also raise significant tax revenue from highly skilled and highly paid workers.Heritage Foundation calculations show that raising the cap to 195,000
visas would increase revenues by a total of nearly $69 billion over eight years. Unlike tax increases, this would be an economically
beneficial source of revenue for PAYGO offsets. (The pay-as-you-go rule mandates that any new congressional spending or tax changes must not add to the federal deficit; any
new costs must be offset with money from existing funds.)Congress should therefore act now to raise the cap on visas for highly skilled workers.H-1B Visas for Skilled
WorkersCongress
created temporary H-1B visas for non-immigrant workers to prevent a shortage of skilled
workers from hurting the economy. This visa allows foreigners with advanced skills to work in the United States for three years, and it can be renewed for
another three years. After that, these workers must leave the country. Congress permits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency within the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to issue 65,000 H-1B visas a year to workers with at least a bachelor's degree and an
additional 20,000 to workers with at least a master's degree.[1] This represents far fewer people than American
high-tech employers need. USCIS received 163,000 applications for these limited visas within a week of accepting applications for FY 2009[2] and reached the
cap within hours of accepting applications for FY 2008.[3]Skilled-Worker ShortageThe job market remains tight in highly skilled occupations
despite the weakening economy. There are simply not enough Americans with the advanced mathematical,
computer, and engineering skills that employers in these fields need. Table 1 shows the occupations of employees sponsored for H-1B
visas and the national unemployment rate for those occupations. Over half of all companies seeking H-1B workers need them for
computer and mathematical occupations, a job sector with unemployment just above 2 percent--less than half
the national average. The next-largest occupations for which employers need skilled H-1B workers are architecture and engineering, which have an unemployment
rate of 1.8 percent.Economists estimate that the structural rate of unemployment in the United States is between 4 percent and 6 percent.[4] The unemployment that exists at
this rate is the natural unemployment that occurs as workers move between jobs and industries .
In occupations with only 2 percent
unemployment, there is virtually no one who is unemployed involuntarily-- which means that raising the H-1B
cap will not cost Americans any jobs. Virtually every American who wants a job in the high-tech sector has
one.Skill Shortage Causes Companies to Expand OverseasWithout enough skilled workers at home, many American companies
must either expand outside the U.S. or not expand at all. Microsoft, for example, recently opened an office in Vancouver, British Columbia, so
that it could employ 150 foreign engineers that the United States would not admit.[5] The shortage of skilled workers here at home prevented
those jobs from even being created in the U.S.-- along with the additional jobs that accompany those of the
skilled workers.A recent survey of high-tech companies found that 65 percent had expanded their hiring outside the United States because of the shortage of H-1B
workers.[6] Restricting H-1B visas reduces economic growth.
CIR - --Ext – High Skilled Worker Shortage Now
Competiveness decreasing - US falling behind in high skilled workers
West 2010 - founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. [Darrell M West,
“We Need an Einstein Immigration Policy”, 7/16/2010, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2010/07/16-immigration-west] LG
The number reserved for scientists and engineers is drastically below the figure allowed between 1999 and
2004. In that interval, the U.S. federal government set aside up to 195,000 visas each year for H-1B entry. The
idea was that scientific innovators were so important for long-term economic development that we needed to
boost the number let in. Meanwhile, other countries have taken the lead. Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, for example, are more strategic in viewing
immigration as a way to attract foreign talent. Canada, for instance, explicitly targets foreign workers in short supply who can
contribute to their economy. It admits around 265,000 immigrants each year. Of these, 154,000 visas (58%)
are set aside for economic purposes, such as skilled workers or live-in caregivers, while 71,000 (26%) are
devoted to family reunification. Canada's percentages are nearly the reverse of national policy in the U.S. Here,
nearly two-thirds of visas (64%) are devoted to family reunification, whereby foreigners who have come to America and become citizens
can sponsor spouses, parents, children, brothers and sisters for citizenship. U nlike other countries whose leaders understand the value of
skilled and seasonal labor for long-term economic development, we continue to place a very low priority on
admitting immigrants with economic talents. One of the virtues of the Canadian approach is that immigration
is far less controversial among its general public -- because people see how newcomers strengthen the national
economy. With benefits widely understood, immigration is perceived as being very favorable for the country as a whole. In the U.S., the Gallup Organization has found
that 52% of Americans say they want to decrease immigration; while in Canada, only 27% feel that way. Canadians embrace immigration because they understand how new
arrivals benefit their country.
CIR - --Ext – Immigration Reform Key to High Skilled Workers
Immigration reform key to the economy – high skilled worker visas
Warrior July 17, 2013, Chief Strategy and Technology Officer of Cisco Systems [Padmasree, former CTO of
Motorola, Inc, “Immigration Reform Will Make America's Economy Stronger | Commentary,” Roll Call, 7-17-13,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/immigration_reform_will_make_americas_economy_stronger_commentary-226397-1.html?pos=oplyh, Date Accessed 7-17-13]
The simple truth is that America
continues to attract the best, brightest and most ambitious from around the world. Yet,
instead of welcoming these skilled workers to our shores, our flawed immigration system turns people away or
places them in an endless bureaucracy, filled with red tape that often lasts nearly a decade. This reality harms our economy and
deprives the United States of the talent and innovation that every economy needs to grow and prosper. In effect, this
has left places from California to the Carolinas starved for talent and less able to compete, while other nations — like Canada, China and India — welcome high-skilled workers
with open arms. Today,
the technology industry employs 6 million people, with jobs in every state. Jobs in science,
technology, engineering and math fields are increasing three times faster than jobs in the rest of the economy,
but American students are not entering these fields in sufficient numbers. Research by the Partnership for a New American Economy
and Partnership for New York City predicts that by 2018 , the U.S. will face a projected shortfall of 230,000 qualified advanceddegree STEM workers. The fact is that U.S. tech companies like ours are eager and want to hire American
workers. However, the shortfall is significant and the H-1B program helps to fill the shortage of workers in
STEM fields. Highly skilled immigrants have made and will continue to make great contributions to the U.S.
economy and help create American jobs. The Kauffmann Foundation examined engineering and technology companies
started in the U.S. from 2006 to 2012. The study found that nearly a quarter of these companies had at least
one key founder who was foreign-born, and in Silicon Valley, this number was even higher at 43 percent. Over the
same period of time, these companies employed roughly 560,000 workers and generated an estimated $63 billion in revenues. The good news is that Congress
appears ready to tackle the problem. The immigration bill approved by the Senate: · Reforms the broken and
bureaucratic green card system, reducing the backlog and making the system more fair; · Doubles the number
of H-1Bs, to help meet the skills gap; and · Contains strong protections for American workers , to ensure that they aren’t
displaced or have their salaries undermined. As Congress continues working on this important comprehensive immigration bill, it’s essential we get this right. A welcoming
nation made my dreams possible, and smart
immigration policies can make our economy even stronger in the years ahead.
Immigration reform key to economy – fills demand for high skilled jobs
Bloomberg 2013 [Alex Kowalskim- Staff, “Immigrants With Right Skills Ride U.S. Hiring Wave: Economy”, 2/19/13, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201302-19/all-the-right-skills-immigrants-ride-u-s-hiring-wave-economy.html] LG]
High-Skilled Immigrant Carola van Eck is among the beneficiaries of rising demand for high-skilled workers.
She came to the U.S. in 2008 to work on her doctorate through a University of Amsterdam/University of
Pittsburgh joint venture. Though the 28-year-old said that she intended to return home to the Netherlands, the draw of a job as a resident in Orthopedic
Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center prompted her to stay. “I really like the work ethic in the U.S.,” van Eck said. “In my
country you’re always told to not be better than the boss. Here, you get rewarded for your accomplishments,
which motivates you to work harder.” Miner Dedios typifies those on the other end of the income scale, where immigrants are finding their footing as the
world’s largest economy improves. Dedios, 64, moved to the U.S. in 2010 from the Philippines, intending to work as a firefighter, a middle-wage career. Unable to land a job in
Filling ‘Gaps’ “Sometimes, native-born people are not
interested in certain jobs at the current wage levels,” said Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution in Washington who tracks international migration and policy. Immigrants “fill in some of the gaps.”
The foreign-born’s job prospects may continue to brighten. Immigrants make up a larger share of the most rapidly growing
occupations, Singer found in research released last year. Among the 15 fields projected by the Labor Department to grow the most from
rescue work, he now sorts donations for Goodwill Industries International Inc. in Seattle.
2010 to 2020, seven had a share of immigrants that was higher than immigrants’ total share of the labor force. These included iron workers, translators and home-health
aides. Lawmakers should keep such developments in mind when setting policy, Singer said. “ What
we haven’t really achieved in our system after
decades of thinking about this is how to adjust the admissions policy to better suit our economic needs in
something closer to real time,” she said. “That is going to be part of the discussion in the next couple of months.
Do we make changes based on some market demand, and how do we measure that? Do we set out knowing
what we want and then adjust our policies?”
Increasing H-1B Visas would increase high skilled workers – there is currently a shortage
West 2011 - founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. [Darrell M West,
“Creating a "Brain Gain" for U.S. Employers: The Role of Immigration”, January 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/01/immigration-west] LG
Increase the Number of Visas for Highly-skilled Workers Today’s
visa programs for high-skilled workers are not large enough to fill
the numerical demand for such employees and are too short in duration. For example, H-1B visas for workers
in "specialty occupations" are valid for a maximum of six years. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2004, the federal government increased the
annual allocation of H-1B visas for scientists and engineers to 195,000. The rationale was that scientific innovators were so important for the country’s long-term economic
development that the number set aside for those specialty professions needed to be high. Since
2004, that number has returned to its former
level, 65,000—only a third of the peak, despite rapid technologic change in almost every field, such as
information, medicine, energy and logistics. Most of these visas are allocated within a few months of becoming available. Even in recession
plagued 2009, applications exceeded the supply of visas within three months. Almost half of the visa requests
came from U.S. employers, most of them in high-tech industries. Clearly the demand for visas is greater than
the supply, and a minimal step would be to raise the set-aside for high-skilled workers to the previous, 195,000
level.
Expanding high skilled visas will Increase scientists and foreign scientists and solve the
economy
Peri 2013 - professor of economics at the University of California, (GIOVANNI PERI The Economic Windfall of
Immigration Reform, February 12, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324196204578297850464590498.html)
The third principle governing immigration reform is that scientists, engineers and innovators are the main
drivers of productivity and of economic growth. A 2002 study in the American Economic Review by Stanford economist Charles I. Jones found
that half of the productivity growth in the U.S. since 1950 was driven by the increase in the number of scientists
and engineers doing research and development. Chad Sparber (Colgate University), Kevin Shih (University of California, Davis) and I have found
in a study published in January that foreign scientists and engineers brought into this country under the H-1B
visa program have contributed to 10%-20% of the yearly productivity growth in the U.S. during the period
1990-2010. This allowed the GDP per capita to be 4% higher that it would have been without them—that's an
aggregate increase of output of $615 billion as of 2010. Our study also found that these immigrants did not hurt
but helped wage and employment perspectives of U.S.-born scientists and engineers. More scientists and more innovation in
the U.S. mean more labs, universities and companies doing research and creating jobs for Americans too. There is abundant other research showing that foreign scientists and
engineers contribute substantially to science, innovation and productivity growth in the U.S., with benefits spreading well beyond the lab and research facility where they
work. President Obama is right when saying, as he did in Las Vegas on Jan. 29, that
allowing foreigners trained in science and technology to
remain in the country "will create American businesses and American jobs. . . . help us grow our economy . . .
and strengthen our middle class." If we can get our immigration system corrected, this will likely be true in the
next 40 years as well.
CIR - --Ext – High Skilled Workers key to Jobs
Immigration reform is key to competitiveness due to high skilled job creation
Trumbull 2013 - Staff writer, The Christian Science Monitor (Immigration reform: a bid to attract workers who will boost the
economy, Trumbull, Mark, , 28 June 2013., ProQuest)
As a bipartisan group of US senators and President Obama lead a push to enact sweeping immigration reform this year, they are boosting the idea with a rationale that is
Reform isnt just about reuniting families, better securing the border, or dealing pragmatically
with immigrants who have been in the country for years but lack legal status, they say. Its also, importantly, about helping the US
economy continue to prosper in the years ahead. Its an argument that many economists support. In fact, some policy experts say
that welcoming more immigrants with advanced degrees ranks high on the list of ways to boost long-term job
creation. "Improving the system regulating high-skilled immigration needs to be a key focus of any immigration
reform bill," economist Robert Atkinson said Tuesday, in a statement released by the research group he heads, the
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) in Washington. "We cannot continue to fall behind other nations in
attracting the highly skilled individuals to our shores. Separately from the broad immigration-reform proposals, a bipartisan group of senators
economic as well as social.
led by Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah and Amy Klobuchar (D) of Minnesota introduced an Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 bill Tuesday, designed to boost the number of highskill foreign workers. This bill seeks to grant green cards to more holders of advanced science and engineering degrees. It would also nearly double the limit on so-called H-1B
visas, allowing some 115,000 foreigners to hold jobs at US high-tech firms a cap that would adjust up or down based on economic conditions. Critics of the H-1B program see it
as a gift of lower-wage labor to private industry, and say US workers could do those jobs.
Raising High Skilled Worker Visas key to the economy – creates jobs
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Placing a Premium on High-Skilled Labor. Ultimately,
as the U.S. economy continues to recover from the recession, demand
for high-skilled foreign workers will only continue to grow. The U.S. can either implement the reforms needed to ensure that America
welcomes the best and the brightest to its shores, or America can continue leaving it all to chance and bureaucrats in Washington. Raising the cap on H-1B
visas for skilled workers and making non-immigrant visa processing responsive to the needs of the economy
would allow American businesses to expand operations here in the United States, creating more jobs and
higher wages for American workers. Increasing the H-1B cap would also raise significant tax revenue from highly skilled and highly paid workers.[22]
CIR - --Ext – High Skilled Workers Key to Tech Innovation
Immigration key to US competition – high skilled workers key to technology
Singer 2011 - senior fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program [Audrey Gordon F. De Jong, Deborah
Roempke Graefe, Matthew Hall and Audrey Singer, “The Geography of Immigrant Skills: Educational Profiles of Metropolitan Areas”, 6/9/11,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/06/immigrants-singer] LG
Since Congress last debated comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the
United States has experienced the Great Recession and now
faces a slow recovery. Throughout, the highly charged public debate on immigration has focused on illegal
immigration and its costs. Often lost in this discussion is the vital role of immigrants in the U.S. labor market.
Immigrants are now one-in-seven U.S. residents and almost one-in-six workers. They are a significant presence
in various sectors of the economy such as construction and hospitality on the low-skill end, and information
technology and health care on the high-skill end. While border enforcement and illegal immigration are a focal point, longer-term U.S.
global competitiveness rests on the ability of immigrants and their children to thrive economically and to
contribute to the nation’s productivity. Immigrant Skills on the Rise An analysis of skill levels among foreign-born adults in the nation’s 100 largest
metropolitan areas reveals that: The share of working-age immigrants in the United States who have a bachelor’s degree has risen considerably since 1980, and now exceeds
the share without a high school diploma. In 1980, just 19 percent of immigrants aged 25 to 64 held a bachelor’s degree, and nearly 40 percent had not completed high school.
By 2010, 30 percent of working-age immigrants had at least a college degree and 28 percent lacked a high school diploma. Forty-four (44) of the nation’s 100 largest
metropolitan areas are high-skilled immigrant destinations, in which college-educated immigrants outnumber immigrants without high school diplomas by at least 25 percent.
These destinations include large coastal metro areas like San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The 30 low-skill destinations, in which the relative sizes of these immigrant skill
groups are reversed, include many in the border states of the West and Southwest, as well as in the Great Plains. Immigrants’ skill levels vary by metropolitan area due to
historical settlement patterns and economic structures. In former immigration destinations, or “gateways,” with low levels of contemporary immigration such as Detroit, and
re-emerging gateways such as Philadelphia, immigrants have high levels of educational attainment. In established post-World War II immigration gateways such as Houston,
and minor-continuous gateways along the U.S.-Mexico border and in interior California, low-skilled immigrants predominate. Recent immigrants to metro areas with the
fastest-growing immigrant populations have markedly lower educational attainment than immigrants settling elsewhere. Low-skilled immigrants are much more likely to hail
from Mexico, less likely to speak English proficiently, more likely to be male, and less likely to be naturalized U.S. citizens than high-skilled immigrants.
Immigration reform is key to competitiveness – immigrants are key to high tech and
entrepreneurial skills
West 2011 - founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. [Darrell M West,
“Creating a "Brain Gain" for U.S. Employers: The Role of Immigration”, January 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/01/immigration-west] LG
One of the strongest narratives in U.S. history has been the contribution made by talented, hard-working and entrepreneurial immigrants whose skills and knowledge created
a prosperous new country. Yet today,
the nation’s immigration priorities and outmoded visa system discourage skilled immigrants
and hobble the technology-intensive employers who would hire them. These policies work against urgent
national economic priorities, such as boosting economic vitality, achieving greater competitiveness in the
global marketplace and renewing our innovation leadership. In the long term, the nation needs comprehensive
immigration reform. In the short term, policymakers should focus on reforms that are directly related to increasing
the "brain gain" for the nation—creating new jobs and producing economic benefits—to produce tangible and achievable
improvements in our immigration system. Background Immigrants are now one-tenth of the overall U.S. population—a situation that defies facile stereotyping.
Immigrants have made significant contributions to American science and economic enterprise, most notably in
the areas of high-tech and biotech. Immigrants’ productivity raises the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by an estimated $37 billion per year More
than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses launched between 1995 and 2005 had a foreignborn founder In Silicon Valley, more than half of new tech start-up companies were founded by foreignborn owners In 2005, companies founded by immigrants
produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers Nearly a quarter of the international patents filed from the United States in 2006 were based on the work of
foreign-born individuals (more than half of whom received their highest degree from an American university) Economists calculate that, as a result of immigration, 90 percent
of native-born Americans with at least a high-school diploma have seen wage gains Historically,
immigrants have made outsize contributions
to American science and technology, with Albert Einstein perhaps the leading example. One-third of all U.S. winners of Nobel prizes in medicine and
physiology were born in other countries Far from "crowding out" native-born workers and depressing their wages, welleducated, entrepreneurial immigrants do much to create and support employment for Americans. In order to fully reap
the benefits of the worldwide talent market, U.S. immigration policy must be reoriented. Current policy is significantly—and
negatively—affected by the unintended consequences of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that made family
unification its overarching goal. Although the law may have contributed to the high-tech boom by removing long-standing, country-specific quotas and expanding immigration
from places with strong science and engineering education programs, its
main effect was to enable immigrants to bring in family
members, without regard for the new immigrants’ education, skill status or potential contributions to the
economy.
Immigration reform key to the economy – it encourages high skilled technology workers to
immigrate
Morales 2013 - president of California State University, San Bernardino (Tomas D Inland Empire economy needs
comprehensive immigration reform , The Sun,l 20 Apr 2013, ProQuest)
As our congressional members seek agreement on how to revamp the nation's immigration laws, I hope they do so knowing what the higher education and business
communities understand already - the American economy needs immigration reform.
Comprehensive immigration reform, as it is being
proposed by the Senate bipartisan "Gang of Eight," would, in its most basic form, boost border security, offer a pathway
to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already living in the country, create an effective employment verification system, and
remove barriers that make it difficult for American companies to fill jobs that require advanced degrees in the
STEM fields - science, technology, engineering and mathematics. A sweeping overhaul of our broken immigration system, which most
agree does not work in today's globalized society, is a real step toward economic renewal for the U.S. and for the Inland Empire, a
region that has been especially hard hit by the country's economic downturn. A balanced, enforceable and fair
approach to our immigration laws will help lift our sluggish national and local economies - as well as improve
the quality of life in our communities - by creating more jobs, educating our workforce, increasing consumer
spending, and generating more tax revenues. Job Creation: Immigrants are twice as likely as American-born
citizens to start businesses. Nearly a quarter of the businesses started between 2006 and 2012 had at least one immigrant founder. Consider what might happen
if the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the country were able to earn legal status, allowing them the opportunity to become entrepreneurs.
With one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, the Inland Empire desperately needs to create and
attract more businesses and jobs. Encouraging the economic integration of immigrants will stimulate new
businesses and job creation, reducing high unemployment in our region.
Immigration empirically proven to boost economy – it boosts technology start ups
Trumbull 2013 - Staff writer, The Christian Science Monitor (Immigration reform: a bid to attract workers who will boost the
economy, Trumbull, Mark, , 28 June 2013., ProQuest)
Neither Mr. Obama nor the so-called gang of eight senators has crafted a detailed legislative proposal for more
comprehensive reform. But both call for extending an immigration welcome mat to more highly trained people
from other nations. Intel was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here , the
president told an audience in at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas on Tuesday. Instagram was started with the help of an immigrant who
studied here and then stayed here. Right now, in one of those classrooms, theres a student wrestling with how to turn their
big idea, their Intel or Instagram, into a big business. He added that failing to let many of them stay in America after
they graduate is not how you grow new industries in America. Obama called for comprehensive immigration reform with three core parts:
strengthening borders, creating a path toward green cards and possible citizenship for 11 million immigrants now in the US illegally, and bringing the system of legal
The presidents blueprint aligns in some important ways with the
framework unveiled by the bipartisan group of senators, including Sens. Charles Schumer (D) of New York and John McCain (R) of Arizona.
immigration including for high-skill applicants into the 21st century.
Immigration Reform will increase growth by attracting high skilled workers
The National Economic Council July 10, 2013 [“The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” July 10, 2013,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report.pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
Commonsense immigration reform strengthens the overall economy and grows U.S. GDP. Independent studies
affirm that commonsense immigration reform will increase economic growth by adding more high-demand
workers to the labor force, increasing capital investment and overall productivity, and leading to greater
numbers of entrepreneurs starting companies in the U.S. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimated that enacting the Senate immigration reform bill will increase real GDP relative to current law projections by
3.3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 percent in 2033 – an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in
2033 in today’s dollars. The bipartisan Senate bill will increase the labor force by 3.5 percent in 2023 and 5
percent in 2033, according to CBO, which will boost capital investment and lead to increased productivity and
higher overall average wages. Commonsense immigration reform fosters innovation and encourages more job creation and job growth in the U.S. The
bipartisan Senate bill makes meaningful improvements to the existing employment-based green card system
and strengthens the United States’ ability to attract and retain highly-skilled talent from around the world. Recent
studies have shown that immigrants promote productivity and innovation, both directly and indirectly through positive spillover effects on American workers.
CIR - --Ext – High Skilled Workers Key to Deficit
High Skilled workers reduce the deficit – they add billions in tax revenue
Sherk and Nell 2008 – Senior Policy Analyst and research programmer at Heritage [James and
Guinevere, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” The Heritage Foundation, April 30, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/more-h-1b-visas-more-american-jobs-a-better-economy, Accessed July 19, 2013]
More Tax RevenuesRaising the H-1B cap would also increase tax revenues significantly. H-1B
visa holders earn high wages--the average H-1B
worker earned $71,000 in 2007--and pay substantial taxes on those earnings.[9]Chart 1 shows estimates from The Heritage
Foundation's tax model of the total tax revenue[10] the government would receive if Congress increased the H-1B cap to 195,000 workers.[11] This is a conservative estimate of
potential new revenue, considering that it does not account for increased taxes from the higher wages of workers whose skills complement those of the H-1B workers.It should
be noted that increasing the cap to 195,000 visas does not guarantee 130,000 new workers. In some years, all of the visas will be used; in others, the cap will never be
reached.[12] For our estimates, we
used a conservative assumption of an additional 100,000 workers each year. Our in-house tax
the first year, the government would collect nearly $2 billion in added tax
revenue. For the next several years, the annual revenue raised would continue to increase as many current workers
remain and new additional workers take advantage of the program. Annual tax revenues would rise by nearly $10 billion in 2013.
Between 2008 and 2016, the government would collect $36 billion in income taxes and $33 billion in payroll
taxes--a total of $69 billion over eight years.This additional revenue could be used to offset the costs of an
economic stimulus package, or any other new program, or to reduce the deficit.
model projects revenue from these new workers.In
CIR - --AT: Job Trade Off
High Skilled workers don’t trade off with US Workers – they create new jobs
Sherk and Nell 2008 – Senior Policy Analyst and research programmer at Heritage [James and
Guinevere, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” The Heritage Foundation, April 30, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/more-h-1b-visas-more-american-jobs-a-better-economy, Accessed July 19, 2013]
Lifting the Cap Creates American JobsWelcoming more foreigners with advanced skills into the U.S. would create more jobs for Americans. H-1B
visa holders are
often key employees whose skills are necessary for companies to grow.Consider a software firm that needs an additional software
engineer in order to expand its product line. If the company cannot hire a software engineer, not only will it be unable to use
that person's highly specialized skills to expand its product line, but the shortage of skilled workers will prevent
the company from hiring the computer programmers, sales associates, and technical support staff that also
would have been needed in that division.This is not just a theoretical problem. Research shows that technology companies hire five
new workers for each H-1B visa for which they apply.[7] On average, the skills of each highly skilled H-1B worker support the jobs four
Americans. Keeping the H-1B cap at 65,000 comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
CIR - --AT: Hurt Wages
High Skilled workers don’t undermine wages – they create jobs which increases wages
Sherk and Nell 2008 – Senior Policy Analyst and research programmer at Heritage [James and
Guinevere, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” The Heritage Foundation, April 30, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/more-h-1b-visas-more-american-jobs-a-better-economy, Accessed July 19, 2013]
Higher Wages and Greater EqualityMany
American high-tech workers oppose raising the H-1B cap, fearing that increasing
the supply of skilled workers could reduce their wages. When companies cannot hire as many highly skilled workers as they need, competition
drives wages up, so raising the visa cap may indeed cause the wages of some Americans to fall or stagnate.Why, then, should Americans favor higher
numbers of H-1B employees? Because raising the visa cap would increase wages for many more Americans
than would see their wages fall. Since each H-1B worker creates four new American jobs, the demand for such
somewhat less-skilled but necessary workers would raise their wages. The number of workers in the economy whose skills complement
the advanced skills of H-1B workers is far greater than the number of those who compete with them for jobs. Raising the H-1B cap would increase the
demand for the labor of, and thus raise wages for, hundreds of thousands of Americans who are less readily
identifiable but no less real than the software engineers who compete with H-1B workers.
CIR - Key to Economy - Productivity
Immigration reform helps the economy because legal workers are more productive than
underground workers
Munoz, July 2013 – Director of the Domestic Policy Council et al [ Muñoz, Sperling, Krueger, and Mathews Burwell 7-10
[Cecilia, the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Gene, the Director of the National Economic Council, Alan, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Sylvia, the
Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, “The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” The White House Blog, July 10, 2013,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/10/economic-benefits-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system, accessed July 17, 2013]
America has always been a nation of immigrants, and throughout the nation’s history, immigrants from around
the globe have kept our workforce vibrant, our businesses on the cutting edge, and helped to build the greatest
economic engine in the world. However, America’s immigration system is broken and has not kept pace with
changing times. Today, too many employers game the system by hiring undocumented workers and there are 11
million people living and working in the shadow economy. Neither is good for the economy or the country. The
Senate’s Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) represents the
best chance that our country has had in years to modernize our immigration system.
Immigration will benefit the US economy – it raises economic productivity
Nowrasteh 2013 - immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty
and Prosperity, [Alex, “Heritage’s Flawed Immigration Analysis,” The Cato Institute, May 7, 2013, http://www.cato.org/blog/heritages-flawed-immigrationanalysis, accessed July 16, 2013]
In the Washington Post today, Jim DeMint and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation invoke the free-market pantheon in arguing their anti-immigration stance: “The
They’re halfway right about that.
What Friedman actually said was that immigration is “a good thing for the United States…so long as it’s
illegal.” He meant that open immigration is highly beneficial to the economy, provided those productive but
inexpensive laborers do not have access to welfare. Friedman later wrote that, “There is no doubt that free and open
immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state.” Friedman’s problem was with the welfare state, not immigration. His remarks are
economist Milton Friedman warned that the United States cannot have open borders and an extensive welfare state.”
fundamentally at odds with the position Heritage is trying to argue. It’s not the first time that I’ve questioned the free-market credentials of my friends at Heritage lately, and
that’s making me sad. On Monday, Heritage released a new study entitled “The Fiscal Cost of unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer” by Robert Rector and
Jason Richwine, PhD. I criticized an earlier version of this report in 2007, arguing that their methodology was so flawed that one cannot take their report’s conclusions
seriously. Unfortunately, their updated version differs little from their earlier one. I’m joined in this view by a host of prominent free-marketeers. Jim Pethokoukis at AEI,
Doug Holtz-Eakin at American Action Forum, Tim Kane at the Hudson Institute, and others have all denounced the fundamentals of the Heritage report. The new Heritage
report is still depressingly static, leading to a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue.
It explicitly
refuses to consider the GDP growth and economic productivity gains from immigration reform—factors that
increase native-born American incomes. An overlooked flaw is that the study doesn’t even score the specific immigration reform proposal in the Senate.
Its flawed methodology and lack of relevancy to the current immigration reform proposal relegate this study to irrelevancy. Even worse, the Heritage study recommends a
Because the majority of unlawful immigrants come to the U.S. for
jobs, serious enforcement of the ban on hiring unlawful labor would substan-tially reduce the employment of
unlawful aliens and encourage many to leave the U.S. Reducing the number of unlawful immigrants in the
nation and limiting the future flow of unlawful immigrants would also reduce future costs to the taxpayer.
“solution” to the fiscal problems it supposedly finds. It suggests:
Professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda of UCLA wrote a paper for Cato last year where he employed a dynamic model called the GMig2 to study comprehensive immigration reform’s
impact on the U.S. economy. He
found that immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by $1.5 trillion in the ten years
after enactment. Professor Hinojosa-Ojeda then ran a simulation examining the economic impact of the policy
favored by Heritage: the removal or exit of all unauthorized immigrants. The economic result would be a $2.6
trillion decrease in estimated GDP growth over the next decade. That confirms the common-sense observation that removing workers,
consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs from America’s economy will make us poorer. Would decreasing economic growth by $2.6 trillion
over the next ten years have a negative impact on the fiscal condition of the U.S.? You betcha. Do the authors consider the fiscal
impact of their preferred immigration policy? Nope.
Immigration reform helps the economy – fills labor shortages
White, July 13, 2013 - columnist for the Des Moines Register, [Mark Iowa View: 'Gang of Eight' immigration proposal is a
good idea for allhttp://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130713/OPINION01/307130047/Iowa-View-Gang-Eight-immigration-proposal-good-idea-all)
In the past 27 years we have witnessed unprecedented economic change, advancements in science and technology, growth in global interdependency and a historically long
period of neglect of our immigration policy. The result is a severely disabled immigration policy, particularly the legal immigration processes. It is a system so woefully broken
that it interferes with the daily functioning of our economy and enforcement of minimal immigration laws. These
circumstances have spurred the
development of the “Gang of Eight” proposal. Regardless of its final details, its foundation represents the most
comprehensive immigration reform effort in the nation’s history. It provides specific funding for reform of visa
issuance, visa allocation and immigration law enforcement. It expands legal immigration and clarifies the
classifications and rules, making citizenship a realistic goal while reducing incentives to immigrate illegally. On
the regulatory side, it clarifies and simplifies employer regulation and mitigates the enforcement bias against small
employers. Economically, it modernizes our work visa program to enable freer labor movement, minimizes
labor market distortion, creates a mechanism to address labor shortages in critical markets and implements
reforms aimed to address abuse in the current law.
Immigration reform is key to competitiveness – it is key to efficiently placing workers in jobs
Bloomberg 2013 [Alex Kowalskim- Staff, “Immigrants With Right Skills Ride U.S. Hiring Wave: Economy”, 2/19/13, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201302-19/all-the-right-skills-immigrants-ride-u-s-hiring-wave-economy.html] LG]
The labor market is healing faster for immigrants than for U.S.-born workers as the growing economy favors
those at the low and high ends of the pay scale. Joblessness among those born outside the U.S. averaged 8.1
percent in 2012, down from 9.7 percent three years earlier, according to Labor Department data released to
Bloomberg. In the same period, the rate among those born in the country fell to 8.1 percent from 9.2 percent .
Working immigrants, who are more likely than native-born Americans to either lack a high school diploma or to hold an advanced degree, have gained from a decades-long
divergence in the labor market that has swelled demand for jobs paying above- and below-average wages. Amid
this dynamic, the battle over
comprehensive changes in immigration law is coming to the forefront in Congress. Foreign-born workers
“increase efficiency in the economy, and by increasing efficiency, they eliminate bottlenecks,” said Pia Orrenius, a
senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas who has studied immigration. Their availability “lowers overall
unemployment, and increases economic growth.” From 2009 through 2012, the number of immigrants
employed in the U.S. rose 6.5 percent to 23 million, compared with a 1 percent gain to 119.5 million for those
born in the U.S., Labor Department data show. Shares Climb A strengthening economy, along with better than
forecast corporate earnings and improving global growth, sent U.S. stocks higher . The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index climbed 0.4
percent to 1,525.84 at 10:22 a.m. in New York. The gauge has been up for seven consecutive weeks, leaving it near its highest level since October 2007. In a sign
Europe’s largest economy is rebounding, a report showed German investor confidence jumped more than
economists forecast in February to the highest in almost three years. The data from the U.S. Labor Department also showed
immigrants experienced job growth in 13 of 14 occupational categories tracked, according to data compiled by Bloomberg . U.S-born workers saw growth in
nine. Underlying those figures, immigrants’ gains during the past three years were concentrated in low- and
high-paying categories that range from health care to management. Only in manufacturing did those born in
the U.S. see bigger gains than their foreign counterparts.
CIR - Key to Economy – Job Creation
Immigration reform will boost the economy – immigrants start new small businesses
The National Economic Council July 10, 2013 [“The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” July 10, 2013,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report.pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, immigrant-owned small businesses generated a total of $776 billion in
receipts and employed an estimated 4.7 million people in 2007. The Partnership for a New American Economy found that immigrants
started 28 percent of all new U.S. businesses, despite accounting for only 13 percent of the U.S. population in
2011. Notably, more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of
immigrants. These American companies represent 7 of the 10 most valuable brands globally, collectively
employ more than 10 million people and generate annual revenue of $4.2 trillion. The Senate bill creates a new Startup
or INVEST visa that helps foreign entrepreneurs build their businesses in the U.S. by creating a temporary visa
and a permanent green card option, as well the potential for permanent resident status for those entrepreneurs
whose companies create jobs for American workers. Commonsense immigration reform increases the productivity of
workers and adds new protections for American workers. According to CBO and other independent studies, immigration reform will increase
overall U.S. productivity, resulting in higher GDP and higher wages. The bipartisan Senate bill also provides a host of protections for American workers and ensures that new
worksite enforcement and border security measures deter future illegal immigration.
Immigration reform helps the economy – it rescues Social Security and increases Job Creation
Foroohar , 2013 - Deputy Editor in charge of economics for Newsweek, [Rana The opponents of immigration reform
are hampering the economy--and hurting all of us http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2147289-1,00.html)
In a May 8 letter to Senator Marco Rubio outlining the possible effects of the immigration-reform bill, Stephen Coss, chief actuary at the Social Security Administration, wrote,
"We
estimate a significant increase in both the population and the number of workers paying taxes in the
United States as a result of these changes in legal immigration limits." Immigration reform would increase
Social Security revenue by $300 billion over 10 years. The CBO forecasts that it would also reduce the federal
deficit by $685 billion over the same time period. And the liberal think tank Center for American Progress estimates that
legalizing the 11 million undocumented workers living in the U.S. would add $1.5 trillion to the economy over
10 years. Plus, immigrants punch above their weight in growth creation. They are more than twice as likely to
start businesses as their native-born counterparts. They are responsible for over a quarter of all new business formation-and new businesses have been the only source of net job creation in this country for the past 30 years . What's more,
IMMIGRANTS TEND TO LAUNCH THEIR VENTURES IN PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT AREAS; they have founded a disproportionate number of export businesses, which
tend to create more and higher-paying jobs, and often locate their firms in economically beleaguered areas, where new jobs are needed the most.
Immigration reform boosts the economy – it creates jobs
Pittsburg Post-Gazette, 2013
(Pittsburgh Post – Gazette, PITTSBURGH NEEDS IMMIGRATION REFORM IMMIGRANTS CREATE JOBS AND
STIMULATE THE REGIONAL ECONOMY, Gabe Morgan / Barbara McNees. ProQuest, 31 May 2013)
Last month marked a huge victory in the fight for commonsense immigration reform. The Senate Judiciary Committee sent
a comprehensive
immigration bill to the full Senate, one that is worthy of our values as a nation committed to freedom, entrepreneurship and diversity. Senate action
cannot come soon enough. Our outdated immigration system is long-overdue for reforms that meet today's labor force needs. It encourages the exploitation of low-skilled
immigrants while creating barriers for their high-skilled counterparts. Many
businesses, after giving up on the cumbersome immigration
process, risk serious penalties for hiring undocumented workers. Many of the highly skilled, job-creating
immigrants our region needs return to their home countries because of how hard it is to stay. Thanks to the growing
sectors of advanced manufacturing, energy, financial services, health and life sciences and information technology, Pittsburgh is in the middle of an economic rebound that
may become the envy of cities across the nation. To maintain and increase the economic vitality of our region, we need more people and we need to put them to work. Former
British Prime Minister Tony Blair once said, "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in ... And how many want out." The same can be said for
U.S. metro regions. There
is a strong correlation between the economic growth of metro regions and their immigrant
populations. Immigrants breathe new life into urban areas. Our region's business, civic and academic communities recognize this and are
making a concerted effort to attract more immigrants to the region. The Senate bill would revamp the immigration system for the
highly skilled and provide a pathway to citizenship for 2.1 million young people who came to this country as
children. This could add $1.5 trillion to U.S. gross domestic product over the next 10 years and create nearly a million
jobs. Nationally, immigrants contribute $700 billion to the economy per year. In 2011, immigrant entrepreneurs
started one of four new U.S. businesses and employed one of 10 people working for private companies . In
Pennsylvania, 9.1 percent of small business owners are immigrants.
Current Immigration regulations make starting a business nearly impossible
Appleton, 2013 - social issues writer at Forbes [Kelly VCs To Congress: U.S. Immigration Policies Are Hurting Startup Communities,
Economy http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyappleton/2013/06/27/vcs-to-congress-u-s-immigration-policies-are-hurting-startup-communities-economy/)
As Congress kicks around immigration reform, Silicon Valley is speaking up. In
a recent National Venture Capital Association survey 74%
of respondents said that current laws hurt U.S. competitiveness. Nearly four in five believe it’s too hard for the
newly arrived to start a business in the U.S. Here’s the argument for granting more H-1B visas. One-third of
American VC-backed companies that have gone public in the last six years have at least one foreign-born
founder (examples:Facebook,LinkedIn, ZipCar and Tesla Motors). Once they get here, immigrant-led companies deliver: Those IPO’ed, VC-backed firms had a recent total
market cap of $900 billion.
CIR - Key to Economy - Wages
Immigration reform helps the economy – consensus of economists agree it creates jobs,
improves wages and lowers the deficit
Fitz and Wolgin, July 11 2013—Director of Immigration Policy and Senior Policy Analyst for
Immigration at the Center for American Progress [Marshall and Philip E., “The Top 4 Reality-Defying Arguments against
Immigration Reform”, Center for American Progress, 7/11/2013, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/07/11/69282/the-top-4-reality-defyingarguments-against-immigration-reform/, accessed 7/16/2013]
Myth No. 2: Immigration reform will harm working-class and middle-class Americans. Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard and Fred Bauer of the National Review—not
inconsequentially, both are writers for the very same magazines as Kristol and Lowry—in a pair of columns published on Monday, dredge up many of the misguided arguments
that The Heritage Foundation has been pushing for months about immigrants being uniformly lesser-skilled workers who hurt the wages of lesser-skilled Americans.
Fact: The reality is that economists
have repeatedly found that immigrants do not bring down the wages of lesser-skilled
Americans and instead find that immigrants actually have small but positive effects on native workers’ wages and
job prospects. These positive effects arise because immigrants tend to complement, rather than compete with,
native workers; are consumers who spend money in the economy, stimulating business demand; and are
entrepreneurial, starting businesses and helping to employ American workers. Cost and Bauer also fail to take into account the
fact that immigration reform itself will improve the American economy, creating jobs and prosperity for all
Americans. Studies have found that legalized workers earn higher wages, which in turn means they pay more in taxes. These higher wages circulate through the
economy: Providing legal status to the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country would create 121,000
jobs each year, raise the wages of all Americans by $470 billion, and increase our gross domestic product by a
cumulative $832 billion over a decade. Legalizing immigrants would also support the solvency of the Social Security system during its period of greatest
strain over the next three-and-a-half decades, as the Baby Boomers—America’s largest generation—retire and begin to claim their benefits. During this period
newly legalized immigrants would add a total of $606 billion to the system, supporting 2.4 million American
retirees. Finally, as the Congressional Budget Office points out, S. 744 would also go far in reducing the deficit, saving $158 billion
over the first decade and $685 billion over the second decade.
Immigration Reform helps the economy—increased wages for people and starts new businesses
Council on Foreign Relations, 2013 [“White House Report: The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” July 11, 2013,
http://www.cfr.org/immigration/white-house-report-economic-benefits-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system/p31083, accessed July 17, 2013]
Commonsense immigration reform strengthens the overall economy and grows U.S. GDP. Independent studies
affirm that commonsense immigration reform will increase economic growth by adding more high-demand
workers to the labor force, increasing capital investment and overall productivity, and leading to greater
numbers of entrepreneurs starting companies in the U.S. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimated that enacting the Senate immigration reform bill will increase real GDP relative to current law
projections by 3.3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 percent in 2033 – an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and
$1.4 trillion in 2033 in today's dollars. The bipartisan Senate bill will increase the labor force by 3.5 percent in
2023 and 5 percent in 2033, according to CBO, which will boost capital investment and lead to increased productivity and higher overall average wages.
Commonsense immigration reform fosters innovation and encourages more job creation and job growth in the
U.S. The bipartisan Senate bill makes meaningful improvements to the existing employment-based green card
system and strengthens the United States' ability to attract and retain highly-skilled talent from around the
world. Recent studies have shown that immigrants promote productivity and innovation, both directly and indirectly
through positive spillover effects on American workers. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, immigrantowned small businesses generated a total of $776 billion in receipts and employed an estimated 4.7 million
people in 2007. The Partnership for a New American Economy found that immigrants started 28 percent of all
new U.S. businesses, despite accounting for only 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2011. Notably, more than 40
percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. These American
companies represent 7 of the 10 most valuable brands globally, collectively employ more than 10 million people
and generate annual revenue of $4.2 trillion. The Senate bill creates a new Startup or INVEST visa that helps foreign
entrepreneurs build their businesses in the U.S. by creating a temporary visa and a permanent green card
option, as well the potential for permanent resident status for those entrepreneurs whose companies create jobs for American workers.
CIR - Key to Economy – Low Skilled Workers
Low skilled immigrants key to economy – they fill needed jobs
Zavodny and Jacoby June 2013- Professor of economics at Agnes Scott College, Adjunct
Scholar, American Enterprise Institute [Madeline and Tamar, “Filling the Gap: Less skilled Immigration in a Changing Economy,” American
Enterprise Institute and Immigration Works USA, June 2013, http://www.aei.org/files/2013/06/10/-zavodny-filling-the-gap-immigration-report_140631709214.pdf,
Accessed July 17, 2013]
an Essential
workforce. low-skilled immigrants, many of them unauthorized, meet a vital need for employers in
a broad spectrum of essential industries. Immigrants rarely compete with Americans. They bring different
strengths and skills. Most of the jobs they do cannot be automated. Most cannot be moved offshore. And many
of the jobs held by immigrants support and create jobs for American workers. low-skilled immigrants
contribute to economic growth by relocating to booming areas that need workers. They free up Americans to work in better jobs
using their comparative advantage in communications and management . Immigrants available to fill jobs as house cleaners, gardeners
and nannies have allowed millions of American women to work outside the home. low-skilled immigration
reduces the prices of the goods and services consumed by Americans. And it preserves American jobs by slowing the
movement of companies and operations overseas. implications for policy. despite the economic benefits of low-skilled immigration, the United States makes it extremely
difficult for less-skilled foreigners to enter the country to work. Creating
a workable legal path for them to enter the U.S. and fill jobs
when there are no willing and able Americans would have significant benefits for the workers, their employers
and the rest of the nation – for economic reasons but also because of what it would do to restore the rule of law. As the U.S. economy becomes more
technology-intensive, there is less demand for low-skilled workers. but there will always be some need, and there are increasingly few
Americans available to meet it. Educational attainment, comparative advantage, physical stamina and
geographic mobility position low-skilled immigrant workers to fill this critical gap. Surely it’s only common
sense to create a way for them to enter the country legally.
CIR - Key to Economy – Consumer Spending
Immigration increases the economy – increased domestic consumer spending
Davidson 13, writer for the New York Times (Adam Davidson, “Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?” The New York
Time, 2/12/13, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Accessed 7/17/13)
Earlier that day, I was reminded of another seldom-discussed fact about immigrant life in the United States.
Immigrants spend most of the money they make. Chan had broken down his monthly expenses: $400 a month in rent, another $30 or so for gas,
electric and Internet. He sends some money home and tries to save a few thousand a year in his Citibank account, but
he ends up spending more than $10,000 annually. That includes the $1,400 or so he pays the I.R.S. so that he can have a taxpayer I.D. number,
which allows him to have a credit score so that he can rent an apartment or lease a car.
Immigration reform solves the economy – it adds jobs and tax revenue, and immigrants
increase consumer spending
Fitz 2013 —Director of Immigration Policy, at the Center for American Progress [Marshall Fitz, Philip E.
Wolgin, and Patrick Oakton, “Immigrants Are Makers, Not Takers”, Center for American Progress, 2/8/13,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers/, accessed 7/17/13]
Mainstream economists
have thoroughly debunked this general stereotype of immigrants as takers, finding that
immigrants are a net positive for the economy and pay more into the system than they take out. In fact, immigrants’
contributions have also played a key role in prolonging the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. And the truth
is that the cost-benefit analyses that immigration restrictionists have used to make their wild cost projections simply are not well-rounded or accurate. Immigrants
are in fact “makers,” not takers. Below, we demonstrate the clear evidence that proves this point and shoots down some of the recycled claims about the cost
of immigrants to the United States. Immigrants are a net positive to the economy Here are just a few examples of how immigrants pay more into the U.S. economy than they
take out. Large GDP gains and tax revenue from legalization Research by UCLA Professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda
shows that legalizing our nation’s undocumented
our legal immigration system would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to U.S. GDP over a
decade. These big gains occur because legalized workers earn higher wages than undocumented workers, and they use those
wages to buy things such as houses, cars, phones, and clothing. As more money flows through the U.S. economy, businesses
grow to meet the demand for more goods and services, and more jobs and economic value are created. HinojosaOjeda found that the tax benefits alone from legalization would be between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion in the first
three years. Big economic boost from the DREAM Act Research by Notre Dame economists Juan Carlos Guzmán and Raúl Jara finds that passing the DREAM
Act would add $329 billion to the U.S. economy by 2030. The DREAM Act provides a double boost to the
economy: First, DREAMers will be able to work legally (generally at higher wages), and second, because of the
requirements to complete high school and some college or military service, they will have more education and training,
which translates into better and higher-paying jobs. All of these extra wages circulate through the economy,
supporting new job creation for the native born as well. Naturalized citizens earn even more A large body of literature illustrates that
naturalized citizens are more economically beneficial than even legal permanent residents . In the United States the
University of Southern California’s Manuel Pastor estimated that naturalized citizens earn between 8 percent and 11 percent higher
wages after naturalization. Pastor concludes that if even half of those who are currently eligible—the Department of Homeland
Security estimates that there are more than 8.5 million people in this category—became citizens, it would add between $21 billion and $45
billion to the U.S. economy over five years. Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes Immigrants—even the undocumented—pay a
significant amount of money in taxes each year. A 2011 study by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy found that undocumented
immigrants paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2010 alone, adding a significant amount of money to help
state and local finances. It is important to note that immigrants—even legal immigrants—are barred from most social services, meaning that they pay to support
benefits they cannot receive. Immigrants help keep Social Security solvent According to the National Foundation for American Policy,
immigrants will add a net of $611 billion to the Social Security system over the next 75 years. Immigrants are a
key driver of keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent, and Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy finds that
immigrant population and reforming
cutting off immigration to the country would increase the size of the Social Security deficit by 31 percent over 50 years. Snapshot accounting leads to faulty conclusions
Immigrants are a Net Benefit to the economy – their consumer spending far outweighs job
losses.
Nowrasteh 2013 - immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty
and Prosperity, [Alex, “Deporting Customers Hurts the Economy,” The Cato Institute, June 24, 2013, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/deportingcustomers-hurts-economy, accessed July 16, 2013]
Immigration is mainly about economics. Immigrants are drawn to America’s economic prosperity, and many
U.S.-born are anxious that immigrants will somehow ruin it once they arrive. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) went
so far as to say the current immigration reform bill before the Senate would “take jobs and pay from U.S.
workers.” Those critics of immigration forget that immigrants aren’t just workers, they are also consumers of
products made by Americans.
Hispanic and Asian Americans have around $1.9 trillion in annual purchasing power — about 16 percent of total purchasing
power, according to a recent report from the Selig Center of Economic Growth from the University of Georgia. Hispanic
and Asian immigrants have
dominated both lawful and unlawful immigration in recent decades, while their Americanized descendants are
responsible for much of American population growth. Without that $1.9 trillion in purchasing power,
Americans will have lower wages and fewer employment opportunities. Immigrants and their descendants did
not take that $1.9 trillion in wealth from Americans — they made it by working, creating businesses, and making
the goods and services that people want to buy. In turn, they spend much of it here. “ Immigrants contribute to the U.S.
economy and create wealth, and ample numbers of them should be allowed to legally come, work, and remain.”
Some critics will say, “But I see immigrants shopping at immigrant owned stores. That doesn’t help Americans.” It actually does. The American economy is so
interconnected that even if immigrants mostly buy from immigrant owned businesses, U.S.-born Americans
still benefit. Take agriculture as an example. In some states, most agricultural workers are immigrants — most of them illegal.
More lower-skilled immigrant workers allow farmers to plant more food of a greater variety, which
reverberates up and down the chain of production. Truck drivers, mechanics, agronomists, and others see their
incomes rise and employment opportunities multiply when farmers increase production because of more
immigrant workers. Best of all, American consumers get more food at a lower price, freeing up income for
spending elsewhere. But immigrants also buy goods that they had a hand in producing. From groceries to cell phone
contracts to gasoline, immigrants buy goods and services at least partly produced by Americans. Unless immigrants
only buy goods and services produced by other immigrants at every stage of production, which is practically
impossible in our economy, many Americans end up selling their products to immigrants. Critics will also say,
“Immigrants send billions of dollars to their home countries. That makes us poorer!” Also not true . The wealth that those dollars represent would
not have been created in the first place without immigrants working here. Immigrants can’t send all of their
money overseas, otherwise how would they live?
Citizenship helps the economy by increasing consumption – their evidence oversimplifies
immigration
Peri 2013 – prof of Economics at UC Davis (Peri, Giovanni. Intereconomics,(May 2013): 191-192., The economic consequences of the
proposed immigration reform, ProQuest,)
Debates about the economic and fiscal impact of immigrants typically oversimplify the role that immigrants
play in our economy. But the impact that immigrants (or any cohort for that matter) have on the economy is multifaceted
and complex. Immigrants are not just workers; they are also consumers and taxpayers . The effects of their labor and
consumption on economic growth and fiscal health must be factored in as we consider how to address the situation of a large undocumented workforce. This section examines
the economic and fiscal impact immigrants-documented and undocumented-currently make in Arizona. To understand the full potential impact of changes to immigration
policy at the state and local levels, this paper also examines the impact immigrants currently make in California and Los Angeles County, the state and county with the largest
immigrant populations in the country. As of 2008, immigrants accounted for 27.1 percent of the population in California, 35.5 percent in Los Angeles County, and nearly 15
percent in Arizona's population. Undocumented immigrants alone accounted for 7.4 percent of California's population, 10.2 percent of Los Angeles County's, and 7 percent of
Arizona's (Davila, Pagan, and Grau 1998; Phillips and Massey 1999; Orrenius and Zavodney 2003). Given
that immigrants are predominantly
drawn to the United States in search of improved economic opportunity, large numbers of these immigrants
are in the workforce. That, in turn, means they also contribute significantly to the local economies. In terms of
2008 gross product (the total value added by workers of goods and services produced in the considered area), immigrant workers added $492
billion to California, $177 billion to Los Angeles County, and $47.1 billion to Arizona. The undocumented workforce by itself
added $158 billion to California's gross product, $59 billion to Los Angeles County's, and $23.5 billion to Arizona's.
CIR - Key to Economy – Real Estate
Immigration reform is key to the housing market—spurs economic growth—statistics prove
Fitz and Oakford, July 12, 2013—Director of Immigration Policy and Research Leader on the
Immigration Policy teams at the Center for American progress [Marshall and Patrick, “The Price of Inaction on
Immigration Reform is Too High”, Center for American Progress, July 12, 2013, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/07/12/69398/the-priceof-inaction-on-immigration-reform-is-too-high/, accessed 7/16/13]
In addition to pushing immigrants into an underground economy, our
broken immigration system has kept millions of people from fully
participating in their local communities and economies. This is perhaps most evident in the context of the housing
market. Research by the Pew Hispanic Center found that just 35 percent of unauthorized immigrant households owned their own
homes, compared to the 66 percent of naturalized-citizen homeowners. This low rate of homeownership among
undocumented immigrants is not surprising, given that 18 percent of them move each year either out of fear of
deportation or an inability to find stable jobs because of their lack of status, compared to just 10 percent of immigrants with legal
status. Over the past two decades, immigrants have contributed significantly to the health of our country’s
housing market. Between 2000 and 2010 immigrants accounted for 40 percent of the growth in
homeownership, and this trend is projected to continue through the next decade. But local communities stand to benefit significantly
more if the purchasing power of undocumented immigrants is unleashed through reform that normalizes their
immigration status. Simply put, our broken immigration system stifles immigrants’ natural tendency to
purchase homes and contribute to our economy. Rebounding housing markets—specifically, increased homeownership—is
crucial to local communities’ recovery from the Great Recession. At the most basic level, homebuyers spur
economic growth through all of the transactions and consumption associated with their purchases. The National
Association of Realtors estimates that an average of $60,000 is spent in associated purchases—for example, the cost of movers—when a home is bought. In addition to the
consumption associated with buying a home, research has found that immigrant
homeownership increases the property values of all
homeowners and subsequently leads to greater property tax revenues for communities. All homeowners win when home
prices rise. If undocumented immigrants were provided legal status and were able to become full members of our society, many of
them would decide to purchase homes, similar to their legal counterparts. This would mean that immigrants would settle
down in communities all across the country, buy homes, and invest in their communities, contributing greatly
to local economies. Last month the Senate took a giant step toward reaping the economic benefits of
immigration reform. The potential to add billions of dollars to our economy should in and of itself be sufficient
motivation to spur the House of Representatives to act. But if not, the House at a minimum must understand
that a vote for the status quo is a vote for continuing the financial losses that burden our country.
Immigration key to economy – they generate billions in Real Estate
Nowrasteh 2013 - immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty
and Prosperity, [Alex, “Deporting Customers Hurts the Economy,” The Cato Institute, June 24, 2013, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/deportingcustomers-hurts-economy, accessed July 16, 2013]
But the economic benefits go beyond goods and services. Immigrants, for example, demand
an enormous amount of real estate. Whether
through renting apartments or buying houses, immigrants pay a lot to landowners, who are overwhelmingly
American citizens. Those American landlords and homeowners then see the value of their property increase.
Removing immigrants would therefore lower the value of real estate — understood to be one of the biggest drivers of long-term wealth of any sector. During the
housing bust, Arizona passed two laws that forced businesses and the police to target unlawful immigrants. As
a result, around 200,000 of them left the state, mainly from the Phoenix area, and took their purchasing power
with them. The jobs they left behind in construction and agriculture remained unfilled along with their vacated
apartments and houses. In the six years after April 2006, the home price index for the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the nation declined by 32.9 percent. In
the Phoenix area, the price index declined by a whopping 51.29 percent. The housing bust, caused by myriad
other factors, was exacerbated in Phoenix by forcing 200,000 consumers of real estate out of the region. After
those laws were passed, home and rental vacancy rates in Arizona were consistently above those in California
and New Mexico. Years after the Arizona laws were passed, Albuquerque and Los Angeles recorded vacancy rates that were 50
to 75 percent lower than those prevailing in Phoenix. For our service economy, where the most valuable asset
many Americans own is their home, importing more consumers will be a blessing while removing the ones here
will be a curse.
CIR - Key to Economy – On Balance
Immigration reform key to the economy – it controls all of their internal links to decline –
immigration solves All Other economic troubles.
Klein 2013 – Washington Post writer (Worried about the economy? Then pass immigration reform., Klein, Ezra., He is currently a blogger and
columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC, 02 Feb 2013, The Washington Post , ProQuest)
But consider a few facts about immigrants in the American economy, as compiled by the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution: About
a tenth of the U.S.
population is foreign-born. More than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses started from
1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all tech start-ups had a foreign-born founder. One-quarter of all U.S.based Nobel laureates of the past 50 years were foreign-born. Right now, about half of the PhDs working in science and technology are foreignborn. Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts, and
while there are disputes about the effect immigrants have on the wages of low-income Americans, there's little
dispute about their effect on wages overall: They lift them. The economic case for immigration is best made by
way of analogy. Everyone agrees that aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble; this, for example, is a
thoroughly conventional view of Japan. It's even conventional wisdom about the U nited States. The retirement of the baby
boomers is correctly understood as an economic challenge. The ratio of working Americans to retirees will fall
from 5 to 1 today to 3 to 1 in 2050. Fewer workers and more retirees is tough on any economy. There's nothing
controversial about that analysis. But if that's not controversial, then immigration shouldn't be, either. Immigration
is essentially the importation of new workers. It's akin to raising the birth rate, only easier, because most of the newcomers are old enough to work.
And because living in the United States is considered such a blessing that even very skilled, very industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries to come here,
the United States has an unusual amount to gain from immigration. When it comes to the global draft for talent, we
almost always get the first-round picks - at least, if we want them, and if we make it relatively easy for them to come here. From the vantage of naked
self-interest, the wonder isn't that we might fix our broken immigration system. It's that we might not. Few economic problems wouldn't be
improved by more immigration. If you're worried about deficits, more young, healthy workers paying into
Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If you're concerned about the slowdown in new company
formation and its attendant effects on economic growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If
you're worried about the dearth of science and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born
students is the most obvious solution. Politicians of both parties recognize this. "Our goal is to advance policies that make a difference in peoples' lives,
and that means we want to advance pro-growth reforms that are good for the economy," Republican Rep. Paul Ryan said at a recent Wall Street Journal breakfast. The first
pro-growth reform he named? Immigration.
CIR - Key to Economy - Solves Deficit
Immigration reform would decrease the deficit – it adds tax revenue and spurs growth which
expands the tax base
Council on Foreign Relations, 2013 [“White House Report: The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” July 11, 2013,
http://www.cfr.org/immigration/white-house-report-economic-benefits-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system/p31083, accessed July 17, 2013]
Commonsense immigration reform would reduce the federal deficit, balance out an aging population, and
strengthen Social Security. According to CBO, the additional taxes paid by new and legalizing immigrants would much
more than offset the estimated costs of the bill-- enacting the bill would actually improve the federal budget outlook in both the shortand long-term. Additional immigration would help balance out an increase in retirees-per-worker as the baby boom generation
retires, providing essential financial support for U.S. social insurance programs. CBO found that the enacting the
Senate immigration reform bill will reduce the federal budget deficit by nearly $850 billion over the next 20
years. Based on CBO's analysis of the bill's budgetary and economic effects, enacting the Senate bill would reduce the federal debt as a
share of the economy by three percentage points in 2023, relative to current law. The independent SSA Actuary estimates that
the Senate's immigration reform bill will add nearly $300 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund over the
next decade and would improve Social Security's finances over the long run,extending Social Security solvency
by two years. Comprehensive immigration reform will contribute to our housing market recovery and strengthen the technology, agriculture, and tourism industries,
among others. In addition to the benefits described above – increasing total economic growth, boosting worker
productivity, increasing innovation, and strengthening our fiscal health – the bipartisan Senate bill would
bring specific benefits to a range of economic sectors. A recent study from the Americas Society/Council for the Americas and Partnership for a
New American Economy found that the 40 million immigrants currently in the U.S. have created $3.7 trillion in housing
wealth. According to a USDA simulation of a similar policy, an expanded agriculture temporary-worker program, would increase long-run agricultural output by between
0.2 percent and 2.0 percent, depending on the crop, and wouldincrease agricultural exports by between 0.2 percent and 3.2 percent. Travel and tourism
comprise the largest service-export industry in the U.S., setting a record $165.6 billion in exports and
supporting 7.8 million jobs in 2012, according to the International Trade Administration. The industries' continued growth
depends on America's ability to compete with other countries for international tourists (particularly those from emerging economies), which the Senate bill aims to do through
numerous provisions that will facilitate increased travel and tourism to the United States while simultaneously strengthening our national security.
Immigration reform solves the deficit – it moderates an aging population and increases tax
revenue
The National Economic Council July 10, 2013 [“The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” July 10, 2013,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report.pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
Commonsense immigration reform would reduce the federal deficit, balance out an aging population, and
strengthen Social Security. According to CBO, the additional taxes paid by new and legalizing immigrants
would much more than offset the estimated costs of the bill-- enacting the bill would actually improve the
federal budget outlook in both the short- and long-term. Additional immigration would help balance out an increase in retireesper-worker as the baby boom generation retires, providing essential financial support for U.S. social insurance
programs. CBO found that the enacting the Senate immigration reform bill will reduce the federal budget deficit by
nearly $850 billion over the next 20 years. Based on CBO’s analysis of the bill’s budgetary and economic effects, enacting the Senate bill
would reduce the federal debt as a share of the economy by three percentage points in 2023, relative to current
law. The independent SSA Actuary estimates that the Senate’s immigration reform bill will add nearly $300 billion to the Social Security
Trust Fund over the next decade and would improve Social Security’s finances over the long run, extending
Social Security solvency by two years. Comprehensive immigration reform will contribute to our housing market
recovery and strengthen the technology, agriculture, and tourism industries, among others. In addition to the benefits
described above – increasing total economic growth, boosting worker productivity, increasing innovation, and strengthening our fiscal
health – the bipartisan Senate bill would bring specific benefits to a range of economic sectors. A recent study from the
Americas Society/Council for the Americas and Partnership for a New American Economy found that the 40 million immigrants
currently in the U.S. have created $3.7 trillion in housing wealth.
Immigration reform reduces the deficit by increasing worker productivity
Economist 2013 [ “The US-Mexico border Secure enough,” 6-22-13, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21579828-spending-billions-more-fencesand-drones-will-do-more-harm-good-secure-enough, Date Accessed 7-18-12]
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), released on June 18th, makes a broader point. It forecasts that the Senate
immigration bill would reduce the federal budget deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and $700 billion
over the decade after that. By bringing illegal workers into the mainstream and allowing more visas for
newcomers, both skilled and unskilled, it would raise American output and productivity. The CBO predicts that the
economy would be 5.4% bigger in 2033 because of the bill, and that average wages would be slightly higher.
Immigration reform increases economic growth – increases high skilled workers, and
decreases debt
Brooks July 12, 2013 - The New York Times columnist (David. “Pass The Bill!”. The New York Times. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
After all, the
Senate bill fulfills the four biggest conservative objectives. Conservatives say they want economic growth. The Senate
immigration bill is the biggest pro-growth item on the agenda today. Based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the
Senate bill would increase the gross domestic product by 3.3 percent by 2023 and by 5.4 percent by 2033. A
separate study by the American Action Forum found that it would increase per capita income by $1,700 after 10 years. Conservatives say
they want to bring down debt. According to government estimates, the Senate bill would reduce federal deficits by up to $850 billion
over the next 20 years. The Senate bill reduces the 75-year Social Security fund shortfall by half-a-trillion
dollars. Conservatives say they want to reduce illegal immigration. The Senate bill spends huge amounts of money to secure the
border. According to the C.B.O., the bill would reduce illegal immigration by somewhere between 33 percent to 50 percent. True, it would not totally eliminate illegal
immigration, but it would do a lot better than current law, which reduces illegal immigration by 0 percent. Conservatives say they want to avoid a European-style demographic
collapse. But without more immigrants, and the higher fertility rates they bring, that is exactly what the U.S. faces. Plus,
this bill radically increases the
number of high-skilled immigrants. It takes millions of long-term resident families out of the shadows so they
can lead more mainstream lives. These are all gigantic benefits. They are like Himalayan peaks compared with the foothill-size complaints
conservatives are lodging.
Immigration Reform reduces the deficit – it saves enforcement costs
The Economist, 2013 [The US – Mexico Border Secure Enough: Spending billions more on fences and drones will do more harm than good June, 22 2013
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21579828-spending-billions-more-fences-and-drones-will-do-more-harm-good-secure-enough
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), released on June 18th, makes a broader point. It
forecasts that the Senate immigration bill would reduce the federal budget deficit by $197 billion over the next
decade and $700 billion over the decade after that. By bringing illegal workers into the mainstream and
allowing more visas for newcomers, both skilled and unskilled, it would raise American output and
productivity. The CBO predicts that the economy would be 5.4% bigger in 2033 because of the bill, and that
average wages would be slightly higher.
More immigrants would boost the U.S. economy – it increases tax revenue
Ramos, July 10, 2013 – staff writer at Newsday (VÍCTOR MANUEL. “Immigration reform might boost tax rolls”. Newsday. July 10,
2013. LexisNexis)
Granting legal status to immigrants who entered the United States illegally could net New York $224 million in
additional state and local tax revenues, mirroring a national spike in contributions, according to a new analysis of fiscal and census data. The
report, released today by the progressive Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington, D.C., and the liberal Fiscal Policy Institute in Manhattan,
anticipates annual contributions would rise by $2.1 billion across all 50 states from income deductions, sales
taxes, levies on products, services and property.
Immigration reform increases tax revenue without increasing tax rates – it adds new Tax
Payers
Sherk and Nell 2008 – Senior Policy Analyst and research programmer at Heritage [James and
Guinevere, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” The Heritage Foundation, April 30, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/more-h-1b-visas-more-american-jobs-a-better-economy, Accessed July 19, 2013]
Revenue Without HarmCongress must now comply with PAYGO rules, so finding sources of revenue to cover any program expansion is critical. New taxes from H-1B workers
provide a better source of revenue for PAYGO purposes or for reducing the deficit than is provided by tax hikes. Raising
taxes in a time of economic
weakness would be counterproductive because higher taxes harm the economy.All taxes, by definition, cause economic
inefficiencies,[13] but bringing in taxpayers from other countries avoids the economic costs of raising tax rates. The
$69 billion in additional revenue essentially comes from the home countries of these workers, as they now pay
American taxes instead of paying taxes to their own governments.New workers are a boon to the economy, not
a cost. Their skills are desired by American companies, and these companies cannot grow without workers to fill these positions. These workers increase the productivity of
the company, allowing it to expand, and they pay taxes on the income they earn. Unlike revenues from tax hikes, this additional tax revenue comes at no cost to American
workers. Rather
than depress productivity and economic growth by keeping the H-1B cap low, Congress should
accept these willing workers and the taxes they pay.
CIR - Key to Economy – Trade
Strict enforcement hurt U.S. competitiveness – it causes labor shortages and wage hikes
Rosenblum, 2000 – International Studies Association [Marc R. March 14-18, 2000 U.S. Immigration Policy: Unilateral and
Cooperative Responses to Undocumented Immigration 1 http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/rom01/]
A greater emphasis on worksite enforcement shifts the costs of migration enforcement from being strictly focused on immigrants to being divided more evenly between
immigrants and U.S. employers. On
one hand universal strict enforcement would help employers overcome their collective
action problems and all employers could afford to stop hiring undocumented immigrants without worrying about being undercut by their domestic competition. But
overall, U.S. employers would be harmed by these measures for two sets of reasons. First, strict worksite
enforcement imposes regulatory costs on employers, who would have less flexibility in their hiring decisions.
Second, as the labor pool shrinks, employers would have less access to certain desirable workers and wages
would rise. 14 Third, as a result, immigrant-dependent import-competing or export-producing firms would be less
competitive in the global market.
Immigration increases trade between nations because of social networks with home countries
Gaston and Nelson 2011 – President of Global Development Centre and Professor of Economics
at Murphy Institute [Noel and Douglas, “Bridging Trade Theory And Labour Econometrics: The Effects Of International Migration,” Journal of Economic
Surveys (2013), June 23, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00696.x/pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
Stories about immigration, whether contemporary or historical, journalistic, academic or fictional, have long
stressed the role of social relations as an essential element in the decision to engage in migratory behaviour.
Migrants are linked to both their home and host countries by networks that provide information, resources and
comfort, all in a variety of forms (Hugo, 1981; Boyd, 1989; Gurak and Caces, 1992; Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). Where economists have tended to
analyse immigration as reflecting optimization by individuals or households, sociologists and demographers have been very successful building network models of the
immigration decision.15 More recently, as economists have developed increasingly sophisticated models of networks, these considerations have increasingly been built into
migration analysis.16 Empirical work seeking to explain migration patterns now commonly includes variables intended to capture network effects – usually some measure of
stock of immigrants from a given home country in a given host country. The
key here is not that networks substitute for rational choice of
destinations by migrants, but that networks affect the costs of migrating to one market versus another. Just as
networks play a fundamental role in getting migrants from one country to another, and helping determine the allocation of migrants from home to host countries,
networks also play a fundamental role in organizing the social and economic life of migrants once they arrive in a
given host country.17 Of particular interest for us is the way that networks affect the relationship between migration and trade. Broadly speaking, networks of
migrants might affect international trade by responding to two sources of transaction costs: uncertainty/incomplete information and asymmetric information/opportunism.
With respect to the former, the idea is that trade in some commodities requires search and that the cost of such search varies systematically across countries. Especially for the
case of specialized/differentiated goods, the lack of a deep, well-developed arms-length market can require costly search. When this search must occur across international
borders, especially between countries with very different social and/or political structures, those costs can be quite high (Rauch, 1999; Rauch and Casella, 2003; Portes and
Rey, 2005). In this situation, migrants can act as weak ties in Granovetter’s (1973, 1983, 2005) sense of providing an information bridge between two dense networks (in this
case, suppliers in the home market and demanders in the host market). That is, because
migrants possess economic, cultural and
institutional knowledge about both the home and the host markets, they are able to mediate economic
exchange between those markets, thus increasing trade above what it would be in the absence of such
migration. In this case, migrants engage in market creation. Because such information problems are expected to be more severe for differentiated products, we would
expect to find strong positive effects for trade in such products, especially between countries with very different economic, cultural and political environments. Arguably, once
such a bridge has been constructed, the need for additional migrants might well be expected to decline.
Immigration increases trade – increased demand for new consumer products
Gaston and Nelson 2011 – President of Global Development Centre and Professor of Economics
at Murphy Institute [Noel and Douglas, “Bridging Trade Theory And Labour Econometrics: The Effects Of International Migration,” Journal of Economic
Surveys (2013), June 23, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00696.x/pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
the
most straightforward way that immigrant differences might affect trade patterns runs through preferences –
immigrants may have a preference for their own goods that they bring with them when they emigrate.20 Not only
does this have a direct effect on demand for the immigrant-preferred goods, but we would also expect that demonstration effects would increase the
demand for these goods among natives as well. Given that non-immigrants from a given country (i.e. natives and
immigrants from other countries) will generally dramatically outnumber immigrants from a given country, we might expect
the indirect effect to be larger than the direct effect. It is conventional in the empirical literature to assert that taste effects should affect only
imports, and among imports only consumer goods. Although this may be a plausible approximation, it is surely the case that information gleaned by
immigrants from consuming in the host country can be transferred to the home country in a variety of ways.
Before turning to a discussion of the empirical work on the role of immigrant networks in reducing trade costs, we should note that, in addition to the role of networks,
Thus, the common inference in the gravity literature that a positive estimated effect of immigrant stock on imports is evidence of a preference effect, whereas a positive effect
on exports is evidence of network effects, seems less than strong. By contrast, the
presumption that the preference effect should be seen in
consumer goods seems quite well founded. In either case, when evaluating the link between immigration and trade, we surely need to account for the
effect of differences in preferences between immigrants and natives.
Immigration spurs trade due to immigrant networks
Gaston and Nelson 2011 – President of Global Development Centre and Professor of Economics
at Murphy Institute [Noel and Douglas, “Bridging Trade Theory And Labour Econometrics: The Effects Of International Migration,” Journal of Economic
Surveys (2013), June 23, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00696.x/pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
To summarize: there
is strong and consistent support for immigration having a positive effect on trade; that link appears to
link appears to be stronger for trade with countries
that are different from the reference country on a number of dimensions and that link appears to be stronger
when the partner country is characterized by institutional problems.25 This would seem to be strong evidence
for the network story. However, because these analyses are never carried out in the context of a structural analysis that permits an evaluation of the relative price
be stronger for commodities whose trade is likely to involve informational problems; that
effects that drive the general equilibrium analysis standard in the trade theoretic accounts, these results neither permit comparison with the trade theoretic claims, nor do they
speak directly (or unambiguously) to the issues of whether trade and migration are substitutes or complements.
Immigration increases trade – China empirically proves
Gaston and Nelson 2011 – President of Global Development Centre and Professor of Economics
at Murphy Institute [Noel and Douglas, “Bridging Trade Theory And Labour Econom etrics: The Effects Of International Migration,” Journal of Economic
Surveys (2013), June 23, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00696.x/pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
24.There are a few closely related papers that should be mentioned in this context. The first is Rauch and Trindade’s (2003) investigation of the role of Chinese communities in
trade. Rather
than looking at the effect of immigration from a home country on the trade of a host country, Rauch
and Trindade ask if the stock of Chinese in each country affects trade in a dyad. Chinese communities are well known in the
ethnographic and business literatures as actively involved in trade (e.g. Landa, 1994; Weidenbaum and Hughes, 1996; Liu, 2000, 2001). Thus, Rauch and Trindade’s interest
in the presence of Chinese immigrant communities in explaining trade in a gravity framework makes a lot of sense. In addition, the authors use Rauch’s (1999) distinction
between standardized goods (goods with reference prices), goods traded on organized exchange and differentiated goods, finding that the effects of Chinese communities on
the latter two categories are economically and statistically more significant than on standardized goods. Given the other controls, the authors take this as evidence that
Chinese communities provide both market-making and market-replacing services to the countries in which
they reside. A second related paper is Combes et al. (2005), which analyses the effect of migration between French departement´s on trade between those
departement´s. Although the analysis uses strictly domestic data, the issues of theoretical and empirical implementation are identical to the international case. This paper is
particularly notable for the care it takes in developing both a theoretical framework and its explication of the empirical framework. This
paper develops data
and analysis considering both immigration networks and networks of firms, ultimately finding both to be
economically and statistically significant. As with Gould, the effect of immigrant networks is greater on exports than it is on imports. Millimet and
Osang (2007) examine the relationship between intra-national trade and intra-national migration for the USA, though this paper is primarily interested in analysing the
border effect. As in Combes et al., Millimet
and Osang’s results strongly support a positive relationship between trade and
migration. Another paper using sub-national data on trade and immigration is Helliwell’s (1997) analysis of intra-provincial, intra-state and international (US–
Canadian) trade and migration. Like Millimet and Osang, Helliwell’s main interest is in the border effect, but he also finds strong
evidence of a positive link between trade and migration. Finally, Blanes-Cristobal´ and Mart´ın-Montaner (2006) examine the effect of
migration on intra-industry trade. Given the usual interpretation of intra-industry trade in terms of monopolistic competition, this seems a natural development of Rauch
(1999) analysis of differentiated products. Although this paper does not apply gravity methods, the results are broadly consistent with the results of those papers that do. That
is, at least for Spain, immigration is strongly, positively associated with intra-industry trade.
Border security undermines trade – it causes gridlock at ports of entry
Pastor 2005- Director of the Center for North American Studies, American University [Robert A., June
9, “A North American Community Approach to Security,” The Council on Foreign Relations, June 9, 2005, http://www.cfr.org/world/north-american-community-approachsecurity/p8173, accessed July 18, 2013]
More importantly, compared to the agenda above, these steps are quite timid. The truth is that traffic
has slowed at the border because of
additional inspections, but it is not at all clear that the borders are more secure today than they were four years
ago. The flow of unauthorized migrants is as high or higher. The Communique lacks a clear uplifting goal like a
Customs Union. One cannot eliminate “rules-of-origin” provisions without a common external tariff, which the
WTO equates with a “customs union.” Most important, there is no allusion to the paramount challenge of North America— the development gap that
separates Mexico from its northern neighbors, and therefore, there is no proposal for dealing with that. There are no plans for dealing with education, energy, transportation,
or establishing institutions that could prepare North American options or monitor progress. To move this agenda requires an organizing vision and political will.
CIR - AT: Wages
Low Skilled Workers don’t kill wages – they don’t compete for jobs
Brooks July 12, 2013 - The New York Times columnist (David. “Pass The Bill!”. The New York Times. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
The second conservative complaint is that the bill would flood the country with more low-skilled workers, driving
down wages. This is an argument borrowed from the reactionary left, and it shows. In the first place, the recent research suggests that
increased immigration drives down wages far less than expected. Low-skilled immigrants don't directly
compete with the native-born. They do entry-level work, create wealth and push natives into better jobs.
Immigration reform increases wages because it boosts growth with creates demand
Peri 2013 – prof of Economics at UC Davis (Peri, Giovanni. Intereconomics,(May 2013): 191-192., The economic consequences of the
proposed immigration reform, ProQuest,)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform In this scenario, the U.S. government 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. Any future levels of permanent and temporary immigration to the United States would be based on the demand for labor in the United
States. 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.
This comprehensive immigration reform scenario generates an annual increase in U.S. gross domestic product
of at least 0.84 percent. This amounts to $1.5 trillion in additional GDP over 10 years. Both native-born and
newly legalized immigrant workers would see their wages rise. This scenario uses the parameters of the IRCA
experience to simulate the impact on the U.S. economy of the higher wages that would be earned by newly
legalized workers, as well as the higher worker productivity which would result from the movement of workers
into new occupations and from increased investment by workers in their own education and skills. This model does
not, however, capture a range of other economic benefits which have been documented among IRCA beneficiaries, such as increased household investments in the education
of family members and increased rates of home ownership and small-business formation. The
results of our modeling should therefore be
viewed as a conservative, baseline estimate of the actual economic benefits which would flow from comprehensive immigration
reform.
The 1986 reform Increased wages – their study data is too short term
Peri 2013 – prof of Economics at UC Davis (Peri, Giovanni. Intereconomics,(May 2013): 191-192., The economic consequences of the
proposed immigration reform, ProQuest,)
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act 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 (Rytina and Simanski 2009: 2).
Studies of immigrants who benefited from IRCA's 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. Higher wages translate into more tax revenue and increased consumer purchasing power, which benefits
the public treasury and the U.S. economy as a whole. But IRCA failed to create flexible limits on future immigration that were adequate to meet the growing labor needs of the
U.S. economy during the 1990s. As a result, unauthorized immigration eventually resumed in the years after IRCA (despite an initial decline), thereby exerting downward
pressure on wages for all workers in low-wage occupations. Surveys conducted by Westat, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Labor found that, on
average, the real
hourly wages of immigrants who acquired legal status under IRCA's general legalization program had increased
15.1 percent by 1992 (four to five years after legalization in 1987 or 1988). On average, men experienced a 13.2 percent wage
increase and women a 20.5 percent increase (Massey, Durand, and Malone 2003: 90). Based on the same survey data, economists Sherrie Kossoudji
and Deborah Cobb-Clark (2000) found that 38.8 percent of Mexican men who received legal status under IRCA had moved on to higher-paying occupations by 1992 (Smith,
Kramer, and Singer 1996: 102). Other researchers have also analyzed these survey data and supplemented them with data from additional sources-such as the 1990 Census
and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-in an effort to determine how much of the wage increase experienced by IRCA beneficiaries was the result of legalization per se,
as opposed to the many other variables that influenced wage levels for different workers in different occupations during the same period of time. Although
the
findings of these researchers vary according to the economic models they use, the results are uniformly
positive: * Economist Francisco Rivera-Batiz (1999) estimated that, by 1992, the very fact of having legal status had resulted in a
wage increase of 8.4 percent for male IRCA beneficiaries and 13 percent for female IRCA beneficiaries-independent
of any increase in earning power they might have experienced as a result of acquiring more education, improving their mastery of English, or other factors (Kossoudji and
Cobb-Clark 2000). *
Immigration restrictions don’t Increase wages – empirical proof
Rosenblum, 2000 – International Studies Association [Marc R. March 14-18, 2000 U.S. Immigration Policy: Unilateral and
Cooperative Responses to Undocumented Immigration 1 http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/rom01/]
Second, regarding
wages, there is also little evidence that immigration restrictions have caused wages to rise, as
noted above. On the contrary, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that the wage-depression effects
of legal and undocumented immigration is one of the primary factors contributing to high growth without inflation in
the United States (Uchitelle 2000). Regarding agriculture, the GAO cites declining agricultural wage rates, in real
terms, in the 1990s despite rising wages in other industries (GAO 1997, 28). For this reason, labor-intensive agribusiness has been highly
profitable, with production increases of 52 percent in the decade following IRCA passage, and exports quadrupling to $10.6 billion (Farmworker Justice Fund 2000).
Immigration reform increases wages – historical evidence proves
Peri 2013 – prof of Economics at UC Davis (Peri, Giovanni. Intereconomics,(May 2013): 191-192., The economic consequences of the
proposed immigration reform, ProQuest,)
The historical experience of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act indicates that
comprehensive immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate
additional tax revenue. Even though IRCA was implemented during a period that included a recession and high unemployment (1990-91), it still helped raise
wages and spurred increases in educational, home, and small business investments by newly legalized immigrants. Taking the experience of IRCA as a starting point, we
estimate that comprehensive immigration reform would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic
product (GDP) over 10 years.1 This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current "vicious
cycle" where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on
already low wages, and toward a "virtuous cycle" of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward
pressure on wages.
Immigration doesn’t decrease wages, economic growth solves
Elliott July 15, 2013 (Grover Norquist, Rahm Emanuel: House will pass immigration, REBECCA ELLIOTT, 7/15/13 ,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/immigration-grover-norquist-rahm-emanuel-94235.html#ixzz2ZMSrkuAN, REBECCA ELLIOTT is a staff writer)
Norquist also addressed a primary concern among conservatives: that legalizing immigrants will result in
depressed wages. “When you have more people moving into an area of economic growth, you actually get more
growth,” Norquist said. “People are an asset.” Emanuel, the former chief of staff under President Barack Obama, said the key question in coming weeks will be whether
Speaker John Boehner can convince members to allow a vote on immigration even if they don’t necessarily plan to vote for the legislation. “There has to be a permission slip to
allow something to happen that you can oppose,” Emanuel said. Norquist said
he was confident that Republicans will indeed get behind
immigration reform legislation. “Every day the Republican caucus is moving towards yes,” Norquist said. “This is going to play out.”
Immigration reform won’t c0llapse wages – Gov’t studies prove
Reynolds July 1, 2013 - Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, [Alan, “Immigration Illusions Part One: “Average Wages” Severely
Muddled”, The Cato Institute, July 1, 2013, http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-illusions-part-one-average-wages-severely-muddled, July 16, 2013]
The Senate immigration bill would ease quotas on legal immigration (particularly for highly-skilled and farm
workers), and also allow those now here unlawfully to apply for a green card after ten years if they pay a fine
and back taxes. In an effort to defend our current tight but leaky immigration quotas, a few legislators and commentators seized on the first half of a sentence in the
Congressional Budget Office report on this bill: “CBO’s central estimates also show that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1
percent lower in 2023… under the legislation than under current law.” The CBO goes on to predict average
wages would be “0.5 percent higher in 2033” (roughly in line with academic studies). But the CBO cannot possibly predict
such data with any precision for a year ahead, much less 10 or 20. The larger problem is a common yet severe
misunderstanding of what “average wage” really means. If the Senate bill were enacted, claims Alabama
Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, “the wages of U.S. workers – which should be growing – will instead decline…
It would be the biggest setback for poor and middle-class Americans of any legislation Congress has considered in decades.” Indeed, if it were to pass, he added, “the wages of
American workers will fall for the next 12 years. They
will be lower than inflation rates.” This is quite mistaken. The CBO never
said wages of U.S. workers would fall for even one year, much less twelve, nor did the CBO claim wage gains
might be “lower than inflation rates.” All the CBO did was to predict that average nominal wages might end up
one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) lower in 2023 than they would be if legal immigration remained as restrictive
as it is under current law. If the average wage would otherwise have risen to $45 an hour in 2023, for example,
it would instead turn out to be just $44.996 with the Senate bill. Under the current law baseline, the CBO
projects that the employment cost index would rise by 3.7 percent per year from 2014 to 2023, while prices
would rise by only 2 percent. That means real compensation (the projection includes benefits, not wages alone)
is projected to rise by 1.7 percent a year over the next decade, with or without immigration reform. If you add up all
the yearly increases, the estimated cumulative rise in worker compensation would be 48.7 percent from 2014 to 2023 under current law, or 48.6 percent − 0.1 percent lower −
with the Senate immigration bill. The difference is doubly insignificant, because CBO ten-year projections are no better than throwing darts. But for a U.S. Senator to
misidentify such as trivial 0.1 percent difference over 12 years as a 12-year spell of falling wages, and for Fox News and others to report that error as though it had substance,
involves monumental misunderstanding. Although
the Senate bill involves much greater expansion of work visas for highly-
skilled immigrants than for unskilled workers, the CBO nevertheless assumes “the new workers would be less
skilled and have lower wages, on average, than the labor force under current law.” The assumption that most of
the new legal immigrants would be relatively low paid is a major reason why the statistical average wage is
assumed to be held down by greater numbers of legal immigrants (despite presumably smaller numbers of illegal immigrants). Note
carefully, however, that this does not mean wages of current U.S. workers would be lower . It only means a greater number of new workers
(from other countries) would have lower wages than current workers: “The estimated reductions in average
wages,” notes the CBO, “do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off.” This key
point has been so meticulously misunderstood that it apparently requires more explanation. Suppose there was an island
with five workers. One worker earned $10 an hour, another earned $20, another $30, another $40 and another $50. Their combined wages of $150, when divided by five,
results in an average wage of $30. Now, suppose a new immigrant arrives and earns $20 an hour. The group’s wages then add up to $170 divided by six, so the average wage
drops to $28.33. Yet
the wages of all the original non-immigrant population remain exactly the same as before. The
average wage of the larger group has been diluted by the addition of one more low-wage worker, but that does
not mean anyone else’s wage went down. Because wages generally rise over time, as the CBO sensibly assumes,
real wages and benefits of both new immigrants and existing workers would likewise rise over time – by17 percent
over ten years, using CBO estimates, or 16.9 percent (the 0.1 percent difference) with the Senate bill − under the debatable CBO assumption that bill would result in greater
immigration of low-paid workers.
Immigrants won’t hurt Wages – they have too small of an influence and legalization enhances
their leverage to demand higher wages
Trumbull 2013 - Staff writer, The Christian Science Monitor (Immigration reform: a bid to attract workers who will boost the
economy, Trumbull, Mark, , 28 June 2013., ProQuest)
"Immigration flows are ultimately just too small as a share of the US labor force to have large impacts on wages
once the labor market adjusts to the supply increase," writes Jared Bernstein, a former Obama administration
economist. "The labor force is always growing along with population, and if anything, demographics [are] pointing
toward slower supply growth [of workers]." But he argues that there's still a significant short-term challenge, if reform is
enacted. Reform as outlined by the Senate would boost the supply of low-wage immigrant labor, primarily through more people getting visas that
allow them to seek US jobs. That could be especially challenging for low-wage, less-educated native-born
workers, in the first few years after reform. "You will feel this competition, significantly, in your job offers and your paycheck," Mr. Bernstein predicted
in a blog post earlier this year. One force could work in the opposite direction: As the once-"undocumented" are able to
compete more fully in the labor market, their bargaining power would rise and the incidence of exploitation would diminish. That
would have a positive effect on pay for low-skill jobs.
Immigration reform helps wages of American workers – the Bill sets a wage floor
The National Economic Council July 10, 2013
[“The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” July 10, 2013,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report.pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
CBO estimates that real wages will be 0.5 percent higher in 2033 — the equivalent to an additional $250 of
income for the median American household — as a result of enacting the Senate bill. The Senate bill raises the “wage floor” for
all workers—particularly in industries where large numbers of easily exploited, low-wage, unauthorized
immigrants currently work. Studies of the 1986 immigration reform law found that legalizing immigrants saw wage increases of
about 10 percent, due in part to increases in workers’ productivity that benefited the economy as a whole .
Even if American average wages drop at first, wages will quickly recover – the net impact is
positive
Lynch and Oakford, 2013-- professor of economics at Washington College and Research
Assistant in the Economic and Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress [Robert and
Patrick, 6/21/13, “The 6 Key Takeaways from the CBO Cost Estimate of S. 744”, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/06/21/67514/the-6-key-takeaways-from-the-cbo-cost-estimate-of-s-744/, accessed 7/17/13]
The CBO does say in its analysis that in
the first decade, average American wages will fall by 0.1 percent, but they are clear
that this drop has to do with the fact that new immigrants will enter the labor force and work at slightly lower
wages, which brings down the overall average. The CBO explicitly states that, “The estimated reductions in average wages
… do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation than they would be under
current law.” The CBO score puts to rest the economic and budgetary arguments against passing immigration
reform. The question now is whether Congress will come together to do the right thing for the country and
whether it will maximize the number of people who can complete the path to citizenship, thus maximizing the
economic benefits. America cannot afford anything less.
Immigration increases wages – empirically prove
Nowrasteh 2013 - immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty
and Prosperity, [Alex, “Immigration’s Clear Benefits,” The Cato Institute, May 13, 2013, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigrations-clearbenefits, accessed July 16, 2013]
The Cato studies provide dynamic tools that count the unambiguous economic gains from increased
immigration as part of any reform. The consensus among economists is that immigration is good for the vast
majority of Americans and the immigrants themselves, and makes both the U.S. and world economies larger
and more productive. A Reagan-era amnesty confirms that legalized immigrants experienced wage increases of
up to 15 percent just by working legally. Those higher wages are a result of more productive workers who then
pay higher taxes. But employers, shareholders, consumers, real estate owners, and most workers also see their
incomes and productivity increase from immigration. If conservative opponents of immigration reform are honestly concerned about its fiscal
impact, let’s see their suggestions for minimizing that. Here is one: Reform the welfare state and wall it off to noncitizens. Cato will soon release a policy analysis detailing
specific legal changes that would achieve that goal. Dynamically scoring the fiscal and economic impacts of immigration reform will reveal what free-marketeers have known
all along: Peaceful and healthy people are a boon for the economy and don’t bust government
proud tradition of pushing for dynamic scoring of tax proposals. It’s unfortunate that it neglects its intellectual heritage here.
budgets. Heritage has a
CIR - AT: US Jobs
Immigrants don’t displace US workers – they fill gap jobs – different skill sets
Bloomberg 2013 [Alex Kowalskim- Staff, “Immigrants With Right Skills Ride U.S. Hiring Wave: Economy”, 2/19/13, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201302-19/all-the-right-skills-immigrants-ride-u-s-hiring-wave-economy.html] LG]
Underlying those figures, immigrants’ gains during the past three years were concentrated in low- and highpaying categories that range from health care to management. Only in manufacturing did those born in the
U.S. see bigger gains than their foreign counterparts. Losing Out The increases mirror a pattern that has developed
in the labor market independent of birth status: middle-income workers are losing out as low-wage jobs, such
as landscaping and food preparation, and high-wage positions, such as dentistry and engineering, show
outsized increases. Middle-wage jobs include work in office administration and factory production. Economists
including Daron Acemoglu and David Autor, both at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, have attributed this job polarization to the loss of positions that
The skillsets immigrants bring to the country help them fit into the
available work opportunities. About 24 percent of employed foreigners over the age of 25 did not have a high
school diploma in 2012, compared with 4.6 percent of American- born workers, according to the Labor Department. At the
other extreme, 14.1 percent of working immigrants held an advanced degree, higher than the 13.5 percent of
U.S.-born employees. “Immigrants basically go to industries that are growing and help them grow faster,” Alex
Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington, said in an interview. They “grease the
wheels of the labor market and the economy by moving specifically to areas where there is demand for a
particular set of skills at a particular place and time.”
require repetitive tasks and can be replaced by technology.
Immigration reform doesn’t hurt American low skilled jobs – increased consumer demand and
complimentary jobs – the best studies prove
Clemens And Lynch 2013 - senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and Professor of
Economics at Washington College, [Michael, Robert, Michael is senior fellow at the center for global development, Robert is also the senior fellow
at the Center for American Progress, “Low-Wage Workers Will Benefit From Immigration Reform, Too,” New Republic, 4-29-13
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113065/immigration-reform-low-wage-workers-will-benefit-too#, Accessed 7-17-13]
In a recent article, John Judis makes many excellent points about poorly compensated work in America. But he mischaracterizes the role that immigration, in general, and the
“Gang of Eight"s immigration reform, in particular, is likely to have on the wages of American workers. Contrary to what some claim, immigration
has
economically benefitted U.S. workers. Moreover, thoughtful immigration reform that includes legal status and a pathway to
citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants will lead to sizeable increases in output and incomes
and modest increases in jobs. The earnings of unauthorized immigrants will rise significantly and the taxes
they will pay will increase dramatically, benefitting the nation as a whole. How can that be, especially when simple intuition would
dictate that lesser-skill immigrants (even the newly-legalized) compete for American jobs and put downward pressure on wages? The answer is that the economy is a much
more complex system than some would have us believe. There are three
main reasons why economists have found positive benefits
from immigration: 1) immigrants are not only workers but also consumers 2) immigrants have little direct
impact on the wages of American workers and 3) immigrants often complement, rather than compete with
American workers. First, and perhaps most importantly, immigrants are not simply workers but consumers; they buy goods
and services, helping to drive business sales across all sectors of the economy. Immigrants also tend to be
entrepreneurial, starting new businesses and hiring workers at higher rates than the native born. They make basic
services more affordable to Americans. The narrow research Judis relies upon fails to fully consider these long-run impacts on our economy and therefore ignores the basic
fact that over time the wages of American workers will rise with immigration. Second, even when focusing
only on the wages of lesser skilled
American workers, the latest economic research illustrates that immigration has no discernible direct effect, even in the short run. Judis
cites a research paper by economist George Borjas written a decade ago. While Borjas is a respected economist, his work has been superseded by a number of new studies that
rely upon much better methodologies. The
best, new research we have now is exemplified by the work of Economists Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni
Peri. Their research finds that immigration has had essentially zero net effects on the wages of low-wage U.S. workers. To the
extent that it has had any effect on wages at all, the most thorough recent research suggests that immigration has had a small positive impact on the wages of lesser skilled
native born Americans. The reason why there is essentially no impact on the wages of lesser-skill workers brings us to our third point: Most
lesser-skilled
immigrants do not compete with U.S. workers but instead complement their work. In some areas of the economy, lesser
skilled immigrants have kept entire industries alive: Many parts of U.S. agriculture would have more thoroughly
mechanized or had to close up shop years ago if not for lesser-skilled immigrant workers who pick the crops, meaning the loss of nearly all
U.S. jobs (those held by native born Americans as well as those of immigrants) in those sectors.
Turn - Immigration solves jobs – it revitalizes economy which helps US workers
Klein 2013 – Washington Post writer (Worried about the economy? Then pass immigration reform., Klein, Ezra., He is currently a blogger and
columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC, 02 Feb 2013, The Washington Post , ProQuest)
Increasing the number of native-born workers leads to more direct competition, because two native-born
workers are probably more similar than an immigrant and a native worker. Yet almost everyone cheers if they
hear that the U.S. birth rate has ticked up. Some workers are hurt by immigration, but they are typically already
struggling. The best way to help them is with more training, better health care, a more generous Earned Income
Tax Credit and so on. Those benefits are easier to provide in a growing economy with more young workers than in a
sluggish one with chronic budget deficits. Immigration isn't what really ails them, and it isn't what stands in the way of
aiding them. Will immigrants use those same social services, as some immigration opponents contend, adding
to the cost of the nation's welfare state? Yes, but not as often as they'll pay into it. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office
analyzed the issue while assessing President George W. Bush's proposed immigration reforms. It found that legalizing undocumented immigrants would increase federal
revenue by $48 billion while costing only $23 billion in increased public services - and that's before accounting for the broader economic benefits of immigration. There are
few free lunches in public policy. But taking advantage of our unique position as a country where the world's best, brightest and hardest-working desperately want to live is
surely one. In the end, economies aren't mainly about budgets and tax codes, though Congress occasionally pretends otherwise. They're about workers and business owners.
Immigration reform is a way to get more of both.
Immigration won’t undermine native jobs - complementary skills,
Klein 2013 – Washington Post writer (Worried about the economy? Then pass immigration reform., Klein, Ezra., He is currently a blogger and
columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC, 02 Feb 2013, The Washington Post , ProQuest)
Many immigration opponents lodge a moral objection to "amnesty" - allowing people who broke the law to reap the benefits of legal status. That's beyond the scope of this
particular column. The
main economic concern about allowing more immigration or legalizing the status of those who
are already here is that immigrants will undermine the wages of the least-skilled Americans. In reality, it's not clear
that will happen. In addition to growing the size of the national pie, unskilled immigrants tend to have what economists call
complementary skills to U.S. workers. If one worker speaks English and another doesn't, for example, they generally
don't pursue the same job. In that way, it's useful again to compare immigration with native birth rates.
Immigration does not crowd out US jobs – prefer our qualified studies over their Scare Tactics
Antone 2013 - former adjunct professor of immigration law at Michigan State (N. Peter Antone is an
immigration attorney in Farmington Hills and a, Detroit Free Press, 03 Feb 2013, ProQuest)
Detroit Free Press Guest Writer Our country faces unprecedented challenges: increasing deficits, an aging population, competition from developed nations, and retiring baby
boomers who seek benefits while ceasing to contribute to taxes. An overlooked remedy is a liberalization of immigration policies. Luckily, Congress finally seems to be
Immigration favors the young, the risk- takers, the
hardworking and the highly qualified. It increases the tax base, generating revenue needed to support programs
for the elderly. Using immigration to scare the public has done this country great disservice. Unfortunately,
immigration issues are susceptible to demagoguery and fear tactics, including claims that foreigners are taking
U.S. jobs. What often is lost in the heated exchanges is the recognition that immigrants do not simply occupy
jobs; they also become part of the consuming public, stimulating the economy. A larger population itself creates
more jobs. It is unfortunate that in Michigan, we regret the departure of Michiganders while at the same time putting hurdles in front of those who wish to immigrate
here. Reputable studies analyzing the relationship between immigration and unemployment have found that the
more immigration, the more employment for local workers. Scarcity of people does not lead to more jobs.
Skilled immigrants possess high levels of education, representing the top achievers in their home countries. Their technological skills improve our
productivity. Others arrive with diverse skills, creating a wide range of products and jobs for complementary labor and a wider variety of goods than if
the work force were limited to U.S. workers. Even unskilled workers improve our economy by allowing U.S. industries to obtain
labor for work that many Americans choose not to do. They help generate affordable goods and services. More
immigration reduces the incentive for U.S. firms to invest overseas. Instead of U.S. companies outsourcing the work, they can instead
retain investment and jobs in the U.S., meanwhile creating work for support staff. Researchers have compared states that accept more immigrants to
those that accept fewer, allowing for variables. A study conducted by the University of California-Davis on "The Effect of
Immigration on Productivity" yielded no evidence suggesting that immigrants crowded out employment or
hours worked by U. S. workers. Rather, robust evidence showed that productivity and total employment increased.
In addition, every increase in employment of 1% due to immigrants led to an increase in income per worker of 0.5% in that state. Similar results were found in
studies done in Europe. Advocates of immigration reform do not argue for open borders or for rewarding illegal behavior. But when millions of
immigrants and U.S. employers are in violation of immigration laws, we need to face the possibility that those
laws are simply unworkable. Congress seems to finally recognize that laws are unenforceable when they force someone to choose between being illegally
present with family or being separated. Amnesty is not a desirable solution. And it's important to remember that not every solution is
amnesty. For ours to be a nation of laws, the laws must be reasonable, taking into account individual circumstances and the needs of U.S. businesses while preserving
considering major immigration reform that takes those issues into consideration.
family unity. Achieving these goals eliminates the incentive for illegal immigration. We hope Congress will now take the necessary steps so that we continue to be a nation of
laws as well as one of great immigrants
Immigration reform won’t increase unemployment – any short term spikes would be more
than offset
Trumbull 2013 - Staff writer, The Christian Science Monitor (Immigration reform: a bid to attract workers who will boost the
economy, Trumbull, Mark, , 28 June 2013., ProQuest)
The CBO
analysis of Senate legislation, as it was emerging in mid-June, predicts that the unemployment rate would be
higher for the first few years under reform - by about 0.1 percentage point - in part because of "temporary
imbalances" between worker supply and employer demand in particular occupations. "Average wages would be lower by about 0.1 percent in 2023 and higher by about
0.5 percent in 2033 than projected under current law," the CBO predicts. That's because of the initial hurdle of absorbing new workers ,
followed by later positive effects on productivity. Investment and productivity. The CBO economists, citing empirical
research, predict that "an influx of immigrants, particularly highly skilled immigrants, would lead to increased
innovation and task specialization." Over time, that should make each unit of labor or investment capital a bit more
productive, helping to boost each worker's output of goods or services. (And that increase in productivity opens the door to the justmentioned rise in wages over the long term.) But the impact may not be a large one. Gross domestic product ( GDP) per capita would be 0.2 percent
higher in 2033, compared with a no-reform scenario, the CBO estimates. A rise in productivity would also push
up the rate of return on business investment in things like office or factory equipment. In turn, that could push up interest
rates a bit, as the government would face greater competition from the private sector when seeking to borrow from investors. Federal budgets. Speaking of the government, the
Senate bill has some significant budget implications. The reforms would add to direct spending as more people become eligible for federal benefit programs.
The Job Tradeoff link is flawed – studies proving it are poorly constructed
Gaston and Nelson 2011 – President of Global Development Centre and Professor of Economics
at Murphy Institute [Noel and Douglas, “Bridging Trade Theory And Labour Econometrics: The Effects Of International Migration,” Journal of Economic
Surveys (2013), June 23, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00696.x/pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
Bernard and Jensen (2000) note that although
the USA as a whole experienced increasing wage inequality, that this fact
disguised very different patterns of wage inequality at the state level. In fact, some states experiencing sharp declines in inequality. They
argue that this fact argues against the view of a well-oiled, highly integrated US economy – at least in the short- to medium terms. In
response to employment shocks, Blanchard and Katz (1992) found that labour markets were integrated after a period of 10 years. Interstate
migration does indeed act to smooth shocks, but it only does so very slowly. Wage adjustments were also extremely sluggish, with some
effects often lingering beyond 10 years. In other words, shocks to regions are not rapidly transmitted to other regions. This suggests that
even the most carefully crafted research, for example, such as Borjas’, which divides workers into industry,
occupation, education, experience, race and sex may be biased because it does not also distinguish between
locations – or separate labour markets. There are at least two further implications of this research. First, the measured effects on
local labour markets are genuinely indicative of the small adverse impact that new immigrants have on native workers and second, that the skating rink
hypothesis, in which each new foreign unskilled worker forces a native off the ice (i.e. to migrate to another region), is
dubious.
Workers don’t trade off jobs – immigrants work different jobs and have different skill sets
Zavodny and Jacoby June 2013 - Professor of economics at Agnes Scott College, and Scholar,
American Enterprise Institute [Madeline and Tamar, “Filling the Gap: Less skilled Immigration in a Changing Economy,” American Enterprise
Institute and Immigration Works USA, June 2013, http://www.aei.org/files/2013/06/10/-zavodny-filling-the-gap-immigration-report_140631709214.pdf, Accessed July 17,
2013]
This study uses the U.S. Census bureau’s American Community Survey and the U.S. department of labor’s occupational Information network, or o*nET, to examine
similarities and differences in the jobs held by foreign workers and U.S.-born workers. Education. American
workers’ educational attainment has
improved dramatically in recent decades, and low-skilled immigrants are filling a gap created by rising
education levels among Americans. In 1950, more than half of U.S.-born workers had not completed high school. Today
the figure is less than 5 percent – compared to nearly one-quarter of immigrant workers. This education gap
has dramatic consequences in the workplace: immigrants now account for one in six workers in the U.S. and
more than half the less-skilled workers. but the education gap alone does not explain the difference in the jobs held by immigrants and those held by
less-skilled Americans. comparative advantage. Even among less-skilled workers, Americans and immigrants tend to
work in different fields. low-skilled Americans are twice as likely as low-skilled immigrants to work in offices or
administrative support jobs. They’re also twice as likely as immigrants to work in sales. In contrast, low-skilled
immigrants are three times more likely than low-skilled Americans to fill farming, fishing and forestry jobs. And
even when they work in the same sector, Americans and immigrants tend to gravitate to different jobs. Four in ten low-skilled
Americans working in the transportation and moving sector are truck drivers, compared to fewer than three in
ten low-skilled immigrants in the field. Conversely, only 5 percent of American transportation and moving workers
are hand packers and packagers, compared to 17 percent of immigrants in the sector. What’s the difference
between a truck driver and a packer on a moving crew? one requires a driver’s license and more familiarity
with the lay of the land in the United States, is somewhat less physically demanding and arguably commands
higher prestige. Jobs filled by low-skilled Americans require better communications skills. The department of labor’s
o*nET database helps explain what drives immigrants and Americans to different jobs. less-skilled
native-born workers have a comparative
advantage in jobs that require communications skills and managerial ability. less-skilled immigrants have a
comparative advantage in jobs that require physical strength and stamina: labor-intensive occupations such as
building maintenance, landscaping, construction, food processing, food preparation and food service. physical
intensity. Still another way to compare jobs done by immigrants and Americans is to measure how physically
taxing they are. How much bending, stretching, crouching, exposure to the elements, exposure to hazardous
conditions and exposure to extreme weather does the job require? How much repetitive motion? How much
exposure to contaminants?
Immigration reform doesn’t hurt American jobs – consensus of economists
Trumbull 2013 - Staff writer, The Christian Science Monitor (Immigration reform: a bid to attract workers who will boost the
economy, Trumbull, Mark, , 28 June 2013., ProQuest)
An immigration
reform plan just passed by the US Senate would affect the US economy in complex but largely positive
ways. That's the view of many mainstream economists, including Congress's own nonpartisan financial
forecasters. The economy would become healthier in part because fewer people would be illegal immigrants
working in the shadows, and because the bill would boost the number of high-skill immigrants who are often job
creators. Of course, the economic forecasts don't settle the deep partisan debates over the reform legislation. Critics of comprehensive reform worry that the legislation
puts "amnesty" ahead of law and order, and ends up luring fresh hordes of illegal immigrants. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate bill will
reduce illegal immigration by only 25 percent. And, even if you judge solely on the economic projections, the picture isn't wholly positive. For example, for
its first few
years reform would push unemployment a bit higher and average wages a bit lower, according to CBO
estimates this month. view_extra The basic elements of the Senate's comprehensive reform legislation, passed Thursday, are: Significantly tighter border
security, including doubling the number of agents patrolling the southern border. Stricter enforcement against employment of illegal workers, through an E-Verify program
that checks new hires, plus antifraud measures. Granting legal status to many of some 11 million unauthorized immigrants, who meet certain requirements, along with a path
to citizenship. Expanded immigrant visa programs, and expanded programs for nonimmigrant visas including for H-1B (high-skilled) workers and for agricultural guest
In general, the economic impacts seem to give more fodder to reform supporters than to critics. As economists
reform should make both the workforce and capital investment more productive over the long
term, "leading to higher GDP, higher wages, and higher interest rates." That view flies in the face of a longstanding concern: that
immigrants will diminish job opportunities and push down wages of native-born workers. But so far, a growing
body of economic research refutes this view. Jobs and wages. With immigration reform, as with other moves
that expand the number of foreign-born people in the labor force, many independent analysts don't predict harm
to average US workers. For one thing, new foreign workers are also new consumers who fuel economic demand. So an
workers.
at the CBO put it, the
expanding workforce doesn't mean more people competing for the same number of jobs.
Immigration doesn’t hurt US jobs or wages – consensus of economists
Gaston and Nelson 2011 – President of Global Development Centre and Professor of Economics
at Murphy Institute [Noel and Douglas, “Bridging Trade Theory And Labour Econometrics: The Effects Of International Migration,” Journal of Economic
Surveys (2013), June 23, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00696.x/pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
The concern about whether immigration adversely affects the labour market outcomes of native workers is an
issue of contemporary concern for most wealthy countries. In these countries, any concerns about the growing
trade with developing countries have been eclipsed by the feared impact of immigration of unskilled workers
from those countries on the economic welfare of domestic less-skilled workers. The theoretical and empirical
literature on the effects of immigration on labour market outcomes is immense. Despite the popular belief that
immigrants harm wage and employment opportunities of natives, the overwhelming majority of the economics
literature does not lend support to such a conclusion. Notwithstanding the recent negative estimates produced by George Borjas, what the first
part of this review concluded is that although there may well be negative effects on migrants of the same origin and vintage,
and, possibly, on a relatively small, and shrinking, group of native high school dropouts, adverse labour market consequences of contemporary
immigration are minuscule at most.
CIR - AT: Exploits Workers
Immigration reform doesn’t hurt workers – it improves wages and adds protections
Council on Foreign Relations, 2013 [“White House Report: The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” July 11, 2013,
http://www.cfr.org/immigration/white-house-report-economic-benefits-fixing-our-broken-immigration-system/p31083, accessed July 17, 2013]
Commonsense immigration reform increases the productivity of workers and adds new protections for
American workers. According to CBO and other independent studies, immigration reform will increase overall U.S. productivity,
resulting in higher GDP and higher wages. The bipartisan Senate bill also provides a host of protections for American workers and ensures that new
worksite enforcement and border security measures deter future illegal immigration. CBO estimates that real wages will be 0.5 percent higher in
2033 — the equivalent to an additional $250 of income for the median American household — as a result of enacting the
Senate bill. The Senate bill raises the "wage floor" for all workers—particularly in industries where large numbers of
easily exploited, low-wage, unauthorized immigrants currently work. Studies of the 1986 immigration reform law found that
legalizing immigrants saw wage increases of about 10 percent, due in part to increases in workers' productivity
that benefited the economy as a whole.
Low skilled immigrants help American workers – they increase jobs and bargaining power over
wages
Clemens And Lynch 2013 - senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and Professor of
Economics at Washington College, [Michael, Robert, Michael is senior fellow at the center for global development, Robert is also the senior fellow
at the Center for American Progress, “Low-Wage Workers Will Benefit From Immigration Reform, Too,” New Republic, 4-29-13
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113065/immigration-reform-low-wage-workers-will-benefit-too#, Accessed 7-17-13]
Specifically, this research found that legalization
adds a cumulative $832 billion to the U.S. economy over a decade, increases the earning
of all Americans by $470 billion, generates an additional $109 billion in new tax revenue, and creates an
average of 121,000 new jobs each year, benefits that accrue to all Americans. Providing unauthorized workers with legal status also
increases their bargaining power and lowers the likelihood of worker exploitation and suppressed wages. To the
extent that they do compete with American workers, legal status will raise the wages of both the unauthorized
and lesser skilled American workers. So yes, by all means, let’s “thrust” the illegal immigrants into legal status. Our nation was founded and built by
immigrants and continuously reinvigorated by wave upon wave of migrants from all around the world. Every job that everyone has, from janitor to biochemist, owes a debt to a
legion of immigrants that made that job possible. For
the sake of our economic future we need to continue experiencing the
benefits of immigration—benefits that accrue to all Americans, including our lowest wage workers.
Turn – immigration reform helps workers – it doesn’t trade off jobs and increases worker
protections and wages by punishing exploitation
Lloyd, July 14, 2013 - writer for the Tribune Democrat,
[William Mass Deportation is not an Option http://tribunedemocrat.com/editorials/x1538940917/William-Lloyd-Immigration-reform-Mass-deportation-not-an-option)
The Center for American Progress estimates that illegal immigrants make up about 5 percent of the U.S.
workforce. Some analysts argue that these illegal immigrants are taking jobs from unemployed Americans. In contrast, many employers (especially in agriculture)
contend that illegal immigrants are filling jobs unemployed Americans will not take. Regardless of which argument is correct, the fact
is that mass deportation is unlikely to happen. In contrast, grant-ing some form of legal status to immigrant workers who are here
illegally is an alternative that could benefit workers who are American citizens. Because of their fear of
deportation, illegal immigrants are reluctant to seek government help if an unscrupulous employer pays them
less than the minimum wage, ignores the overtime laws, or subjects them to unsafe working conditions. Such
employers are presumably in the minority, but they do have a competitive advantage. Legalization could undercut that
advantage by making it harder for unscrup-ulous employers to exploit immigrant workers. As a result, it could
become easier for law-abiding employers to increase wages, provide benefits and improve working conditions
for their own workers.
Strict Enforcement fuels discrimination and exploitation of workers
Rosenblum, 2000 – International Studies Association [Marc R. March 14-18, 2000 U.S. Immigration Policy: Unilateral and
Cooperative Responses to Undocumented Immigration 1 http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/rom01/]
The best argument against employer sanctions is that U.S. labor unions oppose them. Unions were at the forefront of calls for employer sanctions throughout the twentieth
century (Mink 1986). But since the passage of IRCA in 1986, unions representing unskilled immigrant workers, including ACTWU (now UNITE), SEIU, and the ILGWU, have
argued that sanctions fail to deter immigration but make organizing immigrants more difficult (Delgado 1993, Haus 1995). 8
The campaign by a range of immigrant-constituent unions to repeal employer sanctions expanded in the 1990s (Burn 2000, Fan 2000) as efforts by unions to organize
undocumented immigrants also grew (Rosario 2000). In 1994, the California Labor Federation passed a resolution against sanctions; and, most significantly, in February,
2000, the AFL-CIO executive council supported a major overhaul of U.S. immigration policy: “Current
efforts to improve immigration
enforcement, while failing to stop the flow of undocumented people in to the United States, have resulted in a
system that causes discrimination and leaves unpunished unscrupulous employers who exploit undocumented
workers, thus denying labor rights for all workers. . . . We strongly believe employer sanctions, as a nationwide policy applied to all
workplaces, has failed and should be eliminated” (see http://www.aflcio.organize/publ/estatements/feb2000/immigr.htm).
Immigration reform increases wages – current undocumented workers cannot contest wage
exploitation
Foroohar , 2013 - Deputy Editor in charge of economics for Newsweek, [Rana The opponents of immigration reform
are hampering the economy--and hurting all of us http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2147289-1,00.html)
Let's start with the wage issue.
Creating a path to legal immigration would put an end to immigrants' being oppressed and
used to keep wages down. Immigration reform is something that both labor and many big businesses support
(since it also helps ensure a supply of needed workers). As the AFL-CIO's policy director, Damon Silvers, pointed out to me at the recent Aspen Institute summit on financial
security, while
legalizing immigration would shore up wages (much needed in an economy that is 70% based on
consumer spending), it is unlikely to result in the offshoring of jobs. Most sectors that those migrants work in-like hospitality, construction, tourism and agriculture--simply aren't offshorable.
CIR - AT: Overburden Social Services
Social service costs are not related to immigration – big gov’t causes them, and other economic
effects offset
Reynolds July 2, 2013 - Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, [Alan, “Immigration Illusions Part Two: Rector and Richwine
Rediscover Budget Deficits,” The Cato Institute, July 2, 2013, http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-illusions-part-two-rector-richwine-rediscover-budget-deficits, accessed
July 16, 2013]
A recent paper by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine (“The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer”) went to a lot of unnecessary trouble to
estimate that governments at all levels spent $54.5 billion more on services and benefits to households headed by unlawful immigrants (which includes children and spouses
who are citizens) than was collected in taxes from them in 2010 .
It is hardly shocking to learn that federal, state, and local
governments spent more on unlawful immigrants than they received in taxes, since governments spent more on nearly everyone
than they received in taxes. That is what happens when governments run big budget deficits. Spending by federal state
and local governments exceeded revenues by $1,342.6 billion in 2010—a conspicuously grander figure than the
mere $54.5 billion Rector and Richwine attribute to unlawful immigration. For researchers to discover that
unlawful immigrants, like most of us, did not pay enough taxes in 2010 to cover government spending was
remarkably unenlightening. The paper is even less informative about the future, because (1) it ignores the fact
that the Senate bill’s reduced restrictions on legal immigration would reduce the incentive for future illegal
immigration, and (2) it ignores economic effects of a larger labor force in raising long-run economic growth.
Plan won’t increase the use of social services – most of the workers will be young
Rosenblum, 2000 – International Studies Association [Marc R. March 14-18, 2000 U.S. Immigration Policy: Unilateral and
Cooperative Responses to Undocumented Immigration 1 http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/rom01/]
In addition to these benefits, there would be some costs to the general U.S. public. First,
if the move to a NACM resulted in a large inflow of
Mexican workers, the increasing strain on social services and other public goods would compromise the
services available to current U.S. residents. If new migrants were to use a disproportionate share of public
goods, the additional inflows would also result in additional tax burdens. However, given that most migrants
would be young, healthy, and looking for work, it is likely that new legal migrants would be net contributors to
the tax base, rather than net users, and that they would support the aging U.S. Social Security system.
Low skilled immigrants don’t increase usage of services – they are less likely to be in poverty
Singer 2011 - senior fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program [Audrey Gordon F. De Jong, Deborah
Roempke Graefe, Matthew Hall and Audrey Singer, “The Geography of Immigrant Skills: Educational Profiles of Metropolitan Areas”, 6/9/11,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/06/immigrants-singer] LG
Compared with their U.S.-born counterparts, low-skilled immigrants have higher rates of employment and
lower rates of household poverty, but also have lower individual earnings, in all types of metro areas. Almost
half of immigrants with a bachelor’s degree, across all destinations, appear to be over-qualified for their jobs.
The Great Recession at the tail of the last decade, combined with rapid demographic changes across metropolitan America, has reshaped and intensified the debate about the
economic value of immigrants and their importance in the U.S. labor market. A
pragmatic approach to immigration—one that considers the
economic advantages of the new arrivals—should include a more flexible admissions system to respond to labor
market changes. With the United States at a critical point in both immigration policy and economic trajectory,
policymakers should carefully weigh options to provide support for immigrant workers at all skill levels to keep
the United States globally competitive.
Immigrants do not increase abuse aid – they contribute more than they take.
Pittsburg Post-Gazette, 2013
(Pittsburgh Post – Gazette, PITTSBURGH NEEDS IMMIGRATION REFORM IMMIGRANTS CREATE JOBS AND
STIMULATE THE REGIONAL ECONOMY, Gabe Morgan / Barbara McNees. ProQuest, 31 May 2013)
While business and labor often disagree, the economic benefits for both workers and employers loom large
enough that both the business and labor have united in support of commonsense immigration reform. Nationally,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Service Employees International Union have endorsed the Senate bill. Locally, SEIU 32BJ and the Greater
Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce agree that the proposed bill is good for our region. Some opponents of immigration reform fear that
immigrants will take their jobs, contribute to crime or abuse the social safety net. None of these concerns holds
water. Crime among immigrants is the lowest of any demographic. Far from taking advantage of the social safety net, immigrants
are largely ineligible for food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid and contribute far more to the system in taxes
than they receive in benefits. And at a time when local, state and federal budgets are putting the squeeze on
taxpayers, immigration reform would net additional tax revenue of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion over the next
three years.
Turn – Immigrants save welfare because they contribute to surpluses
Nowrasteh 2013 - immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty
and Prosperity, [Alex, “Welfare Shouldn’t Ruin Immigration Reform,” The Cato Institute, June 14, 2013, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfareshouldnt-ruin-immigration-reform, Accessed July 16, 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. 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. “ Without immigration, America’s welfare state would actually go bankrupt sooner.” 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. 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. By current projections, the Medicare trust fund will be exhausted in 2024, long before most non-citizens and
immigrants are eligible for the program. Increased
immigration of young workers could delay the bankruptcy, giving the
government more time to reform the system before it busts. Far from ruining Medicare, immigrants could give some financial breathing
room to a bankrupt system. Medicare and Social Security are designed for the elderly. Professors Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen of George Washington University recently
discovered that poor immigrants generally use means-tested programs at a lower rate than poor U.S.-born citizens.
Immigrants don’t use more social services than citizens. Their evidence is faulty
Fitz 2013 —Director of Immigration Policy, at the Center for American Progress [Marshall Fitz, Philip E.
Wolgin, and Patrick Oakton, “Immigrants Are Makers, Not Takers”, Center for American Progress, 2/8/13,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers/, accessed 7/17/13]
Center for Immigration Studies report: Erroneous comparisons hide the fact that immigrants are no more
likely to use social services than the native born The Center for Immigration Studies released a report in 2011
concluding that “57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18)
used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.” The report attempted to
paint immigrants—and Hispanic immigrants in particular—as a burden on U.S. social services. This could not be further from the truth. The study reaches these conclusions
by manipulating the data analysis. The study relied on, for example, an unconventionally broad definition of welfare, which included programs for children such as free and
reduced-price school lunches. No other comparable study on welfare usage includes such programs in their calculations. Comparing apples to oranges: Report fails to control
for income level and household composition The
Center for Immigration Studies also obfuscates its findings by using a faulty
unit for comparison. Instead of comparing all household users of welfare benefits, it limits its analysis to
families with children. This arbitrary data restriction eliminates the possibility of accurately comparing—at the
household level—welfare-participation rates between immigrants and natives. If you are going to compare households, you must
compare all households. But most troublesome is the fact that the Center for Immigration Studies compares immigrant and native-born welfare rates without controlling for
differences in income levels. Comparing welfare-participation rates without accounting for differences in income level is akin to comparing the welfare-participation rates of a
highly developed country to that of an underdeveloped country—it is clear that an underdeveloped country would have a greater number of welfare users. If
one
controls for income level and considers all households, the story of immigrants being a drain on social
programs disappears. The bottom line: No difference in welfare usage among the native and foreign born
CIR - AT: Brain Drain
Even if immigration causes brain drain, it doesn’t hurt relations – other nations are demanding
access to US labor markets
Gaston and Nelson 2011 – President of Global Development Centre and Professor of Economics
at Murphy Institute [Noel and Douglas, “Bridging Trade Theory And Labour Econometrics: The Effects Of International Migration,” Journal of Economic
Surveys (2013), June 23, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00696.x/pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
Unfortunately, the
absence of a global redistributive authority renders much of this analysis problematic from a
practical point of view. As with the welfare analysis of international trade, turning a potential welfare gain into
an actual welfare gain requires (preferably lump sum) redistribution. This redistribution has both intra- and international components. We will consider the intra-national element momentarily, here we note that a standard result of the general, global
welfare analysis is that the country of origin cannot gain from migration and the country of destination cannot
lose (Wong, 1986; Tu, 1991; Frydman and Saks, 2007).28 As Kemp (1993, p. 3) notes: ‘Compensation is always of the initial population,
including emigrants but excluding immigrants, and on the basis of country-of-origin consumption and
prices’.29 Without a global redistributive authority, the international transfers necessary to make this work seem
essentially impossible. The global distributive effect raises an interesting question: assuming that the bulk of migration implied by the theoretical analysis, and
seen in the applied work, is North–South; the implication of the theoretical and applied work is that North gains and South
loses, and yet in most international fora, it is the South that demands increased access to Northern labour
markets and the North that resists these demands.
Even if immigration causes brain drain, it helps foreign economies through Remittances
Edwards 2007 - postmedia correspondent in New York (Steven. “Fast track immigrants with skills, Gates urges: He rejects idea
brain drain hurts developing nations”. The Financial Post. March 24, 2007. LexisNexis)
Of course, taking measures that would effectively deplete the intellectual resources of fast rising developing countries like China and India may not be a bad thing -- it would
enable the West to maintain its competitiveness by giving it a counterbalance to lower operating costs in those countries. But development
economists have
long shown that the "brain drain" from poor countries deprives them of the doctors, nurses, teachers and
engineers they need to break the cycle of poverty. Every year, about 20,000 skilled workers leave Africa, the
world's poorest continent and a major recipient through health and development work of more than US$13billion in Gates' largesse since 1994. Similarly, many of the best and brightest are heading north from Latin America, where the
Gates Foundation runs programs like Pro Mujer, which helps provide loans for poor people. Gates himself rejects the notion that this brain drain impedes development in
those countries. When
the bright sparks get jobs in the West, he says, the money they send home directly helps
people who need it. "There's this incredible benefit to the country that they come from of the remittances they
send back to the country," he said this month in testimony before a U.S. Senate committee hearing on
strengthening U.S. competitiveness. "And that's a huge thing in terms of bootstrapping those economies,
letting them send kids back there to school, and having the right nutrition and great things."
Immigrant workers boosts their home country’s economy through remittances
Edwards 2007 - postmedia correspondent in New York (Steven. “Fast track immigrants with skills, Gates urges: He rejects idea
brain drain hurts developing nations”. The Financial Post. March 24, 2007. LexisNexis)
Remittances have effectively become an income supplement for the inhabitants of many developing countries. Figures
released this week show they exceed direct foreign investment and foreign aid to Latin America, source of most legal
and illegal immigrants in the United States today. According to Inter-American Investment Bank, Latin American migrant
workers send more than US$62-billion a year to their families -- and that figure could increase to US$100billion in four years' time. The money keeps between eight and 10 million families above the poverty line. But most of it does not come from people who entered
the United States on visas for highly skilled immigrants. In 2000, George Borjas, a Harvard economist, found 63% of immigrants from Mexico -- by far the biggest contributor
to U.S. immigration-- had not finished high school. Most of the US$23-billion they sent back was in the form of small monthly remittances, Inter- American Bank says.
CIR - AT: Crime
Immigrants do not increase crime – that is a myth
Pittsburg Post-Gazette, 2013
(Pittsburgh Post – Gazette, PITTSBURGH NEEDS IMMIGRATION REFORM IMMIGRANTS CREATE JOBS AND
STIMULATE THE REGIONAL ECONOMY, Gabe Morgan / Barbara McNees. ProQuest, 31 May 2013)
While business and labor often disagree, the economic benefits for both workers and employers loom large
enough that both the business and labor have united in support of commonsense immigration reform. Nationally,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Service Employees International Union have endorsed the Senate bill. Locally, SEIU 32BJ and the Greater
Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce agree that the proposed bill is good for our region. Some opponents of immigration reform fear that
immigrants will take their jobs, contribute to crime or abuse the social safety net. None of these concerns holds
water. Crime among immigrants is the lowest of any demographic. Far from taking advantage of the social safety net, immigrants
are largely ineligible for food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid and contribute far more to the system in taxes
than they receive in benefits. And at a time when local, state and federal budgets are putting the squeeze on
taxpayers, immigration reform would net additional tax revenue of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion over the next
three years.
CIR - AT: Rich Poor Gap
High Skilled visas don’t increase the Rich Poor gap – their consumer spending also increases
jobs for low skilled workers
Sherk and Nell 2008 – Senior Policy Analyst and research programmer at Heritage [James and
Guinevere, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” The Heritage Foundation, April 30, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/more-h-1b-visas-more-american-jobs-a-better-economy, Accessed July 19, 2013]
Some policymakers
are concerned about income inequality.The major cause of growing inequality over the past
generation has been the market response to the shortage of skilled workers.[8] Skill levels have not increased as quickly as new
technologies have increased the demand for workers with advanced skills. Businesses competing for the limited supply of these skilled
workers have driven their wages up sharply. Consequently, the wages of highly skilled workers have risen much
faster than wages overall, resulting in greater inequality.Policymakers should be aware that increasing the H-1B cap would
increase the supply of highly skilled workers as well as the demand for less-skilled workers--thereby reducing
the wage differential. The greater supply of highly skilled workers would mean that fewer business resources would go toward bidding up wages, slowing wage
growth at the top. The greater demand for workers with complementary skills would raise wages for employees whose
skills are less advanced than those of H-1B workers.
CIR - AT: Increases the Deficit
Immigration reform reduces the deficit – it cuts enforcement spending and increases tax
revenue
Lynch and Oakford, 2013-- professor of economics at Washington College and Research
Assistant in the Economic and Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress [Robert and
Patrick, 6/21/13, “The 6 Key Takeaways from the CBO Cost Estimate of S. 744”, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/06/21/67514/the-6-key-takeaways-from-the-cbo-cost-estimate-of-s-744/, accessed 7/17/13]
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a cost estimate on Tuesday of S. 744, the bipartisan immigration bill that is currently before the Senate. The
CBO findings are clear: Comprehensive immigration reform will be a boon to our economy, and the tax
contributions of immigrants will more than pay for any additional costs that arise from this reform.
Immigration reform will decrease the U.S. deficit by $175 billion over the next 10 years and by an additional
$700 billion over the following 10 years. Simply put, immigration reform pays for itself. Immigration reform will reduce the
deficit The CBO found that comprehensive immigration reform will significantly reduce future federal budget
deficits. Although immigration reform will generate some additional costs in government programs such as
Social Security, the CBO found that the increases in tax revenues, primarily paid by immigrants, will vastly
outpace these costs, leading to big net gains for the U.S. budget. In fact, for every $1 in spending that results
from immigration reform, nearly $2 will be paid in taxes. Because of these soaring tax revenues and modest
cost increases, the U.S. federal budget balance will experience a net improvement of $175 billion over the next
10 years. What’s more, these significant gains only grow over time—over the following 10 years, immigration reform will shrink the
budget deficit by an additional $700 billion, so that by 2033 the U.S. federal budget will shrink by a cumulative nearly $900 billion. Immigration will be a boon to the states
In addition to the benefits the federal government will receive from S. 744, states will be better off as well.
Using the CBO’s estimate of the increase in Social Security contributions (as mentioned later in this column),
we calculate that state tax revenues will increase by an estimated $748 billion by 2033. The CBO’s findings reaffirm other
reports, which concluded that states stand to gain significantly from legalizing the undocumented population. In Florida, for example, the cumulative increase in gross
domestic product, or GDP, would be $55.3 billion, and undocumented immigrants would pay $3.1 billion more in taxes over 10 years.
Immigration reform won’t increase spending – higher taxes and growth will more than offset
Nowrasteh 2013 - immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty
and Prosperity, [Alex, “Immigration’s Clear Benefits,” The Cato Institute, May 13, 2013, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigrations-clearbenefits, accessed July 16, 2013]
The Heritage
Foundation has released a study claiming an immigration amnesty will cost the U.S. Treasury $6.3 trillion. Many
other free-marketeers — of which I am one — decry that report’s methodology as ignoring the economic growth effects and
resulting tax revenues of open immigration. While the Senate bill is not perfect, it’s an improvement over the current immigration system — but the
As the Senate considers a comprehensive immigration reform package, fiscal conservatives are riven on the budget effects of the legislation.
Heritage study’s gargantuan price tag does not hold up in the face of ample evidence of the economic benefits of immigration. The Congressional Budget Office plans to
“dynamically score” the fiscal impact of the Senate’s bill. This is a major win for rational analysis of any legislation, and something that free-marketeers have pushed for years
A proper dynamic score
will capture the economic benefits and analyze their impact on tax revenues — not just taxes paid by
immigrants, but by Americans who become more productive because of reform. More immigration will
increase the size of the economy by adding more workers and entrepreneurs, which will then increase the
amount of capital and construction, thus boosting gross domestic product. That larger economy will then
increase tax revenues, all else remaining equal. But how much bigger would the economy be? A 2009 study
prepared for the Cato Institute employed a dynamic economic model called USAGE to estimate the economic
change caused by immigration reform. It found that a bill similar to that proposed in the Senate added $180
billion to U.S. household income a year. Another paper commissioned by Cato employed a similar analysis using a model called the GMig2. The
study found that immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by $1.5 trillion in 10 years . That model also ran
a simulation in which all unauthorized immigrants were removed from the U.S. economy — a policy favored by
Heritage’s study. The result was a $2.6 trillion decrease in estimated GDP growth over the same decade,
confirming the commonsense observation that removing workers, consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs
from America’s economy will make us poorer.
— including analysts at Heritage. “ Peaceful and healthy people are a boon for the economy and don’t bust government budgets.”
Plan saves money – consensus of economists
White, July 2013 - Staff report for the Des Moines Register
for all, White, Mark, Des Moines Register, 13 July 2013., , ProQuest Database )
(Iowa View: 'Gang of Eight' immigration proposal is a good idea
The costs of naturalization are a subject of intense debate. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that there will be a net budget
benefit and positive effect on the nation's gross domestic product. A wide variety of economists are of the
opinion that it will provide a net economic and budget benefit while there are those claiming significant costs.
Absent a comprehensive cost estimate that includes the affect of modernizing the legal immigration policy (an economic and budget boon that most estimates ignore) and one
that uses dynamic models, it appears
the consensus is siding with a net economic benefit, even excluding the benefits of
reforming immigration. That leaves the foundation of the Gang of Eight proposal as the only working
framework that has thus far been proposed for reworking and modernizing our immigration law. In the absence of viable alternatives Senate Bill 744 provides the best
compromise possible to address border security and immigration enforcement, modernize legal immigration and solve the status of long-term undocumented immigrants now
CIR - AT: Guest Worker Program solves Now
Turn – border security causes temporary workers to become permanent underclass – it is too
dangerous to go back and forth
Carafano 2013 – Vice President for Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation [James,
“Don't
Link Terror to Immigration Policy,” The Heritage Foundation, May 6, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/5/dont-link-terror-to-immigration-policy,
Accessed July 16, 2013]
Legacy of Failure Arguably our most recent problems started with Lyndon Johnson’s immigration “reforms” of 1965. Hitting at the same time as Johnson’s “war on poverty,”
these reforms dumped more immigrants into a poverty-prolonging dependency on welfare. This was followed by a wave of unlawful migration from Mexico. In
1986,
Washington came up with a silver-bullet solution so simple, both liberals and conservatives could love it. It was
a magic formula—grant amnesty, create temporary-worker programs, enforce immigration and workplace
laws, and beef up border security—and Ronald Reagan signed it into law. But, in the real world, amnesty came
first, and it overwhelmed the imperfect and sometimes nonexistent attempts at implementing the other
initiatives. Throughout the 1990s, for example, the United States actually spent increasing amounts on border security.
Perversely, this wound up contributing to the growth of the unlawful population. Since it was harder to get in
(and out), migrants stayed in this country instead of going back to Mexico after working a few months, as they
had in the past. Workplace enforcement did not fare much better. When officials actually started going after serial scofflaw employers in the meatpacking industry,
they were so successful that the industry quickly and effectively lobbied Washington to shut down the enforcement initiative.
CIR - AT: Won’t Assimilate
Assimilation isn’t Impossible, social evidence indicates
Skerry 2000 - professor of political science at Boston College
[Peter fmr congressional aide “Do We Really Want Immigrants
to Assimilate?”, March/April 2000, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2000/03/immigration-skerry] LG
A few years ago Nathan Glazer posed the question: "Is Assimilation Dead?" His answer was yes, more or less—
certainly as a national ideal or policy objective, though he stressed that assimilation remains an ongoing social
process. While I certainly agree with Glazer that assimilation persists as a social reality, I strongly disagree that
it is dead as a national ideal or policy objective. To be sure, assimilation is moribund among many of our elites,
especially ethnic, racial, and minority group leaders. But as an animating force in our communities and in our
national life, assimilation is alive and well. I base this judgment not only on the available social science
evidence (some of which I will review here), but also on the views and opinions of ordinary Americans whom I
encounter as I travel about the country. I would also point to Peter D. Salins's widely noted Assimilation, American Style (1997). That Salins, an
academic economist, wrote this book under the auspices of the Manhattan Institute and The New Republic attests to the persistence of the assimilation idea even among some
of our elites. Yet if assimilation endures as an idea, it is
a very confused and muddled one.
Immigrant skills are rising – advanced degrees and English proficiency
Singer 2011 - senior fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program [Audrey Gordon F. De Jong, Deborah
Roempke Graefe, Matthew Hall and Audrey Singer, “The Geography of Immigrant Skills: Educational Profiles of Metropolitan Areas”, 6/9/11,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/06/immigrants-singer] LG
Immigrant Skills on the Rise An analysis of skill levels among foreign-born adults in the nation’s 100 largest
metropolitan areas reveals that: The share of working-age immigrants in the United States who have a
bachelor’s degree has risen considerably since 1980, and now exceeds the share without a high school diploma.
In 1980, just 19 percent of immigrants aged 25 to 64 held a bachelor’s degree, and nearly 40 percent had not
completed high school. By 2010, 30 percent of working-age immigrants had at least a college degree and 28
percent lacked a high school diploma. Forty-four (44) of the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas are high-skilled immigrant destinations, in which
college-educated immigrants outnumber immigrants without high school diplomas by at least 25 percent. These destinations include large coastal metro areas like San
Francisco and Washington, D.C. The 30 low-skill destinations, in which the relative sizes of these immigrant skill groups are reversed, include many in the border states of the
West and Southwest, as well as in the Great Plains. Immigrants’ skill levels vary by metropolitan area due to historical settlement patterns and economic structures. In former
immigration destinations, or “gateways,” with low levels of contemporary immigration such as Detroit, and re-emerging gateways such as Philadelphia, immigrants have high
levels of educational attainment. In established post-World War II immigration gateways such as Houston, and minor-continuous gateways along the U.S.-Mexico border and
in interior California, low-skilled immigrants predominate. Recent immigrants to metro areas with the fastest-growing immigrant populations have markedly lower
Low-skilled immigrants are much more likely to hail from Mexico, less
likely to speak English proficiently, more likely to be male, and less likely to be naturalized U.S. citizens than
high-skilled immigrants. Compared with their U.S.-born counterparts, low-skilled immigrants have higher
rates of employment and lower rates of household poverty, but also have lower individual earnings, in all types
of metro areas. Almost half of immigrants with a bachelor’s degree, across all destinations, appear to be over-qualified for their jobs.
educational attainment than immigrants settling elsewhere.
CIR - AT: Only Short Term
Immigrants benefit the economy – economists agree---the benefits even multiply in the long
run
Davidson 13, writer for the New York Times (Adam Davidson, “Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?” The New York
Time, 2/12/13, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Accessed 7/17/13)
There are many ways to debate immigration, but when it comes to economics, there isn’t much of a debate at all. Nearly
all economists, of all political
persuasions, agree that immigrants — those here legally or not — benefit the overall economy. “That is not
controversial,” Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told me. Shierholz also said that “there is a consensus that, on average, the
incomes of families in this country are increased by a small, but clearly positive amount, because of
immigration.” The benefit multiplies over the long haul. As the baby boomers retire, the post-boom
generation’s burden to finance their retirement is greatly alleviated by undocumented immigrants. Stephen
Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, told me that undocumented workers contribute
about $15 billion a year to Social Security through payroll taxes. They only take out $1 billion (very few
undocumented workers are eligible to receive benefits). Over the years, undocumented workers have
contributed up to $300 billion, or nearly 10 percent, of the $2.7 trillion Social Security Trust Fund.
CIR - AT: DACA Solves Now
DACA cannot solve – it is only temporary, backlogged and awaits the outcome of the
Immigration Reform debate.
Singern and Svajlenka 2013 - senior fellow and researcher at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy
Program.[.“DACA: Coming of Age at a Time of Immigration Reform”, 6/9/11, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/06/19-daca-immigrationreform-singer-svajlenka] LG
Similar to the unrealized DREAM Act, provisions of which remain in the Senate bill currently being debated,
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) offers young people brought to the United States as
children without legal status the opportunity to remain in the country without fear of deportation if certain
conditions are met. Getting a job and a driver’s license are enormous opportunities in the lives of many young
people who have been granted a reprieve from deportation under this program, announced just over a year ago.
More than half a million young people have applied for DACA. To date, 57 percent of applicants have qualified
for this temporary status. The vast majority of the remainder are still waiting to hear. Temporarily protected
from deportation, those who are “DACAmented” have a reprieve, but also the worry of waiting to see if
Congress can get an immigration bill passed, which would offer them a permanent legal status in the United
States. If not, they face uncertain prospects if a future president cancels the policy, leaving them exposed and at
risk of deportation. But just who are the DACA youth? Through a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Homeland Security, we obtained
information on all DACA applicants through the first seven months of the program .
CIR - AT: Alternative Cause for Terrorism - Canada
Mexico is more relevant to terrorism than Canada – Canada will get its act together, and drug
smugglers enable terror cells
Leiken 2002 - senior fellow in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings [Bob Leiken, “War On Terror: Mexico More
Critical Than Ever for U.S.”, 3/24/2002, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2002/03/24immigration-leiken ] LG
Recently I asked Tom Ridge, the president's director of homeland security, which of our two borders concerns
him most: our lightly supervised northern border where Canada hosts more than 50 terrorist groups and a
large Muslim population, or our southern border with its heavy flow of illegal immigrants and a culture of
bribery in Mexico's law enforcement agencies. After giving due weight to the serious problems emanating from
the north, he answered: Mexico. After Sept. 11, for the first time since our revolutionary war, we cast an anxious eye on our Canadian border. Canada's
Security Intelligence Service finds that terrorists recently moved "from significant support roles, such as fund-raising and procurement, to actually planning and preparing
terrorist acts from Canadian territory." Yet Canada
will clean up its act more rapidly than can Mexico in view of the latter's
legendary official corruption. American security officials worry that al-Qaeda will turn its attention to our
porous southern border and our vulnerable Latin American strategic rear. In global conflict our adversary never fails to try our Latin
American back door. Each time the crack widens. In World War I, Germany offered to return conquered U.S. territory to Mexico in exchange for attacking and tying down the
U.S. The Nazis built networks in German communities in South America. The Soviets armed Cuba and Grenada and meddled in Central America. Latin
America
affords terrorist networks promising avenues: a long, disorderly border; corrupt officials; well organized
smuggling rings. Endemic official graft makes it easy to obtain travel documents. Police forces are often
inefficient and corrupt. Latin America's problematic transition to democracy and markets has widened the economic disparities that help perpetuate antiAmerican sentiment. The collapse of Argentina, the closest ally of the U.S. in South America, may fuel populist and anti-American movements. Terrorism is now on the
rebound in Peru and on the offensive in Colombia. So far there is nothing to indicate a direct alliance between al-Qaeda and Latin American terrorist organizations like
Colombia's FARC or the Shining Path in Peru. But U.S.
counter-terrorism experts say "sleeper cells" have been planted among
Latin America's six million Muslims. After Sept. 11, 40 FBI agents and police officers from Argentina and Brazil scoured Paraguay's notorious "triple
border" region, which has become a haven for Islamic terrorists. U.S. authorities have asked government security forces in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Uruguay
to track movements of suspect Arab nationals in the wake of the attacks. The Bush administration suspects that the Abdullah ring, which specializes in smuggling Middle
Easterners over the Mexican border, has terrorist ties. Thanks to international alien smugglers, the number of Middle Easterners illegally crossing Mexico's borders has
soared. Mexican
drug lords have tunneled the border and set up clandestine methamphetamine factories in
various parts of the United States. The State Department's coordinator for counter-terrorism recently told a
congressional committee that the Mexican border represents "a diffuse and insidious threat."
CIR - Heritage Indicts
Heritage Foundation immigration studies are flawed – they ignore the beneficial effects on
growth
Nowrasteh 2013 - immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty
and Prosperity, [Alex, “Heritage Immigration Study Fatally Flawed,” The Cato Institute, April 4, 2013, http://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immigration-studyfatally-flawed, Accessed July 16, 2013.
There are indications that The Heritage Foundation may soon release an updated version of its 2007 report, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer,” by
Robert Rector. That 2007 report’s flawed methodology produced a grossly exaggerated cost to federal taxpayers of legalizing unauthorized immigrants while undercounting or
discounting their positive tax and economic contributions – greatly affecting the 2007 immigration reform debate. Before releasing its updated report, I
urge the
Heritage Foundation to avoid the same serious errors that so undermined Mr. Rector’s 2007 study. Here is a
list of some of its major errors: Count individuals, not households.[1] Heritage counts household use of government benefits, not
individual immigrant use. Many unauthorized immigrants are married to U.S. citizens and have U.S. citizen children who live in the same households. Counting the fiscal costs
of those native-born U.S. citizens massively overstates the fiscal costs of immigration. Employ dynamic scoring rather than static scoring . [2]
Heritage’s report relies on static scoring rather than dynamic scoring, making the same mistake in evaluating the impact of increased immigration on welfare costs that the
Joint Committee on Taxation makes when scoring the impact of tax cuts. Instead, Heritage should use dynamic scoring techniques to evaluate the fiscal effects of immigration
reform. For example, Heritage should assume that wages and gross domestic product are altered considerably because of immigration policy reforms. In contrast to that
economic reality, immigrant wages, gross domestic product, and government welfare programs are unrealistically static in Mr. Rector’s study. His study largely ignores the
wage increases experienced by immigrants and their descendants over the course of their working lives, how those wages would alter after legalization, and the huge gains in
education amongst the second and third generation of Hispanics.[3] Heritage
is devoted to dynamic scoring in other policy areas – it
should be so devoted to it here too.[4] Factor in known indirect fiscal effects.[5] The consensus among
economists is that the economic gains from immigration vastly outweigh the costs.[6] In 2007, Mr. Rector incorrectly noted
that, “there is little evidence to suggest that low-skill immigrants increase the incomes of non-immigrants.” Immigrants boost the supply and demand
sides of the American economy, increasing productivity through labor and capital market complementarities
with a net positive impact on American wages.[7] Heritage should adjust its estimates to take account of the
positive spill-overs of low-skilled immigration. Assume that wages for legalized immigrants would increase –
dramatically.[8] Heritage did not assume large wage gains for unauthorized immigrants after legalization. In the wake of the 1986 Reagan amnesty, wages for legalized
immigrants increased – sometimes by as much as 15 percent – because legal workers are more productive and can command higher wages than illegal workers. Heritage
Assume realistic levels of welfare
use.[10] Vast numbers of immigrants will return to their home countries before collecting entitlements,[11] the
“chilling effect” whereby immigrants are afraid of using welfare reduces their usage of it, and immigrants use less welfare across the board.[12] 100 native-born
adults eligible for Medicaid will cost the taxpayers about $98,000 a year. A comparable number of poor noncitizen immigrants cost approximately $57,000 a year – a 42 percent lower bill than for natives. For children, citizens cost $67,000 and noncitizens cost $22,700 a year – a whopping 66 percent lower cost. Heritage should adjust its estimates of future immigrant welfare use
downward. [13] Use latest legislation as benchmark.[14] The current immigration plan, if rumors are to be
believed, would stretch a path to citizenship out for 13 years.[ 15] Most welfare benefits will be inaccessible until
then, so Heritage’s report must take that timeline into account. Remittances do not decrease long term consumption.[16]
Remittances sent home by immigrants will eventually return to the U.S. economy in the form of increased
exports or capital account surpluses. Heritage should recognize this aspect of economic reality rather than assuming remittances are merely a short-term
economic cost. Factor in immigration enforcement costs.[17] Heritage did not compare costs of legalization and guest workers to the
costs of the policy status quo or increases in enforcement. The government spends nearly $18,000 per illegal immigrant apprehension while
should adopt similar wage increases to estimate the economic effects of immigration reform if it were to happen today.[9]
the economic distortions caused by forcing millions of consumers, renters, and workers out of the U.S. would adversely affect income and profitability.[18] Use transparent
methodology.[19]
Heritage’s methodology should replicate that of the National Research Council’s authoritative and
highly praised – even by immigration restrictionists – study entitled The New Americans.[20] That study is the benchmark against which all
efforts at generational fiscal accounting – including Heritage’s 2007 report – are measured. If Heritage deviates from their
methods, it should explain its methodology in a clear and accessible way that states why they altered practice.[21] Don’t count citizen spouses.[22] Heritage counted
U.S.-born spouses of unauthorized immigrants as fiscal costs. Counting the net immigrant fiscal impact means
counting immigrants and perhaps their children at most,[23] not native-born spouses who would be on the
entitlement roles regardless of whether they married an immigrant or a native-born American. Suggest changes to the
welfare state. Heritage has elsewhere called low-skill migrant workers “a net positive and a leading cause of economic
growth”[24] and accurately reported that “[t]he consensus of the vast majority of economists is that the broad
economic gains from openness to trade and immigration far outweigh the isolated cases of economic loss.”[25]
Instead of arguing against low-skill immigration, Mr. Rector should instead suggest reforms that would, in the
words of Cato’s late Chairman Bill Niskanen, “build a wall around the welfare state, not around the country.”[ 26]
It is imperative that the economic costs and benefits of increased immigration be studied using proper methods
and the most recent data. A previous report by the Heritage Foundation in 2006 entitled, “The Real Problem with Immigration … and the Real Solution,” by
Tim Kane and Kirk Johnson roundly rejected the negative economic assessments of Mr. Rector’s 2007 study.[27] Not only does Mr. Rector not speak for
the broad conservative movement; it appears that economists who have worked for the Heritage Foundation
also disagree with Mr. Rector’s conclusions. For decades, the Heritage Foundation has been an influential
intellectual force in conservative circles. Its economic analyses have been predicated on consideration of the
dynamic effects of policy changes as opposed to static effects. Unfortunately, Mr. Rector’s past work has not
been consistent in this regard, employing the same static scoring conservatives have traditionally distrusted in
other policy areas.
Immigrants solve for the economy—their evidence unqualified and biased
Fitz 2013 —Director of Immigration Policy, at the Center for American Progress [Marshall Fitz, Philip E.
Wolgin, and Patrick Oakton, “Immigrants Are Makers, Not Takers”, Center for American Progress, 2/8/13,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers/, accessed 7/17/13]
Even with these positive economic benefits, though, anti-immigrant groups continue to insist that immigrants take more out
of the system than they pay into it. Two studies in particular have received attention lately: a 2007 study by the Heritage
Foundation, which found that legalization would cost $2.6 trillion; and a 2011 study by the Center for
Immigration Studies, which concluded that Hispanic immigrants use more public benefits than other groups. Both studies rely on a snapshot of
immigrants frozen in time to get to their calculations. Heritage focuses only on immigrants as retirees without
taking into account the money they pay into the system during their working years. The Center for Immigration
Studies focuses on families with children without taking into account the taxes their children will pay over their
lifetime. Each approach is predicated on faulty assumptions. Heritage Foundation study: A misleading
snapshot of immigrant life In an attention-grabbing headline from 2007, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector argued that
legalizing undocumented immigrants would cost taxpayers “at least $2.6 trillion.” The message was deceptively simple: At some
point in the future, the legalized immigrants will hit age 67 and will retire. Once retired, these immigrants will cost taxpayers a significant amount of money by using programs
such as Social Security and Medicare—a figure the author estimated to be roughly $17,000 per year for an average of 18 years. Multiply the ensuing $306,000 by the 8.5
million legalized adults whom Rector expects to reach retirement age, and that’s how you get $2.6 trillion. The
missing context: Immigrants pay into
the system long before retiring The problem with such magical thinking is that Rector failed to provide basic
context for his conclusions: Most importantly, he only looks at the costs of immigrants once they retire and
does not take into account any taxes they would have paid into the system as workers preretirement . All retirees use
more in services than they contribute in taxes during retirement years, but the explicit bargain of programs such as Social Security is that you pay into the system over your
lifetime and then take from it once you retire.
CIR – Agriculture Impacts
Immigration reform key to agriculture – it stabilizes farm labor costs
Hagen July 12, 2013 - Staff Writer for the San Bernardino Sunday (Ryan. “Agriculture secretary: Immigration reform
vital for food supply”. San Bernardino Sun. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
Vilsack was calling to push for the bill, which is backed by President Barack Obama and, among other changes, would provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million
immigrants living in the country illegally and boost border security. Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, have said they won't act on the bill but will put
forward a series of other immigration measures. Vilsack said he thinks some members of Congress are "putting their party and their political future ahead of the country's
future." "I think they pose their resistance as based on border security, but when you're talking about a person every 1,000 feet, which is what (the bill proposes)... you can't
possibly say it's about border security," he said. "I mean, it's a human fence." There's no doubt that immigration reform is needed, Rep. Gary
Miller, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said in a statement Friday. "The Speaker (John Boehner) has stated that the House will take its own approach to reforming the system, and I
look forward to being a part of that process," he said. "I will closely consider the merits and consequences of any proposal that the House of Representatives considers to
ensure that it
will lead to the establishment of a fair and efficient system that promotes economic growth,
establishes a strong mandatory employment verification system in order to protect American jobs for American
workers and eliminate the exploitation of unauthorized workers, and strengthens public safety ." But it's not just liberals
saying immigration reform is vital for farms and those who eat farm produce. "We've been unequivocally
supportive of the Senate bill," said Brian Little, director of Labor Affairs for the California Farm Bureau
Federation, a nonprofit group aimed to promote agricultural interests. "Of course our industry needs to have a
stable and adequate workforce. Most business people will tell you they need to have some certainty about
things like the cost of capital and the cost of labor." Most farmers -- most business owners -- are conservative, he said. But the issue goes beyond
ideology, he said. "You can have disagreements with people with whom you disagree about most things," he said.
American workers don’t fill agricultural labor gaps because they are too urban
Hagen July 12, 2013 - Staff Writer for the San Bernardino Sunday (Ryan. “Agriculture secretary: Immigration reform
vital for food supply”. San Bernardino Sun. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
A piece-by-piece approach might work, but the important thing is to get reform soon, he said. The same is true in seemingly urban areas like San
Bernardino County, which in 2011 produced $519 million worth of crops, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. That puts it 23rd among California
58 counties, while Los Angeles County is 33rd. The distance from farms complicates things, said Gayle Covey, executive director of the San Bernardino County Farm Bureau.
The great majority of the people who work on farms in California -- and in other states, as well -- come from other countries,"
Covey said in an email. "When farmers talk about labor shortages and the need for immigration reform, people typically
ask, 'Why don't you just offer higher pay? And why don't you hire local people?' In fact, pay rates have risen and farmers have tried
many times to recruit local workers for farm jobs. But farms by their nature are in rural areas, and most
Americans these days live in urban and suburban areas." Beyond what they say are benefits to border security and the economy broadly, farm
advocates say increased labor is important for people who want affordable local food.
Comprehensive immigration reform key to agriculture – necessary for labor
Weisman and Parker July 19, 2013 – Staff writers for the New York Times (Supporters of Immigration Overhaul,
Seeking Momentum, Look to Business Groups Lexis New York Times
The Business Roundtable has strongly supported the Senate’s comprehensive approach, he said, and the chief executives “remain cautiously optimistic that as the House
continues to progress and pass a series of independent bills, then after August there will be a mechanism to unify them with the Senate.” At the same time, the
House’s
approach has risks. High technology businesses strongly back an expansion of visas for skilled worker s.
Agribusiness and service industries are most interested in guest worker programs. In a comprehensive bill, like the Senate’s, all
the business groups have an incentive to back the whole measure to make sure that their particular component
remains. If the House separates the components, businesses could get behind some — but not all — of the piecemeal bills. “You’ve got to keep a holistic momentum going
because if you disaggregate, you run the risk of fragmentation,” Mr. Brown said. The most involved group has been the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which helped broker a deal with organized labor on a guest worker program that was critical to the
success of the Senate bill and ran national radio and television advertisements in the week leading up to the legislation’s final passage in the
Senate. Four weeks ago, the group met with the 120 largest trade associations among its members to plot strategy.
Immigration reform is key to the agricultural industry – farm worker shortages
Hagen July 12, 2013 - Staff Writer for the San Bernardino Sunday (Ryan. “Agriculture secretary: Immigration reform
vital for food supply”. San Bernardino Sun. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
The future of the nation's food supply depends on immigration reform like the bill that passed the Senate and has now hit a road block
in the House of Representatives, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Friday. A shortage of farm workers is leaving food
unpicked and risking the loss of much of the agricultural sector to other countries, hurting the economy , Vilsack
said in a phone interview. "Over time, if we continue to have the broken immigration system we have, we're going to
compromise the affordability and the availability of food in this country," he said. "We can do better for the country, and the
immigration reform bill that passed the Senate, if it were to pass the House, we would have a stable and secure workforce, we would have an
and we would have a workable
guest worker program to complement the permanent workforce so we would always be assured we would have
sufficient hands to do the work."
earned pathway to citizenship for those who are currently working in this country in agriculture but who are not documented,
Immigration helps the agriculture industry – government studies prove
The National Economic Council July 10, 2013 [“The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” July 10, 2013,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report.pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
According to a USDA
simulation of a similar policy, an expanded agriculture temporary-worker program, would
increase long-run agricultural output by between 0.2 percent and 2.0 percent, depending on the crop, and
would increase agricultural exports by between 0.2 percent and 3.2 percent. Travel and tourism comprise the
largest service-export industry in the U.S., setting a record $165.6 billion in exports and supporting 7.8 million jobs in 2012,
according to the International Trade Administration. The industries’ continued growth depends on America’s ability to compete with other countries for international tourists
(particularly those from emerging economies), which the Senate bill aims to do through numerous provisions that will facilitate increased travel and tourism to the United
States while simultaneously strengthening our national security.
CIR – Patriarchy Impacts
Immigration reform increases Women’s employment – increased child care
Clemens And Lynch 2013 - senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and Professor of
Economics at Washington College, [Michael, Robert, Michael is senior fellow at the center for global development, Robert is also the senior fellow
at the Center for American Progress, “Low-Wage Workers Will Benefit From Immigration Reform, Too,” New Republic, 4-29-13
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113065/immigration-reform-low-wage-workers-will-benefit-too#, Accessed 7-17-13]
Recent research has shown that low-skill immigrants complement U.S. workers in many ways that are less obvious. Patricia Cortes of Boston University has shown that low-
skill immigrant workers encourage skilled American women to enter the labor force—by making childcare more
affordable. Jennifer Hunt of Rutgers and the U.S. Department of Labor has found that low-skill immigration encourages high-school
completion by U.S. natives, by raising the relative return to staying in school. Both of these forces make the whole U.S. economy more productive, and that
generates jobs for low-skill Americans too. Judis claims that legalizing the 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. would “thrust [them] into the mainstream
labor market, where they will compete with native-born workers.” But research indicates that legalizing these aspiring Americans would help our economy. Legalization would
allow unauthorized workers to find jobs that best match their skills, increasing the productivity of our workforce and increasing the earnings of all Americans.
CIR – AT: Pathway to Legalization
Pathway to citizenship is key to solvency – only it guarantees economic benefits
Lynch and Oakford, 2013-- professor of economics at Washington College and Research
Assistant in the Economic and Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress [Robert and
Patrick, 6/21/13, “The 6 Key Takeaways from the CBO Cost Estimate of S. 744”, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/06/21/67514/the-6-key-takeaways-from-the-cbo-cost-estimate-of-s-744/, accessed 7/17/13]
Legalization is the driving force behind the net gains under S. 744 It is clear from the CBO score that
comprehensive immigration reform will bring about significant economic gains for all Americans and the country as a
whole. Equally clear is the fact that legalizing undocumented immigrants and putting them on a pathway to earned
citizenship is the main reason the United States stands to reap such large net economic benefits . The CBO identifies that
the $460 billion increase in tax revenues that will occur in the first 10 years of immigration reform is due in
large part to undocumented immigrants coming out of the shadows, working “on the books,” and paying taxes .
But while they are responsible for a large share of the revenue gains under S. 744, the CBO estimates that the newly legalized will account for less
than 10 percent of the additional costs associated with S. 744. The CBO’s findings therefore indicate that the net
economic gains from immigration reform are greatest when the largest number of people can travel the path to
earned citizenship. The positive economic gains are even greater than the CBO estimates Because the CBO’s
analysis incorporates only the direct effects of S. 744 on “the U.S. population, employment and taxable
compensation,” many of the broader positive economic impacts of the bill are not captured in the analysis. The
CBO accounts, for example, for the fact that legalizing undocumented immigrants leads to higher tax revenues, due to undocumented immigrants going on the books and
experiencing a rise in their wages. What
the CBO does not account for, however, is the additional tax revenues and
economic growth that stem from undocumented immigrants spending their increased earnings throughout the
economy, which leads to an increase in GDP and earnings for all Americans. When these economic ripple effects are taken into
account, the gains to our country are even greater than the CBO estimates. The CBO acknowledges as much by noting that there will be additional gains that they have not
calculated and that these unaccounted-for macroeconomic effects will further reduce deficits by at least $300 billion by 2033. Other
research has found that
as immigrants spend their extra earnings throughout the economy on things such as homes, cars, and laptops,
it drives business demand and creates economic prosperity. The increased earnings from the newly legalized immigrants will boost the U.S.
economy by more than $800 billion and increase the earnings of all Americans by $470 billion over 10 years. This additional spending will also support the creation of 121,000
additional jobs on average each year over 10 years.
Immigration reform without a path to citizenship cannot solve the economy - it doesn’t
increase consumer spending
Anthony 2013 – Staff Writer for The Progress (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will Boost Economy, The Progress – Index, Mark,
ProQuest, 27 Mar 2013)
Immigrants play many roles in our economy - as workers, as customers, and as business owners themselves. How big are their contributions? Here's
one reference point: if some politicians got their way and all unauthorized immigrants were deported, we would lose
$551 billion in total spending and $245 billion in GDP, according to a report by the Perryman Group. On the other hand, if we do
immigration reform right - strengthening the workforce and customer base for small businesses, creating a
pathway to earned citizenship, and reducing red tape for businesses and workers - that kind of immigration reform will add $1.5
trillion to our GDP over 10 years. That's just the kind of shot in the arm the economy needs. A guest worker program - without a path to
citizenship - might help employers who want to take advantage of cheap foreign labor. But it won't help the majority
of responsible business owners and it won't boost our customer base the way comprehensive reform will. The
economic verdict is clear: reform based on a guest worker model with no path to citizenship would cut the economic
growth we can achieve from comprehensive immigration reform nearly in half.
Path To Citizenship key to high skilled workers – it encourages youth to attend college
Morales 2013 - president of California State University, San Bernardino (Tomas D Inland Empire economy needs
comprehensive immigration reform , The Sun,l 20 Apr 2013, ProQuest)
Educated Work Force: With the lowest college-degree attainment rate in the nation for a metropolitan area of its size, the Inland Empire needs to produce more college
graduates if it hopes to pull itself out of economic decline. Foreign-born
students who come to the U.S. as children and who consider
themselves Americans face tremendous obstacles to attending college because of their undocumented status.
Providing a pathway to citizenship and educational opportunity for these young people will benefit the country
and the Inland Empire. Given the chance to go to college, these students, like most college graduates, will parlay their college degrees
into higher-paying jobs and will become stronger contributors to the economy and quality of life in the
communities where they live and work. Consumer Spending: Both immigrants and U.S.-born workers benefit from
immigration reform. In 1986, under President Reagan's Immigration and Control Act, immigrants saw their incomes rise by 15 percent
following their legalization. Though they still were earning less than American-born workers, the infusion of immigrant workers
earning higher incomes provided more opportunities for everyone. With immigrant workers and their families spending more,
purchasing homes and joining the mainstream banking system, demand for products and services goes up. That creates more jobs, which expands local economies. Tax
Revenues: More
jobs, better wages, and a boost in consumer spending lead to greater tax revenues for cities,
counties, the state and the nation. Had the 2006 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act been enacted, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint
Committee on Taxation projected $66 billion in new revenue would have been generated from income and payroll taxes over a 10-year period. Offering
undocumented workers the chance to apply for permanent residence would decrease the number of
"underground" workers who are paid "off the books," allowing governments to achieve higher tax collections
through payroll withholding and personal income taxes. Good immigration policy is simply good economic policy. More college graduates in
the work force and more money circulating in the economy mean more, higher-paying jobs and a revitalized economy. Our broken and outdated immigration system hinders
our economy's growth and our opportunities for a better quality of life. Comprehensive immigration reform offers a real and sensible solution to strengthen our country and
the Inland Empire.
Immigration reform solves the economy – it boosts jobs, wages and consumption – citizenship
is essential
Peri 2013 – prof of Economics at UC Davis (Peri, Giovanni. Intereconomics,(May 2013): 191-192., The economic consequences of the
proposed immigration reform, ProQuest,)
The experience of IRCA and the results of our modeling both indicate that legalizing currently unauthorized
immigrants and creating flexible legal limits on future immigration in the context of full labor rights would
raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue-particularly in those
sectors of the U.S. economy now characterized by the lowest wages. This is a compelling economic reason to
move away from the current "vicious cycle" where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on
already-low wages, and toward a "virtuous cycle" of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert
upward pressure on wages. Legalization of the nation's unauthorized workers and new legal limits on immigration
that rise and fall with U.S. labor demand would help lay the foundation for robust, just, and widespread
economic growth. Moving unauthorized workers out of a vulnerable underground status strengthens all
working families' ability to become more productive and creates higher levels of job-generating consumption,
thereby laying a foundation for long-term community revitalization, middle-class growth, and a stronger, more equitable national economy. Footnote 1Similarly, an August
2009 report
from the Cato Institute, which also uses CGE modeling, estimated that "a policy that reduces the
number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would reduce U.S.
household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion," while "the positive impact for U.S. households of legalization
under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion" (Dixon and Rimmer 2009).
CIR – AT: Not Transparent
Immigration reform is not being done in secret – it has gone through congress in a transparent
fashion
Fitz and Wolgin, July 11 2013—Director of Immigration Policy and Senior Policy Analyst for
Immigration at the Center for American Progress [Marshall and Philip E., “The Top 4 Reality-Defying Arguments against
Immigration Reform”, Center for American Progress, 7/11/2013, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/07/11/69282/the-top-4-reality-defying-argumentsagainst-immigration-reform/, accessed 7/16/2013]
Myth No. 1: Congress shut the American people out of the process of immigration reform. In their joint op-ed, titled “Kill the Bill,” Kristol and Lowry argue that because of “the
sheer size of the bill and the hasty manner in which it was amended and passed,” it should be defeated in the House, while Michael Patrick Leahy of Brietbart News argued that
it is “unlikely any of the 68 Senators who voted in favor of it had read the entire bill.” Fact: Even
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who led the opposition to
S. 744 on the Senate floor, praised the “open and transparent” way that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
held hearings, as well as the committee’s markup of the bill. There were 71 days between when the bill was introduced in
committee and when it was voted on, giving members and the public more than ample time to read the bill. The
Senate Judiciary Committee spent five separate days debating the bill, considering a total of 212 suggested amendments and adopting
more than 90 of them, the vast majority of which had bipartisan support. The full Senate then spent three weeks
working on the bill before voting. At each step of the process, all parts of the bill and the amendments were
posted online, giving anyone the opportunity to read through the changes and comment on each one.
CIR – AT: Amnesty
Immigration Reform doesn’t cause amnesty – previously illegal immigrants have to pay fines
and back taxes
Lloyd, July 14, 2013 - writer for the Tribune Democrat,
[William Mass Deportation is not an Option http://tribunedemocrat.com/editorials/x1538940917/William-Lloyd-Immigration-reform-Mass-deportation-not-an-option)
Some opponents of immigration reform argue that granting any form of legal status to those who are in this country illegally would constitute amnesty for
lawbreakers and would encourage more illegal immigration. However, the Senate version of immigration reform would require
undocumented immigrants to pay fines and back taxes as a condition for legalization. Furthermore, the House
of Representatives is likely to insist on amendments to improve security along the Mexican border even more
than proposed by the Senate. In addition, the Pew Research Center has concluded that declining birth rates in
Mexico and an improving economy in that country could mean fewer young adults with an incentive to come to
the United States in the future. Wholesale deportation is not an alternative. Therefore, whether one favors or opposes a path to
citizenship, some form of legalization makes sense.
Immigration reform is not Amnesty – requires immigrants to earn status
White, July 2013 - Staff report for the Des Moines Register
(Iowa View: 'Gang of Eight' immigration proposal is a good idea
for all, White, Mark, Des Moines Register, 13 July 2013., , ProQuest Database )
Far from amnesty, the bill's pathway to citizenship requires the undocumented immigrant to earn legal status.
Milestones for enhanced border security are established that
must be accomplished before undocumented immigrants are allowed to begin applying as a registered provisional
immigrant, the first step in the naturalization process. These provisions are a significant step in securing our borders and holding
the government responsible.
That journey includes fines and compliance with an array of conditions.
***CIR BAD – IMPACTS***
Securitization Turns
CIR – Securitization Links
Immigration compromise increases securitization of the border – it funds a rapid military
buildup
Isacson, 2013—Senior Associate for Regional Security Policy [Adam, 6/26/13, “Seven Bad Things That will Happen After a
‘Border Surge’”, Washington Office on Latin America, http://www.wola.org/commentary/seven_bad_things_that_will_happen_after_a_border_surge, accessed 7/19/13]
“We’ll
be the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall,” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) told CNN on June 25.
The Senator was referring to a sweeping amendment to the immigration reform bill currently before the U.S. Senate, a bipartisan compromise
that will launch what proponents are calling a “border surge” of new security measures along the United States’
frontier with Mexico. With this amendment, the bill will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for Registered
Provisional Immigrant Status after the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and the Southern
Border Fencing Strategy have begun but they will not be able to embark on a “path to citizenship” until , among other
requirements: The Border Patrol’s presence at the U.S.-Mexico border more than doubles, increasing to 38,405 agents from an endof–2012 total of 18,516. Hundreds of miles of new border fencing are built, bringing tall, often double-tiered
“pedestrian” fencing to 700 miles of the 1,969-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Authorities deploy a long list of new
technologies along the border, including sensors, scanners, radar systems, and four new drone aircraft. The
new drones are in addition to the 11 that Customs and Border Protection expects to deploy along the border by 2016.
Once the U.S. government adds all of this manpower and hardware to the border, the Senate bill would allow
immigrants given provisional status to begin their “path to citizenship.”
The Senate has added border militarization to Immigration Reform
Gaist 2013 - Staff Writer for The World Socialist Website [Thomas, staff writer for the world socialist website, “Senate Approves
Legislation To Militarize US-Mexico Border,” The World Socialist Website, 6-29-13, http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/29/immi-j29.html, Accessed 7-17-13]
The US Senate on Thursday passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration
Modernization Act of 2013, with significant support from both big business parties. The legislation beefs up the repressive and
surveillance capacities of the state, militarizes the entire US-Mexico border zone, in what senators have
described as a “border surge,” and creates a new category of second-class citizens. The security portion of the bill calls for a
massive ramping up of the police presence and military hardware along the border, with 20,000 new border patrol agents,
doubling the total to 40,000. It also calls for 700 miles of new fencing and the deployment of National Guard elements. Under the bill, the border will be subject to “persistent
surveillance,” with “continuous and integrated manned or unmanned monitoring, sensing or surveillance of 100 percent of southern border mileage or the immediate vicinity
of the southern border.” Unmanned aerial drones will be deployed on a 24/7 basis, creating a “drone zone” stretching up to 100 miles north of the border. Vehicle Dismount
and Exploitation Radar (VADER) systems will be deployed, as well as a dizzying array of monitoring technologies, including thousands of ground sensors, cameras, infrared
and night-vision scopes, and a fleet of 40 new helicopters.
Taken together, these provisions will triple government spending on
border security to a grand total of $46 billion. Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, one of the authors
of the bill, frankly described the security measures as “almost overkill.” The US-Mexico border is being
transformed into a fully militarized zone, resembling conflict areas such as Israel-Palestine. Democratic
Senator Charles Schumer of New York lauded the creation of a “virtual human fence.”
Immigration Reform leads to militarization of the border
Patterson, 2013—Director of Communications at the Center for American Progress [Crystal, “The Top 5
Things the Senate Immigration Reform Bill Accomplishes”, Center for American Progress, 6/27/13,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/06/27/68338/the-top-5-things-the-senate-immigration-reform-bill-accomplishes/, accessed July 17,
2013]
The Senate immigration reform bill makes unprecedented investments in border security, including raising the
number of Border Patrol agents from just more than 21,000 to 38,405; building an additional 350 miles of fencing (to bring the total miles of
fencing to 700); and deploying a litany of specific technology resources in the various sectors of the southern border .
Groups like the Campaign for an Accountable, Moral, and Balanced Immigration Overhaul, or CAMBIO, have rightly pointed out that the bill
effectively “militarizes the border.” But this amendment blocked other efforts that would have implemented a
more subjective metric—achieving a “90 percent effectiveness rate” of either deterring or detaining anyone without status who attempts to cross into the country
across the southern border—as a trigger for legalization. That metric could have been subject to manipulation by a future administration by reallocating
resources in a way that would reduce the effectiveness rate. Or, since it is an untested metric, it might have proven an impossible goal to achieve regardless of the commitment
and resources. Instead, the
legislation’s requirements to strengthen the border can be objectively measured and
attained—either you have hired the Border Patrol agents, built the fence, and deployed the technology, or you have not. And the bill itself appropriates
more than $40 billion to ensure that the objectives are met and not subject to the whims of a future Congress.
Immigration reform will increase spending on military hardware
Garvin 2013 - TV Critic for Miami Herald [Glenn The Miami Herald,
Immigration:-Ready for armed drones along the border? June 16,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3501834/immigration-ready-for-armed-drones.html)
It would require — not allow, but require— the Border Patrol to buy six North Grumman airborne radar
systems ($9.3 million apiece), 15 Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters ($17 million apiece) and eight American
Eurocopter light choppers ($3 million each). The not-so-faint whiff of pork from the amazing specificity of these hardware requirements is just one of
the reasons that militarizing the border has become increasingly popular with politicians in recent years. More important is that it avoids the ugly fallout when the public sees
brass-knuckle immigration enforcement taking place in its own backyard: local businesses being shut down and hordes of sad-looking busboys and seamstresses being hauled
away in handcuffs, their sobbing kids behind them.
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform also advocates for investment in border security
Mascaro July 11, 2013 – staff writer Los Angeles Times (Lisa. “House GOP scales back on immigration; Party leaders promote a
limited plan offering a citizenship path only to those brought in illegally as children”. Los Angeles Times. July 11, 2013. LexisNexis)
Along with the pathway to citizenship sought by Democrats and immigrant advocacy groups, the Senate bill
includes a $46-billion border security package designed to appeal to Republicans. The legislation aims to stem
the future flow of illegal immigration by increasing the number of legal guest workers. And it would require that all
companies verify the legal status of new hires.
CIR – Mexican Relations Turn
Immigration compromise increases securitization of the border – it funds a rapid military
buildup
Isacson, 2013—Senior Associate for Regional Security Policy [Adam, 6/26/13, “Seven Bad Things That will Happen After a
‘Border Surge’”, Washington Office on Latin America, http://www.wola.org/commentary/seven_bad_things_that_will_happen_after_a_border_surge, accessed 7/19/13]
“We’ll
be the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall,” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) told CNN on June 25.
The Senator was referring to a sweeping amendment to the immigration reform bill currently before the U.S. Senate, a bipartisan compromise
that will launch what proponents are calling a “border surge” of new security measures along the United States’
frontier with Mexico. With this amendment, the bill will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for Registered
Provisional Immigrant Status after the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and the Southern
Border Fencing Strategy have begun but they will not be able to embark on a “path to citizenship” until , among other
requirements: The Border Patrol’s presence at the U.S.-Mexico border more than doubles, increasing to 38,405 agents from an endof–2012 total of 18,516. Hundreds of miles of new border fencing are built, bringing tall, often double-tiered
“pedestrian” fencing to 700 miles of the 1,969-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Authorities deploy a long list of new
technologies along the border, including sensors, scanners, radar systems, and four new drone aircraft. The
new drones are in addition to the 11 that Customs and Border Protection expects to deploy along the border by 2016.
Once the U.S. government adds all of this manpower and hardware to the border, the Senate bill would allow
immigrants given provisional status to begin their “path to citizenship.”
US Mexican Relations are key to resolving global threats
Selee 2012 - Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute [and Christopher Wilson is an associate with the
Mexico Institute, (Andrew and
Christopher, Wilson Center, November 2012, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf)
The depth of economic ties with Mexico, together with declines in illegal immigration and organized crime violence in Mexico, Open up an opportunity for U.S. policymakers
to deepen the economic relationship with Mexico and to engage Mexico more on major global issues. Security cooperation, especially strengthening institutions for rule of law
and disrupting money laundering, will remain important to the relationship, and there are clear opportunities to reform the U.S. legal immigration system over the next few
years, which would have important implications for the relationship with Mexico. The strongest engagement, going forward, is likely to be on the economic issues that can
Few countries will shape America’s
future as much as Mexico. The two countries share a 2,000 mile border, and Mexico is the second largest
destination for U.S. exports and third source of oil for the U.S. market. A quarter of all U.S. immigrants are from Mexico, and one in
ten Americans are of Mexican descent. Joint security challenges, including both terrorist threats and the violent
operations of drug cartels, have forced the two governments to work more closely than ever. What’s more,
cooperation has now extended to a range of other global issues, from climate change to economic stability. Nonetheless, the
help create jobs for people on both sides of the border, and on the shared global challenges that both countries face.
landscape of U.S.-Mexico relations is changing. and organized crime violence, which has driven much of the recent cooperation, is finally declining. Violence will remain a
critical issue, but economic issues—bilateral and global—have risen to the fore as both countries struggle to emerge from the global slowdown. Trade has increased
dramatically, connecting the manufacturing base of the two countries as never before, so that gains in one country benefit the other. To keep pace with these changes, U.S.
policymakers will need to deepen the agenda with Mexico to give greater emphasis to economic issues, including ways to spur job creation, and they will have opportunities
to strengthen cooperation on global issues. Security cooperation will remain critical, and determined but nuanced followthrough to dismantle the operations of criminal
groups on both sides of the border will be needed to continue the drop in violence. With less illegal immigration, it will be easier to address legal migration in new ways.
However, economic issues are likely to dominate the bilateral agenda for the first time in over a decade. Strengthening economic ties and creating Jobs In most trading
relationships, the U.S. simply buys or sells finished goods to another country. However, with its neighbors, Mexico and Canada, the U.S. actually co-manufactures products.
Indeed, roughly 40 percent of all content in Mexican exports to the United States originates in the United States. The comparable figures with China, Brazil, and India are
four, three, and two percent respectively. Only Canada, at 25 percent, is similar. With the economies of North America deeply linked, growth in one country benefits the
others, and lowering the transaction costs of goods crossing the common borders among these three countries helps put money in the pockets of both workers and
consumers. Improving border ports of entry is critical to achieving this and will require moderate investments in infrastructure and staffing, as well as the use of new risk
management techniques and the expansion of pre-inspection and trusted shipper programs to speed up border crossing times. Transportation costs could be further lowered
— and competitiveness further strengthened — by pursuing an Open Skies agreement and making permanent the cross-border trucking pilot program. While these are
generally seen as border issues, the benefits accrue to all U.S. states that depend on exports and joint manufacturing with Mexico, including Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Iowa,
South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Georgia, to name just a few. Mexico also has both abundant oil reserves and one of the largest stocks of shale gas in the world. The
country will probably pursue a major energy reform over the next couple years that could spur oil and gas production, which has been declining over the past decade. If that
happens, it is certain to detonate a cycle of investment in the Mexican economy, could significantly contribute to North American energy security, and may open a space for
North American discussions about deepened energy cooperation Reinforcing Security cooperation Organized crime groups based in Mexico supply most of the cocaine,
heroin, and methamphetamines, and some of the marijuana, to U.S. consumers, who, in return, send six to nine billion dollars to Mexico each year that fuels the violence
associated with this trade. The U.S. and Mexican governments have significantly improved intelligence sharing, which has helped weaken many of these criminal networks
and disrupt some of their financial flows. At the same time, the congressionally funded Merida Initiative, which has provided $1.6 billion to Mexico for national and public
security since 2008, has been successfully strengthening the Mexican government’s capacity and rule of law institutions. These efforts appear to be yielding some success as
violence has dropped noticeably since mid-2011. Going forward, the two countries will need to do more to disrupt the southbound flows of illegal money and weapons that
supply the criminal groups, strengthen communities under the stress of violence, and improve the performance of police, prosecutors, and courts in Mexico. In many ways,
Mexico has been successful at turning a national security threat into a public security threat, but the country now requires significant investment to create an effective and
accountable criminal justice system and to slow the flow of illegal funds from the U.S. that undermine these efforts. As Mexico’s security crisis begins to recede, the two
countries will also have to do far more to strengthen the governments of Central America, which now face a rising tide of violence as organized crime groups move
southward. Mexico is also a U.S. ally in deterring terrorist threats and promoting robust democracy in the Western Hemisphere, and there will be numerous opportunities
to strengthen the already active collaboration as growing economic opportunities reshape the region’s political and social landscape managing Legal migration flows
Since 2007, the number of Mexican migrants illegally entering the United States has dropped to historically low levels, with a net outflow of unauthorized immigrants from the
U.S. over the past three years. The drop is partially because of the weak U.S. economy, but it also has to do with more effective U.S. border enforcement and better
economic opportunities in Mexico. This shift offers the potential for both countries to explore new approaches to migration for the first time in a decade In the United
States, policymakers have an opportunity to look specifically at how to reform the legal immigration system. Almost all sides agree that the current immigration system,
originally developed in the 1960s, fails to address the realities of a twenty-first century economy. A renewed discussion on this issue could focus on how to restructure the
U.S. visa system to bring in the kinds of workers and entrepreneurs the United States needs to compete globally in the future. This includes both high-skilled and
lowerskilled workers, who fill important gaps in the U.S. economy. Policymakers should consider whether those already in the United States, who have set down roots and
are contributing effectively to the economy and their communities, might also be able to apply through a restructured visa system. Mexican policymakers, on the other
hand, have huge opportunities to consolidate Mexico’s burgeoning middle class in those communities where out-migration has been a feature of life so as to make sure that
people no longer need to leave the country to get ahead. There are a number of ambitious efforts, including some led by Mexican migrants that can serve as models for this.
Mexican policymakers could also facilitate U.S. reform efforts by indicating how they could help cooperate with a new U.S. visa system if the U.S. Congress moves forward
Over the past few years, the U.S. and Mexican governments
have expanded beyond the bilateral agenda to work closely together on global issues, from climate change to
international trade and the economic crisis. The U.S. government should continue to take advantage of the
opportunities this creates for joint problem-solving. Mexico’s active participation in the G-20, which it hosted in 2012, and in the U.N.
on a legal immigration reform. Addressing Major Global Issues With Mexico
Framework on Climate Change, which it hosted in 2010, have helped spur this collaboration, and the recent accession of Mexico into the Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations provides one obvious avenue to continue it. The
two countries also coordinate more extensively than ever before on
diplomatic issues, ranging from the breakdown of democratic order in Honduras to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Mexico is likely to play an increasingly active role on global economic and environmental issues, areas where
the country has significant experience, and through cooperative efforts the U.S. can take advantage of
Mexico’s role as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds, and between North America and
Latin America. The bilateral agenda will remain critically important —and the increasingly deep integration
of the two economies and societies means that efforts on trade, security, and migration will remain vital for
the future of both countries. In addition, the maturation of the bilateral relationship means that it may one
day resemble that between the United States and Canada, in which global issues can be as important as the
strictly bilateral issues. A balanced and wide-ranging U.S.-Mexico agenda—one that seeks creative and
collaborative approaches on topics ranging from local gangs to global terrorist networks and from regional
supply chains to international finance—promises significant mutually beneficial results in the coming years.
Key Recommendations Work together with Mexico and Canada to strengthen regional competitiveness and to grow North American exports to the world. Economic issues
can drive the next phase in deepening U.S.-Mexico cooperation. Investments in trusted shipper programs, pre-inspection programs, and enhanced border infrastructure
will be crucial. Deepen support for Mexico’s criminal justice institutions, and strengthen U.S. antimoney laundering efforts in order to combat organized crime and violence.
Reform the legal immigration system to ensure U.S. labor needs are met for both high-skilled and low-skilled workers, and incorporate those who are already contributing
to the U.S. economy and their communities. Engage Mexico more actively on hemispheric and extra-hemispheric foreign policy issues, ranging from terrorism to
international trade and finance, as Mexico’s role as a global power grows.
Border Securitization destroys Mexican relations—border control cannot prevent immigration
Reuters, 2013 [6/25/2013, “Mexico Concerned By U.S. Measure To Strengthen Border Security”, The Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/mexico-concerned-border-security_n_3498605.html, accessed 7/18/13]
MEXICO CITY, June 25 (Reuters) - The
Mexican government on Tuesday voiced concern about U.S. congressional proposals to
beef up security along the U.S.-Mexico border, saying it was divisive and would not solve the problem of illegal
immigration. Immigration plays a significant part in the countries' bilateral relations. Millions of Mexicans live
and work on the U.S. side of the border and tens try to enter the United States annually, often at peril to their lives. "Our
country has let the United States government know that measures which affect links between communities depart
from the principles of shared responsibility and good neighborliness," Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Meade said in a
televised statement. "We're convinced that fences do not unite, fences are not the solution to the migration phenomenon and
are not in line with a modern, safe border." On Monday, a border security amendment seen as crucial to the fate of an immigration bill backed by
President Barack Obama cleared a key procedural hurdle in the U.S. Senate, helping pave the way for the biggest changes to U.S. immigration law since 1986. The
amendment would double the number of agents on the southern border to about 40,000 over the next 10 years and provide more
high-tech surveillance equipment to stop illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border. The amendment also calls
for finishing construction of 700 miles (1,120 km) of border fence.
CIR – Drug Cartel Turn
Border surge encourages smuggling and criminal gangs and causes exploitation and racism
against all Hispanic communities
Rosenblum 2011 - The Regional Migration Study Group [US immigration policy and Mexican/ Central American migration flows
Then and Now Marc R. and Kate Brick Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars August migrationpolicy.org
tough enforcement since the 1980s also has produced a number of unintended consequences. While
percent of people who attempt to enter the United States from Mexico illegally succeeded on
a first or subsequent effort in 2002 to 2009, the cost of illegal entry has risen dramatically as 70 percent to 90
percent of unauthorized Mexicans now rely on a smuggler to cross the border (up from 50 percent to 78 percent from 1986 to 1993), and
smuggling fees have increased from about $700 in 1986 through 1993 to $2,800 in 2007 to 2009. 31 These higher fees
have attracted organized crime syndicates, previously not a significant factor in migrant smuggling, and illegal
immigration has become more closely connected to narcotics flows and other contraband . Tougher border
enforcement also has pushed many immigrants to cross in more dangerous remote locations, and the number
of immigrants dying from exposure and related risks while attempting to cross the border has increased from
about ten per year during the 1980s to an average of at least 237 to 374 deaths per year between 1995 and
2008. 32 The rising costs of crossing the US-Mexican border and the shift of unauthorized employment from agriculture into other
sectors of the economy and more permanent jobs have prompted changes in unauthorized immigrant
demographics. While most unauthorized immigrants before 1986 were single men who returned home annually about 4.2 million unauthorized
women and 1.1 million unauthorized children now live in the United States (38 percent and 10 percent of the
unauthorized population, respectively); and an additional 4 million children are native-born citizens born to unauthorized immigrants. 33 At the
same time, new enforcement efforts since the 1980s have contributed to an overall degradation in conditions
faced by unauthorized immigrants. Employer sanctions have not prevented illegal employment, but they have contributed to falling
wages for unauthorized workers as employers account for the risk of enforcement by lowering wages, including
for legal immigrants and US-born Hispanics.3""˜ Community enforcement through the ICE partnership programs, and
state and local legislation also have had an adverse impact on some immigrant communities, as the involvement of local
police in the enforcement of immigration law has given rise to concerns about racial profiling (discouraging
some immigrants from driving and participating in community activities] and may prevent immigrants (even
legal immigrants] from reporting crimes, making them more vulnerable to exploitation."•
At the same time,
survey data indicate that 97
Continued trade will collapse Mexican civil and governmental systems – causes a failed state
Kurtzman, 2009 - Senior Fellow The Milken Institute (Joel,; Executive Director, Senior Fellows Program;, “Mexico's Instability Is a
Real Problem”, the Wall Street Journal, 1/16/2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206674721488169.html)
Don't discount the possibility of a failed state next door. Mexico is now in the midst of a vicious drug war. Police
officers are being bribed and, especially near the United States border, gunned down. Kidnappings and extortion are common
place. And, most alarming of all, a new Pentagon study concludes that Mexico is at risk of becoming a failed state. Defense planners liken the
situation to that of Pakistan, where wholesale collapse of civil government is possible. One center of the violence is Tijuana, where last year more
than 600 people were killed in drug violence. Many were shot with assault rifles in the streets and left there to die. Some were killed in dance clubs in front of witnesses too
scared to talk. It may only be a matter of time before the drug war spills across the border and into the U.S. To meet that
threat, Michael Chertoff, the outgoing secretary for Homeland Security, recently announced that the U.S. has a plan to "surge" civilian and possibly military law-enforcement
personnel to the border should that be necessary.
That causes nuclear war and extinction
Manwaring ‘5 – adjunct professor of international politics at Dickinson (Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, Bolivarian Socialism, and
Asymmetric Warfare, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf)
President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state
failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing
the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for
instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major
refugee flows. They can host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narcotrafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in
general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion
can spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers,
trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide,
ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill
over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive
activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South
America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring
about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to
further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s credibility and capability in
terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on
selected Latin American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and
lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is
dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability
and the threat of subverting or
destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable
situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing and failed states
become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation
of new people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given
opportunity. And, of course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and people’s democracies persist, the
associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65
more they and their
CIR – Police State Turn
Immigration reform increases border militarization – it is key to our transformation to a police
state
Miller, July 2013 - Staff Writer for Salon, [Todd Senate Disguises Militarization as Immigration Reform
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/11/the_u_s_mexican_border_is_ground_zero_for_a_domestic_surveillance_state_partner/07/11/13)
Although at the time, headlines in the Southwest emphasized potential cuts to future border-security budgets thanks to Congress’s “sequester,” the vast Phoenix Convention
Center hall — where the defense and security industries strut their stuff for law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — told quite a different story.
Clearly, the
expanding global industry of border security wasn’t about to go anywhere. It was as if the milling
crowds of business people, government officials, and Border Patrol agents sensed that they were about to be
truly in the money thanks to “immigration reform,” no matter what version of it did or didn’t pass Congress. And
it looks like they were absolutely right. All around me in that tower were poster-sized fiery photos demonstrating ways it could help thwart massive attacks and fireball-style
explosions. A border like the one just over 100 miles away between the United States and Mexico, it seemed to say, was not so much a place that divided people in situations of
unprecedented global inequality, but a site of constant war-like danger. Below me were booths as far as the eye could see surrounded by Disneyesque fake desert shrubbery,
barbed wire, sand bags, and desert camouflage. Throw in the products on display and you could almost believe that you were wandering through a militarized border zone with
a Hollywood flair. To an awed potential customer, a salesman in a suit and tie demonstrated a mini-drone that fits in your hand like a Frisbee. It seemed to catch the
technological fetishism that makes Expo the extravaganza it is. Later I asked him what such a drone would be used for. “To see what’s over the next hill,” he replied. Until you
visit the yearly Expo, it’s easy enough to forget that the
U.S. borderlands are today ground zero for the rise, growth, and spread of
a domestic surveillance state. On June 27th, the Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act. Along with the claim that it offers a path to citizenship to millions of the
undocumented living in the United States (with many stringent requirements), in its more than 1,000 pages it
promises to build the largest border-policing and surveillance apparatus ever seen in the United States. The result,
Senator John McCain proudly said, will be the “most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” This “border surge,” a phrase coined by
Senator Chuck Schumer, is also a surveillance surge. The Senate bill provides for the hiring of almost 19,000 new Border Patrol agents, the
building of 700 additional miles of walls, fences, and barriers, and an investment of billions of dollars in the latest surveillance technologies, including drones. In this, the bill
only continues in a post-9/11 tradition in which our southern divide has become an on-the-ground laboratory for the development of a surveillance state whose mission is
already moving well beyond those borderlands. Calling
this “immigration reform” is like calling the National Security Agency’s
expanding global surveillance system a domestic telecommunications upgrade. It’s really all about the country
that the United States is becoming — one of the police and the policed.
A police State renders individuals into docile subjects at the disposal of the government. this
concentrates power in the hands of a few and makes nuclear use inevitable.
George Kateb, Director of the Program in Political Philosophy at Princeton, 1992 (The Inner Ocean, p.121122)
I have said that statism is one of the main ideas that are implied in official (and lay) rhetoric rationalizing the use of nuclear weapons. But the role of statism in the nuclear
situation is not confined to this function. In another form it makes another contribution. The form is best called-once again a French name is most apt-dirigisme, the
unremitting direction by the state of all facets of life. Let us translate the word as "state
activism." The contribution is indirect but insidious and pervasive, and
consists of the general tendency to leave citizens in a condition of dependence which borders on helplessness.
The virulent practitioners of state activism are, of course, the police state, tyranny, despotism, and totalist rule
in all their varieties. Whenever a nuclear power is also one of the latter regimes, then the disposition among a
compliant population is to get used to the idea that the state, as the source of practically all benefits and penalties-all those outside the
intimate sphere and many inside it-has the right to dispose of the fate of the people in any way it sees fit. The way it sees fit seems the
unavoidable way. Such compliance strengthens the readiness of officials to think seriously about using nuclear
weapons. Just as the people are used to the idea that the state has the right to dispose of their fate, so the state
gets used to the idea that it may even use nuclear weapons in disposing of its people's fate. My concern here, however, is not
with the mentality of unfree societies but rather with that of democratic societies. I propose the idea-it is no more than a hypothesis-that the growth of state activism in a
democracy is the growth, as well, of that compliance creating and resting on dependence which makes it easier for the government to think of itself as a state-not only in our
earlier sense of an entity whose survival is held to be equivalent to the survival of society itself, but in the related but separate sense of an entity that is indispensable to all
relations and transactions in society. The state, in this conceptualization, is the very life of society in its normal workings, the main source of initiative, response, repair, and
redress. Society lives by its discipline, which is felt mostly as benign and which is often not felt as discipline or felt at all. The
government becomes allobservant, all-competent; it intervenes everywhere; and as new predicaments arise in society, it moves first to
define and attempt a resolution of them. My proposed idea is that as this tendency grows-and it is already quite far advanced-people will, to an
increasing degree, come to accept the government as a state. The tendency of executive officials (and some in the legislative and judicial branches) to conceive of government
as a state will thus be met by the tendency of people to accept that conception. People's dependence on it will gradually condition their attitudes and their sentiments. Looking
to it, they must end by looking up to it. I believe the "logic" of this tendency, as we say, is that officials become confirmed in their sense that they, too (like their counterparts in
unfree societies), may dispose of the fate of the people. Entrusted
with so much everyday power, the entire corps of officials must
easily find confirmation for the rationalization of the use of nuclear weapons proposed by the foreign-policy
sector of officialdom. There may be a strong, if subterranean, bond between the state as indispensable to all relations and transactions in everyday society and the
state as entitled to dispose of the fate of society in nuclear war, even though officials receive no explicit confirmation of this bond by the people. Under pressure, however, a
people that habitually relies on the state may turn into a too easily mobilizable population: mobilizable but otherwise immobile. My further sense is that a
renewed
understanding of the moral ideas of individualism is vital to the effort to challenge state activism. Continues (p. 122124)I say this, knowing that some aspects of individualism do help to push democratic government in the direction of becoming a state, and to push the state into state
activism. Tocqueville's prescient analysis of democratic despotism must never be forgotten. Even more important, we must not forget that he thought that democratic
despotism was much more likely in those democracies in which individualism was narrowly or weakly developed and in which, therefore, the power of a full moral
individualism had never corroded the statist pretensions of political authority. His main anxiety was for France and the Continent, not for America. Thus, following
Tocqueville, we may say that anti-individualism provides no remedy for the deficiencies: the remedy is to be sought from individualism itself. One task of a renewed and
revised individualism is to challenge every-day state activism. Remote as the connection may seem, the
encouragement of state activism, or the failure to
to nuclear statism and thus to the disposition to accept and inflict massive ruin and, with that,
the unwanted and denied possibility of extinction. In the nuclear situation, one must be attentive to even remote connections that may exist
resist it, contributes
between human activity and human extinction. There are no certainties of analysis on these possible connections. And so far the worst speculative connection is not
exemplified in American society. I only mean to refer to the hypothesis offered independently first by Hannah Arendt and then by Michel Foucault; namely, that where
the state is regarded both by itself and by the population not as a mere protector of life against domestic or
foreign violence but as the source of contented and adjusted and regularized life (through its welfarist policies and other
interventions), it is subtly empowered to take the next step and become the source of mass death . What it gives it can take
away, like God. But though still short of this extreme, American society is full of serious tendencies of state activism which
indirectly cooperate with the possibility of extinction. By continuously expanding the scope of governmental
activity, these tendencies work against one of the principal constituent elements of individualism, the idea that
each person should be subject to the smallest possible amount of government regulation. The protection of
rights and the restriction of governmental activity are jointly at the service of an individual's free life. One's life is not
supposed to be arranged or designed by government or have meaning or coherence given to it by government; nor is one supposed to be helped too much, or saved from
oneself, or looked at closely or continuously. One is supposed to be free, autonomous, self-reliant. Individual rights are not always abridged when government acts to
substitute itself for the individual and tries to lead our lives for us. Government may abide by the constitutional limitations on itself and nevertheless fill up too many vacant
places in a person's life, thus leaving too little raw material out of which a person develops on his or her own. This
ideal of free being is under relentless
attack, but the attack could not score its successes unless we cooperated. In cooperating we forget the ideal, or let preliminary aspects of it, like the pursuit of interests,
exhaustively define the whole ideal. The very notion of rights becomes bloated because of obsession with interests and turns false to itself. Resistance must be
offered from within the ideal, not from collectivism or communitarianism, which are both on the side of
making a people systematically docile and ready for mobilization. Even if nuclear weapons did not exist and there were no possibility of
extinction, the fight against state activism would have to be carried on. But the link between state activism and extinction suggests itself, and a cultivated
individualism must be enlisted against such activism and in behalf of avoiding massive ruin and the possibility
of extinction.
CIR – Racism Turn
Border securitization causes racist harassment, unnecessary deaths and snowballs to social
militarization
Ybarra-Maldonando 2013 - Speaker at Stanford [Ray,
“Border Militarization Unacceptable Compromise,” The Center For International
Society, 6-25-13,
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/06/border-militarization-unacceptable-compromise, Accessed 7-17-13]
BORDER MILITARIZATION UNACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE By Ray Ybarra-Maldonado on June 25, 2013 at 11:37 am The Corker-Hoeven Amendment moved one step
closer to being added to Senate Bill 744 yesterday with a 67-27 vote on a motion to invoke cloture. The Corker-Hoeven
Amendment deals a great
blow to border communities and privacy advocates. The Amendment essentially creates a separate country
located on our southern border governed by Border Patrol Agents and unprecedented amounts of technological
devices. The amendment is so dramatic that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CNN that the U.S. would have the "most militarized border"
since the fall of the Berlin Wall. While some may argue Sen. McCain's statement is simply political rhetoric meant to appease Republicans in the House of
Representatives, the passage of this bill would in fact have devastating consequences for those who live along our
nation's southern border. The amendment introduced by two Republican Senators from Tennessee and North Dakota adds 20,000 more border patrol agents
than previously sought and an additional 700 miles of fencing. While the media is quick to point out these numbers, what is less reported about the
"border surge" amendment is the $4.5 billion of technology that will also be added to the southern border. This
technology includes VADER (military) radar systems, integrated fixed towers, drones, fixed cameras, mobile
surveillance system, and ground sensors. In Arizona alone this will mean 50 integrated fixed towers, 73 fixed camera systems (which include Remote
Video Surveillance Systems), 28 mobile surveillance systems, and 685 seismic, imaging, or infared ground sensors. Immigration reform is no doubt
needed, but the increased militarization is too high of a price to pay. Those living in the borderlands have for
years been suffering from the increased harassment that comes with living in a militarized zone. More border
patrol agents and more technology will also increase the number of people of color who are incarcerated, not
only those who are crossing the border, but also for Latina/o and indigenous people who live in the
borderlands. Government intrusion in the daily lives of border residents will become even more normalized and
the private firms who develop and sell this technology will soon find willing buyers from local and state governments in the interior. While militarization of the
border will lead to more deaths of those crossing (despite a plan to put rescue beacons in remote areas) and increase harassement
and abuse towards local residents from the new border patrol agents, the militarization also sets our country on
the path of domestic surveillance in the name of security. Large fences, unmanned aerial vehicles, and agents
standing shoulder-to-shoulder will be the new strategy for dealing with domestic issues. To add further insult, this increased
militarization will be paid for by fees generated from immigrants who are applying for status with the federal government. Those registering for provisional
status will be funding the militarization that is certain to lead to future migrants dying in the desert.
Rejecting racism must take priority over other goals because racism makes all other values
impossible – it warps equality, justice and morality.
Lipsitz 2000 - Professor at Department of Ethnic Studies at University of California, (George, October
2000, “The White 2K Problem” (for Cultural Values ISSN 1362-5179 Volume 4 Number 4 pp.518-524)
The persistence of residential segregation, educational inequality, environmental racism, and employment discrimination
makes a mockery of the promises of fairness and equality inscribed within civil rights laws. It means that members of aggrieved
racial groups experience their racial identities through impediments to the accumulation of assets that
appreciate in value. People of color confront disproportionate obstacles to acquiring education, marketable
skills, and job training. They face unparalleled exposure to health risks. Their racial identities confine them to
the segments of the labor market where it is most difficult to bargain over wages and working conditions. They
face the targeted scrutiny, discipline, and brutality of law enforcement officials intent on restricting their
mobility and their cultural and political expressions. People of color in the U.S. are not so much disadvantaged as much as
taken advantage of. At the same time, their unearned disadvantages structure unearned advantages for whites.
CIR – Border Violence Turn
Immigration compromise increases securitization of the border – it funds a rapid military
buildup
Isacson, 2013—Senior Associate for Regional Security Policy [Adam, 6/26/13, “Seven Bad Things That will Happen After a
‘Border Surge’”, Washington Office on Latin America, http://www.wola.org/commentary/seven_bad_things_that_will_happen_after_a_border_surge, accessed 7/19/13]
“We’ll
be the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall,” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) told CNN on June 25.
The Senator was referring to a sweeping amendment to the immigration reform bill currently before the U.S. Senate, a bipartisan compromise
that will launch what proponents are calling a “border surge” of new security measures along the United States’
frontier with Mexico. With this amendment, the bill will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for Registered
Provisional Immigrant Status after the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and the Southern
Border Fencing Strategy have begun but they will not be able to embark on a “path to citizenship” until, among other
requirements: The Border Patrol’s presence at the U.S.-Mexico border more than doubles, increasing to 38,405 agents from an endof–2012 total of 18,516. Hundreds of miles of new border fencing are built, bringing tall, often double-tiered
“pedestrian” fencing to 700 miles of the 1,969-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Authorities deploy a long list of new
technologies along the border, including sensors, scanners, radar systems, and four new drone aircraft. The
new drones are in addition to the 11 that Customs and Border Protection expects to deploy along the border by 2016.
Once the U.S. government adds all of this manpower and hardware to the border, the Senate bill would allow
immigrants given provisional status to begin their “path to citizenship.”
Increasing Border securitization increases migrant deaths – accidental shootings, untrained
agents, and innocent civilians
Frey, 2013-- PBS investigative reporter [John Carlos, won the 2012 Scripps Howard Award “Over the Line”, Washington Monthly, June 2013,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/may_june_2013/features/over_the_line044512.php?page=all, accessed 7/18/13]
Fatal shootings by Border Patrol agents were once a rarity. Only a handful were recorded before 2009. Even
more rare were incidents of Border Patrol agents shooting Mexicans on their own side of the border. A former
Clinton administration official who worked on border security issues in the 1990s says he can’t recall a single
cross-border shooting during his tenure. “Agents would go out of their way not to harm anyone and certainly
not shoot across the border,” he says. But a joint investigation by the Washington Monthly and the Investigative Fund at the Nation
Institute has found that over the past five years U.S. border agents have shot across the border at least ten times,
killing a total of six Mexicans on Mexican soil. There is no doubt that Border Patrol agents face a difficult job. Between 2007 and 2012, twenty agents
have died in the line of duty; most of these deaths were the result of accidents, but four were due to border violence. For instance, in 2010 Agent Brian A. Terry was struck
down near Rio Rico, Arizona, in the Border Patrol’s Nogales area of operation, by AK-47 fire after he and his team encountered five suspected drug runners. In 2012, Agent
Nicholas J. Ivie was shot by friendly fire after being mistaken by other agents for an armed smuggler. But
following a rapid increase in the number
of Border Patrol agents between 2006 and 2009, a disturbing pattern of excessive use of force has emerged.
When I first began to notice this spate of cross-border shootings, I assumed that at least some victims were drug traffickers or human smugglers trying to elude capture. But
background checks revealed that only one had a criminal record. As I began to dig more deeply, it turned out that most
of the victims weren’t even
migrants, but simply residents of Mexican border towns like Jose Antonio, who either did something that
looked suspicious to an agent or were nearby when border agents fired at someone else. In one case, agents killed a thirtyyear-old father of four while he was collecting firewood along the banks of the Rio Grande. In another, a fifteen-year-old was shot while watching a Border Patrol agent
apprehend a migrant. In yet another, agents shot a thirty-six-year-old man while he was having a picnic to celebrate his daughters’ birthdays. As the debate over immigration
reform heats up on Capitol Hill, increased border security will likely be the condition of any path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers now living in the
United States. This makes scrutinizing the professionalism of the Border Patrol all the more urgent. The
picture that emerges from this
investigation is of an agency operating with thousands of poorly trained rookies and failing to provide the kind
of transparency, accountability, and clear rules of engagement that Americans routinely expect of law
enforcement agencies.
Increased border violence undermines US international credibility – other countries will
criticize us, and our leadership will be questioned
Frey, 2013-- PBS investigative reporter [John Carlos, won the 2012 Scripps Howard Award “Over the Line”, Washington Monthly, June 2013,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/may_june_2013/features/over_the_line044512.php?page=all, accessed 7/18/13]
So far, the Border Patrol’s cross-border shootings have yet to attract much international attention. If
they continue, however, it is easy to imagine
the U.S. not only being assailed by human rights activists around the world, but also compromising its standing
to pressure other countries, such as Israel, to refrain from firing on unarmed citizens across their borders. In
2006, the Bush administration began rapidly increasing the size of the Border Patrol, ushering in a fanatic
recruitment drive. Customs and Border Protection spent millions on slick television ads that ran during Dallas Cowboy football games and print ads that appeared in
programs at the NBA All-Star Game and the NCAA playoffs. CBP even sponsored a NASCAR race car for the 2007 season. In less than three years, the
agency hired 8,000 new agents, making Customs and Border Protection one of the largest law enforcement
agencies in the United States. Because qualified recruits were so hard to find, the Border Patrol had to lower its
standards, deferring background checks and relaxing training regimens. Lie detector tests, which were
previously common practice, were often omitted. Richard Stana, head of Homeland Security and Justice at the
Government Accountability Office, testified before Congress in 2007 that the “rapid addition of new agents”
would “reduce the overall experience level of agents assigned to the southwest border”—and that Customs and
Border Protection would be relying on “less seasoned agents” to supervise the new recruits. He spoke even more frankly in an interview on
National Public Radio: “Any time we’ve had a ramp-up like this in the past, the propensity to get a bad apple or two goes way up. And if we don’t have supervisors to identify
those bad apples, then they stay on board.” At
the same time, Customs and Border Protection has been secretive about the
guidelines its agents are supposed to follow. While a quick Google search will take you to use-of-force protocols for police departments of such major
cities as New York and Los Angeles, use-of-force guidelines and training manuals for the more than 21,000 CBP border agents are difficult to come by. The Department of
Homeland Security, which oversees Customs and Border Protection, turned down Freedom of Information requests to see their guidelines.
United States Soft Power key to check back conflicts--promotion of regional institutes and
reforms
Wood 06, sergeant in the United States Armed Forces, a writer and photographer who specializes in military affairs(Sara, "U.S.
Support Critical to Latin American Stability, Commander Says," 3/14/06, United States Department of Defense/American Forces Press Service,
http://www.defense.gov/News/newsarticle.aspx?id=15175)//AD
WASHINGTON, March 14, 2006 – Latin
America faces security problems and threats to the region's stability that must be
solved with an integrated, long-term effort by the United States and the countries in that region, the U.S. commander
responsible for the area said here today. "Across the region, poverty, corruption and inequality contribute to an increasing
dissatisfaction with democracy and free-market reforms," Army Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, commander of U.S. Southern Command, said at a
hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "This has been accompanied by the growing popularity of leaders who profess to offer an alternative through anti-U.S. and
anti-free market rhetoric." Southern Command leaders believe the Andean region is the key to security and stability in Latin America,
Craddock said. Columbia has been engaged in its own long war for more than four decades and has shown tremendous success in its efforts to increase governance and
security throughout its territory, he said. Also, Columbia experienced record drug eradications and interdictions and extended government presence to every municipality and
department in the country, he said. "Continued U.S.
support is essential to sustain and build on these gains, not only to achieve
victory, but also to ensure the stability of its neighboring countries," he said. But U.S. military presence in the
area isn't the only solution to the security problems, Craddock said. The U.S. must also engage the foreign military and civilian leaders in training and education
programs, which will establish relationships and foster cooperation, he said. The American Servicemembers' Protection Act, while well intentioned,
Columbia's ultimate
puts a roadblock in the way of the U.S. training many Latin American militaries, Craddock said. Under the act, countries that haven't agreed not to extradite current or former
U.S. officials or citizens to the International Criminal Court cannot receive foreign military financing and international military exchange training, he said. That exclusion
applies to 11 countries in Southern Command's area of responsibility, he said. " This
loss of engagement prevents the development of longterm relationships with future military and civilian leaders," he said. If the United States is not able to train these countries' militaries,
other countries will move in and offer training for a chance to garner influence in Latin America, Craddock said. China
has made many offers, and some countries are accepting those offers and going to China for training the United States can't provide, he said. "We see more and more that
military commanders, officers and noncommissioned officers are going to China for education and training," he said. "We see more and more Chinese non-lethal equipment
showing up in the region, more representation, more Chinese military, so it is a growing phenomena." It is a year of elections in Latin America, with two already this year and
seven on the way, including in Mexico, Craddock said. These elections will be pivotal in many cases, and there potentially will be many external influences on the electorates,
the constituents and the voting public in many of the countries, he said. Venezuela has a particularly strong destabilizing effect throughout the region, he said. "In these fragile
democracies, that becomes a very difficult situation," he said. "It's difficult enough, with these fragile institutions, for them to be able to work through the process of elections,
to convince their constituents that governance is a good thing and democracy will yield tangible benefits in the long run. Where
there are destabilizing,
chaotic external influences, it becomes all the more difficult to realize the benefits of democracy and the
institutions forthwith." The U.S. is watching the political system in Latin America closely, hoping that external influences recede and internal democratic
processes are strengthened and mature, Craddock said.
CIR – Environment Turn
Border Militarization kills the environment – it waives protection laws and walls in wildlife
Serraglio, June 19, 2013 - Writer for the Center of Biological Diversity [Randy, Border Militarization by Congress
Threatens to Derail Immigration Reform Bill http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/border-militarization-06-19-2013.html)
TUCSON, Ariz.—
Under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform, border security hawks in Congress are
trying to ramp up even further the elimination of environmental protections along the U.S.-Mexico border,
expanding extremely expensive, largely useless security strategies that have already caused substantial damage
to the border region. Security contractors have lobbied Congress to include expensive and unnecessary border infrastructure in the immigration reform bill now
moving through Congress; hanging in the balance are billions of taxpayer dollars that would be funneled to the lucrative
border-militarization industry. “Waiving environmental laws and building more walls on the border won’t solve
the immigration problem,” said Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity.
“Congress has it exactly backwards — border security conflicts are just a symptom of failed immigration policy.
Our elected leaders need to focus on crafting a more efficient, humane immigration system that reduces the
pressure for destructive enforcement activities in our fragile borderlands.” Senate Bill 744 contains provisions laden with favors to
special interests that would expand the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to waive all laws with regard to border security activities and mandate that the
Department elevate further wall construction above other strategies — despite the fact that neither
of these provisions has been shown to have
made a significant contribution to border security. According to some reports, construction of the wall has
done little to stop cross-border smuggling, while vehicle traffic by border patrol agents in remote areas has increased. “Unfortunately, the
only thing the wall stops is wildlife,” said Serraglio. Constructed without significant public input or
environmental review, the border wall has caused severe flooding, erosion, and millions of dollars of damage to
both public lands and private property. With an average price tag of $6.5 million per mile, the border wall was found by the U.S.
General Accountability Office to have had no discernible effect on the flow of illegal immigration. “When the
government rushes through a boondoggle like the border wall with little or no accountability, the people and wildlife of the border region pay the
price,” said Serraglio. “The wall has created hundreds of miles of impenetrable boundaries for endangered
jaguar, ocelot, and many other animals, while utterly failing to solve the problem it was built to address.”
Biodiversity loss guarantees multiple scenarios for extinction
Takacs, 96 - Environmental Humanities Professor at CSU Monterey Bay (David, “The Idea of Biodiversity:
Philosophies of Paradise” pg. 200-01)//IK
So biodiversity
keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value of
play Russian roulette with global
ecology and human futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate
patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of
perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished. And if our
species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” 13 Elsewhere
Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop
biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we
yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by
pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will
become harsher. Humanity
will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from
Earth's well¬stocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem
services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will
lower life expectancies to the point where can¬cer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will
bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears
that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.
CIR – E-Verify Add-On
Comprehensive Immigration reform includes E-Verify
Johnson Jr. July 18, 2013 - Congressman from Georgia (Hank. “Reform requires citizenship”. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
July 18, 2013. LexisNexis)
A bipartisan Senate coalition voted 68 to 32 that a path to citizenship must be part of fixing our immigration
system. That Senate coalition represents more than 80 percent of the American people. The Senate did its job. Now it's the House's turn. The Senate bill is
comprehensive. It offers an opportunity for an immigrant to become a citizen after passing a criminal
background check, paying a penalty, learning English and paying back taxes, while it improves border security
and e-verification.
The consolidation of state power through Identification Cards historically has justified the
greatest atrocities of the 20th century—it could culminate in totalitarianism and genocide
William Simpich Civil Rights Attorney, 2004 (William, “Hiibel v The Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Brief of Amicus
Curiae Privacy Activism, Cyber Privacy Project and Freetotravel.org in Support of Petitioner,”
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/5th_Amendment/Hiibel_v_Nevada/Amici_Brief.pdf)
The ramifications of identification schemes were eloquently described in State v. Kerwick, 512 So. 2d 347, 349 (4th Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987): “[T]he evidence in this cause has
evoked images of other days, under other flags, when no man traveled in his nation’s roads or railways without fear of unwarranted interruption, by individuals who had
The spectre of American citizens being asked, by badge-wielding police, for
identification, travel papers – in short a raison d’etre – is foreign to any fair reading of the Constitution, and its guarantee of
human liberties. This is not Hitler’s Berlin, nor Stalin’s Moscow, nor is it white supremacist South Africa.” We
agree. Historically, compelled identification was used most prominently to isolate and gather Jews in Germany
and Nazi occupied territories before and during World War II. All German Jews were required to apply for identification cards by
December 31, 1938, and were required to carry those cards at all times.9 The identification system “was a powerful weapon in the hands
of the police. . . . It enabled police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. . . . Identification had a paralyzing
effect on its victims. The system induced the Jews to be even more docile. . . . ”10 It was a society where “no one
would escape. . . . Never before had so many people been identified so precisely, so silently, so quickly and with
such farreaching consequences. The dawn of the Information Age began at the sunset of human decency.”11 In
1932, the USSR began requiring citizens to carry internal passports. The Soviet police, or militsia, maintained the system of passports that
temporary power in the Government.
virtually everyone over the age of sixteen was required to have. In addition to standard demographic information, such passports also included employer’s name, employment
beginning and end dates, and criminal records.12 Beginning
in 1958 for men, and in 1963 for women, the South African
government required blacks to carry passes (“dompas”) that prohibited their moving freely about the country.13 The
official purpose of the pass was to allow the South African black to prove that he had the right to be present in a specific area.14 Rwandan massacres of the
Tutsi echoed the Holocaust, employing the “carte d’identite,” developed when Rwanda was still a Belgian
colony,15 to distinguish Hutus from Tutsis with devastating effects.16 The existence of a national identity
system does not mean a government will necessarily engage in human rights violations. Instead, it is a “facilitating factor, making it more
possible for governments, local authorities or . . . militias to more readily engage in violations. ”17 As Britain experienced
after creating a national identification system for rationing in 1939, temptation by police officers to use it for routine law enforcement rose, with an increase of identification
demands.18 Protests over routine police identification demands contributed to the discard of the national ID card when rationing ended.19 The
historic abuses of
identity demands and national IDs in Nazi Germany and in other 20th century régimes are mirrored today by
uses in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, and China of registration, identity demands, and cards for social and population control. Used
initially for social services, identification schemes can breed movement control and ultimately abuse.20 In stark comparison,
government attempts to impose national identification on New Zealand or Australia citizens have been vociferously opposed.21 Numerous democratic countries, including
Sweden, Norway, South Korea, and India do not have national IDs.22 At best, national identification schemes beget an ever increasing demand for that identification, for
increasingly routine and mundane aspects of daily life. At worst, compelled
identification can proliferate into a downward spiral of
full-fledged systems of social control, and ultimately, oppression. “History demonstrates that the adoption of
repressive measures, even to eliminate a clear evil, usually results only in repression more mindless and
terrifying than the evil that prompted them. Means have a disturbing tendency to become the end result. ” Bostick
v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153, 1158-1159 (Fla. 1989).
CIR – Drones Turn
Immigration Reform will increase Border Militarization – it greatly expands drone use
Garvin 2013 - TV Critic for Miami Herald [Glenn The Miami Herald,
Immigration:-Ready for armed drones along the border? June 16,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3501834/immigration-ready-for-armed-drones.html)
Last month, when the Senate passed an amendment to its immigration-reform bill that included $46 billion to
beef up border security, Sen. John McCain declared: “We’ll be the most militarized border since the fall of the
Berlin Wall!” He didn’t know the half of it. Since then, documents released as part of a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation have
revealed that the Department of Homeland Security has been preparing to fly armed drones along the border. A longterm planning document prepared by DHS’ Customs and Border Patrol service, which is already using Predator drones for
surveillance along the border, would authorize the use of “nonlethal weapons designed to immobilize” targets
of interest. That gets a little scarier when you thumb through some of the other newly released documents, which reveal that the Border Patrol plans to
more than double its drone fleet over the next three years, to 24, and make them more easily available to other
government agencies.
Border drones spillover to a surveillance society – they will be used against US citizens in the
interior
Garvin, July 18th, 2013—columnist for the Miami Herald [Glenn, 7/18/13, “Militarizing the Mexican border goes beyond just an
economic boondoggle”, The Miami Herald, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765634178/Militarizing-the-Mexican-border-goesbeyond-just-an-economicboondoggle.html, accessed 7/18/13]
It turns out those drones aren’t just flying along the borders, looking for sneaky illegal immigrants. They fly
hundreds of missions a year keeping a watchful eye on the rest of us for various government tentacles : the FBI, the
U.S. marshals, FEMA, the Coast Guard, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Guard, the North Dakota and Texas state cops, and a bunch of
others. Some
of those missions are, doubtless, benign, like searching for missing airplanes or boats. Some may be
a lot less so, particularly since the Border Patrol has no rules — at least, none that it is willing to disclose —
about how it evaluates a mission before agreeing to go ahead. Does anybody check to see if this is something
that requires a court order or infringes on civil liberties? Maybe; maybe not; or maybe the Border Patrol just
thinks it’s none of our business. There’s no way to know. The government, of course, says this is all a lot of pish-posh. The Border Patrol “has
no plans to arm its unmanned aircraft systems with nonlethal weapons or weapons of any kind,” the agency
told Fox News Latino, without explaining why its own planning documents suggest otherwise. But then it carefully
added that its Predators have “the ability to add new surveillance capabilities, accommodate technological developments, and
ensure that our systems are equipped with the most advanced resources available.” The phrases technological
developments and advanced resources, it seems to me, offer an awful lot of wiggle room. The real question
may be why the Border Patrol wouldn’t be planning to arm its drones. The Senate’s immigration-reform bill
clearly contemplates turning the border with Mexico into an armed camp. Not only does it call for doubling the number of Border
Patrol agents to 38,000, but for building another 350 miles of fence.
[NEEDS AN IMACT]
CIR - Terrorism Impact Resps
National security claims equate Mexicans with Terrorists – this scapegoats them as threats
González-Aréchiga 2011 –Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration and Public
Policy at Tec de Monterrey [with Christopher Bronk “Mexico–United States Border Security: From a Bilateral to a Truly Binational Policy Process,”
Policy Studies Organization, November 11, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-7373.2011.00038.x/abstract, Accessed July 19, 2013]
Two major concerns have dominated U.S. political discourse on the border with Mexico for decades : narcotics
trafficking and illegal immigration. This pair of policy problems was united after the September 11, 2001, attacks by
terrorism. Because the United States’ land borders are generally viewed as porous, they were viewed as a certain vector for the entry
of terror groups into the country. The major policy problems with Mexico and the land border have become ter-rorism, narcotics, and immigration.6 This
change has brought redoubled resources to the border missions of the U.S. government, now largely managed
by a single agency: the Department of Homeland Security.A border security concern for the United States is the use
of the borderland as an entry point for terror group operatives. Some posit that Latin America already hosts al
Qaeda sleeper cells ready to be inserted through the border (Thomas, 2005), whereas others view the concern as overblown (Ackleson&Heyman, 2009). In
2011, there were alleged reports that some arrested Mexican drug dealers were covered with tattoos of Iranian
signs. According to Mark Spicer, a veteran of the British Army and a sniper specialist, some tunnels crossing the U.S.–Mexico border at
urban locations might have used Hezbollah technology. Spicer also contends that Mexican drug dealers in Arizona have
threatened to deploy snipers in U.S. cities to shoot border officials at work; as a response, the U.S. government decided to use
military strategies along the border through the National Guard (El Financiero, 2011). These contentions have not being suffi-ciently documented.Considerable
numbers of non-Mexicans choose to enter the United States through the southern border, including many third-country
nationals arriving from Central and South America, Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. In regard to those attempting to enter illegally
from the Middle East, their identity is often broadly brushed to equate with potential terrorists (Coman, 2004). The
number of cases supporting the possibility of such an al Qaeda terror pipeline is small, although the details of the SalimBoughader case illuminate that Middle
Easterners have been systematically smuggled into the United States through Mexico.7 Speculation, often by
anonymous sources, alleges a fusion of activity between terror and narcotics organizations (The Washington Times, 2007). One “war”
merges with another.Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, Republican, presented a legislative project to classify six
Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations. According to McCaul, “due to the violence caused by drug
trafficking, Mexico runs the risk of becoming a failed state run by criminals.” If that were to happen, he contends,Mexico would
become a real sanctuary for terrorist organizations trying to enter the United States through the southern
border. U.S. regulation grants special powers to the government to protect national security, facilitating intelligence gathering, seizure of assets, and law enforcement
operations (El Espectador, 2011). The initiative did not pass in Congress.
Immigration reform increases crime because a path to citizenship encourages too many
immigrants to control
Seper July 12, 2013 - The investigative editor for The Washington Times (Jerry. “Ex-agents scoff at plan for border;
Find criminal aliens, they say”. The Washington Times. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
Deploying 20,000 more U.S. Border Patrol agents along the southwestern border as proposed in an immigration reform bill passed by the Senate
would be "a huge waste of resources," according to former border agents, who say that money should be used to track down
dangerous criminal aliens nationwide. Criminal aliens pose a "clear and present danger" to the American people and
anything resembling amnesty or a path to citizenship at this point in time "will ensure further endangerment of
the American family unit," according to the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO), a group that includes several former Border
Patrol sector chiefs and former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service regional directors. "We believe there are a sufficient number of Border Patrol agents on the
border," said NAFBPO Chairman Zack Taylor, a retired Border Patrol agent and supervisor who spent 26 years patrolling the Mexican border in Texas and Arizona. " Real
border security must begin with effective interior enforcement in every jurisdiction in all 50 states." The "real question"
facing Congress is how many U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will need to be trained and put into place to handle the sheer
number of criminal aliens in the U.S.
Border control fails at counter terrorism – most terrorists are citizens
Alden 2012 – Seni0r Fellow in Trade Policy at Cato Institute
(Alden, Edward. Cato Journal, IMMIGRATION AND BORDER
CONTROL,. Winter 2012, ProQuest)
The third need is to reconsider our understanding of national security and border control. The
close link in the public mind is largely a result of
the specific circumstances of the 9/11 attacks, in which all the attackers entered the United States from overseas. The result has been an
intense focus on policies designed to prevent similar future attacks, and border control has figured prominently. But if the
attacks had been carried out by individuals who had lived many years in the United States-such as the
perpetrators of the 2005 London subway bombing, who were all born or raised in the United Kingdon-the response would have
been quite different. Immigration policy might still have figured prominently in the reaction, but the issue would have been-as it has largely been in Europe-the
failure of integration rather than the failure of border control. Border
control is a very limited counterterrorism tool. While it can raise the
are many other ways to carry out terrorist attacks successfully. It is not coincidental that since
9/11 the majority of the terrorist conspiracies in the United States have involved U.S. citizens or permanent immigrants
hurdles for entry, there
rather than recent arrivals. Terrorist groups have simply adapted to tougher border controls and recruited accordingly (Alden 2010c).
Immigration reform cannot solve terrorism – it is a Tiny aspect of borders and Watch Lists are
solving better
Carafano 2013 – Vice President for Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation [James,
“Don't
Link Terror to Immigration Policy,” The Heritage Foundation, May 6, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/5/dont-link-terror-to-immigration-policy,
Accessed July 16, 2013]
After 9/11, the words “immigration,” “border security” and “terrorism” were often linked in the same sentence. That was unfortunate. In
America, terrorism is a
“retail” problem. Terrorists are a small percentage of any group: visitors from overseas, immigrants, AllAmericans, criminals—you name it. Border security and immigration are “wholesale” issues. They affect the movement
and activities of tens of millions of people and billions of dollars of commerce. Designing immigration and
border-security regimes to stop terrorists is a bit like concreting over turnstiles to prevent fare evasion. Tools for
Terror Fortunately, after 9/11 antiterrorism measures did relatively little violence to our immigration and border-security regimes. Following its initial, highly publicized best
seller, the
9/11 Commission came out with a sequel. This far less publicized report assessed the capacity of bad people to move freely between countries and
to sensible activities such as better vetting and management of terrorist
watch lists. Thanks to that upgrade, authorities were able to track down the Times Square Bomber in real time.
No, the watch lists didn’t prevent the Boston Bombers from executing their plot. But that’s not what the lists
are intended to do. They are for monitoring or blocking terrorist travel on international or domestic flights . Tools
proposed key countermeasures to control “terrorist travel.” That led
like watch lists can help stop an attack, but only if the terrorists are the subject of an ongoing investigation before the terrorist act. When terrorists are homegrown and acting
in their hometown, border and immigration measures can be of only incidental use as well. What
have proved to be the most effective tools are
proactive intelligence, monitoring, information-sharing and investigations that uncover plots before they leave
casualities. At least fifty-four Islamist-related plots have been thwarted since 9/11. Three of them were stopped by luck. The others were stopped by collaring the bad
guys before they could attack. It will take a careful assessment of what federal, state and local law enforcement knew about the boys from Boston before anyone can determine
if clues were missed that should reasonably have led to serious counterterrorism investigation before the marathon. If mistakes were made, they must be corrected fast,
because good counterterrorism operations are the single most powerful and important tool for preventing more Bostons. The United States cannot afford a timeout in fighting
terrorism on the home front. In addition to “homegrown” threats, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s Quds Force have active networks that span the continent. Al Qaeda and its
affiliates are still trying to get here or inspire others to do their killing for them. Back to the Border Border-security
and immigration policies may
only marginally inconvenience global terrorism. Still, the United States has poured more than a little money
into revamping immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border security since 9/11. That has less to do with terrorism than the fact
that our southern border is broken and our immigration and nonimmigration policies and programs are deeply flawed. There
is a reason, for example, why the U.S. spends way more money and resources on the border with Mexico than it does with
Canada—and it has little to do with terrorism. A senior government official once told me that the U.S. turns back many times more
individuals on the terrorist watch list trying to enter the country from Canada than it does from Mexico. What we
are really worried about is that the U.S. southern border is just a road bump for transnational crime that includes the illicit movement of people, drugs, money and guns.
Immigration reform fails – it doesn’t address maritime smuggling or enforcement
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Funding for the Coast Guard. An effective border strategy cannot focus exclusively on land borders. As land borders become more secure, drug smugglers and human
traffickers will quickly look to sea options. Indeed, there is much evidence that this is already happening. Today, America is being invaded by “pangas”—small, open, outboardpowered boats that are a common fixture throughout Latin American ports. A typical small craft comes packed with a load of 1,500 pounds to 4,000 pounds of marijuana and
a platoon of illegal immigrants. Many of those looking to enter the United States unlawfully are not looking for regular work. Often, they are gang members and other
offenders with active warrants or criminal records who would not think of trying to slip through a land border crossing unnoticed. Small boat smuggling is a big problem in
part because it is easy to hide the wolves among the sheep. There are more than 500,000 small, recreational craft registered in the Southern California area alone.[12]
Maritime efforts must be enhanced in conjunction with land security. The Coast Guard acts as the law
enforcement for the high seas; however, it lacks the resources and capacities to do its job as effectively as it
could.[13] The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill does not address this challenge. The Coast Guard is
funded through regular appropriations. Congress can support the Coast Guard by sufficiently funding the cutters,
aircraft, equipment, and training that it needs to continue to protect America ’s seas and waterways.
Existing laws can track immigrants – no new legislation is necessary
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Checking In and Out of the Country. Laws
requiring better management and recording of non-immigrant visa holders when
they exit the United States have existed since the 1990s. An exit system can be a useful tool if managed
properly. Where there is a need for tracking terrorist and criminal suspects trying to exit the United States in “real time,” these tasks can be conducted
effectively using existing enforcement tools. No case is more illustrative than the apprehension of Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, who was
placed on a terrorist watch list, identified, and arrested attempting to flee the country on an international flight less than two days after this failed attack. In terms of
both immigration and criminal enforcement, biographical data (name, date of birth, and country of origin) provide suitable
information for most enforcement activities.[20] In some cases, comprehensive biometric exits may be suitable for
some non-immigrant programs, although such a system would not serve as a silver bullet. Indeed, authorities
lack the resources to investigate every lead such a system might produce. Furthermore, by itself, a report that an individual failed to
register an exit and was potentially in the United States illegally would have scant utility for prioritizing law enforcement resources. Such a report might simply be a false
positive—the individual’s status might have changed. The report alone would provide no assessment of risk. These limitations should be considered; nevertheless, such
initiatives can be accommodated within existing law and authorities.
Immigration reform won’t solve border security – it delays action and allows waivers
Carafano and Morgan July 2013 –Defense Policy Studies and Economic Policy at The Heritage
Foundation [James and Derrick, “Fireworks Back Home Over Immigration Reform,” July 8, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/7/fireworks-back-home-over-immigration-reform, July 16, 2013]
After months of back-room wheeling and dealing, the Senate passed a "comprehensive" immigration bill that proponents say solves all the big problems so wisely that the
House would be shortsighted not to do likewise. But as House members from both parties chowed down back home on hot dogs during a weeklong Independence Day recess,
they encountered some fireworks in voters' doubts about this ballyhooed "fix" of the broken immigration system. Here are four such questions, which policymakers should
consider before proceeding: Does
the Senate-passed bill secure the border? No. It doesn't require the flow of illegal
immigrants to stop, even while throwing tens of billions of dollars at the problem and setting arbitrary security
standards. Many of the supposed requirements, such as border fencing and thousands of new Border Patrol
agents, wouldn't be implemented for years, if at all. As with current immigration laws, some provisions could
be ignored or waived by the Department of Homeland Security. The bill doesn't prevent visitors from
overstaying their visas. Fully 40 percent of today's illegal immigrants did just that. How will the U.S. government manage millions more visas? Not accurately and
efficiently, since it can't handle the current work load. The bill changes some types of visas, but new requirements and responsibilities would make matters worse without
repairing the bureaucracy in charge of our legal immigration system.
CIR - Economy Impact Resps
Border Surge killed any benefit to immigration reform – it prevents workers from integrating
into the economy
Menjivar and Abrego, 2012—member of Latin American Studies Association, Ph. D. in
Sociology and Professor at UCLA [Cecilia and Leisy, 12/11/12, “Legal Violence in the Lives of Immigrants”, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2012/12/11/47533/legal-violence-in-the-lives-of-immigrants/, accessed 7/17/13]
The family, the workplace, and the school are the key social institutions that gave previous waves of immigrants a strong foothold in this country, allowing their children and
their children’s children to prosper. We know that today’s immigrants are already integrating into public life—learning English, going to school, and buying homes, among
other things—but increased legal violence directly threatens future integration efforts. Simply put, when everyone living in the United States is able to fully integrate, our
communities are better off. A
more thorough process of immigrant integration will result in: more upward mobility over
time, more educational opportunities to train the workforce of tomorrow, a stronger sense of belonging, greater
investment in the collective future of the country, and a more cohesive society. Immigrants who integrate
economically—whose wages increase enough to buy a home, for example—not only increase their contributions to the economy in the
short term but are also more likely to care deeply about the future of their neighborhood . This, in turn, may prompt them to
integrate politically to improve and care for their neighborhoods, schools, and cities. Without these kinds of contributions, and as long as the
reality of immigration in the United States is the status quo of attrition-through-enforcement policies and a
large undocumented population with no possibility of achieving permanent legal status, all Americans lose out,
regardless of their status. Within the family, legal violence causes people to live in constant fear of being
separated from loved ones—something that affects even U.S. natives with relatives at risk of deportation. This same
fear and stigma of immigration status keeps parents from accessing social services, even those to which their citizen children are legally entitled. Harsh
enforcement regimes cause even those with legal status to withdraw from public life, jeopardizing community
integration. Within the workplace, increased enforcement has led to employers having more control over the
exploitation and mistreatment of their workers. Many of these workers feel that they cannot stand up for their
rights for fear of retribution. This type of exploitation hurts not only immigrant workers but also the native born as well, who have to contend with lower wages
and less safe working situations. Within the school , legal violence makes young people and their families fear schools as a place
where family members may be detained. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in October 2012, for example, detained parents after they
dropped their children off at two Detroit-area schools. Other students underperform or exit school early based on fears of
detention or the knowledge that without legal status, higher education and a good job are inaccessible.
Immigration reform will hurt low skilled workers – it will create a permanent underclass
Spiliakos, July 12, 2013 - columnist for First Thing
[Pete Against A Permanent Underclass, Against Gang of Eight-Style Immigration
Reform http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/07/12/against-a-permanent-underclass-against-gang-of-eight-style-immigration-reform/)
It is worse than that. The
Senate bill enormously increases low-skill immigration. Low-skill American workers and
current residents have been enduring declining wages for thirty years. This has coincided with declining labor force participation and
family disintegration. The unemployment rate for low-skill workers is currently is currently 10.7%. That understates the problem as the labor force participation rate for low-
Expanding the pool of low-skill workers is
likely to drive wages down even lower for that population. There are those who look at the high unemployment
rates and low labor force participation of low-skill American workers and current residents and see a labor
shortage. It turns out that current low-skill American workers and current residents do not live near those places in America where the low-skill jobs are located (so the
skill workers is 44.5%. For workers with a bachelor’s degree, the labor force participation rate is 75.6%.
low-skill workers have to come from out of country – obviously.) Low-skill American citizens and current residents are more likely to have had chemical dependency issues or
legal trouble. They have access to the welfare state. In the words of a Marco Rubio aide, those American citizens and current residents who have been facing declining wages,
declining labor force participation, and collapsing families “can’t cut it”. They
too will be an underclass as they are even more cut off from
the labor market due to declining wages. There are those who stand to benefit from expanding underclasses. In
the short-term, employer-interests benefit from maximizing their leverage over low-skill workers. In the long-term,
statist ideologues benefit from the discontent of millions who are blocked from full participation in society. The country loses. Opposing the existence of “a
permanent underclass of Americans exploited in America” should be our highest priority in immigration policy .
It is why Gang of Eight-style immigration policy must be stopped.
Immigration reform fails – no enforcement and immigrants won’t integrate
Ponnuru July 15, 2013- a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute [Ramesh, and a senior editor at
National Review “Scrap delusional immigration bill and start over,” American Enterprise Institute, July 15, 2013, http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-publicopinion/scrap-delusional-immigration-bill-and-start-over/, accessed July 17, 2013]
The U.S. Senate has passed an immigration bill, and now all the great and good are urging the Republican-led
House to pass it, too. It should decline. That bill would substantially increase immigration into the U.S.,
especially the number of low-skilled immigrants -- something that Americans don't want, that serves no
pressing economic need and that will make assimilation harder. The bill's guest-worker programs subvert civic idealsby creating a
large class of people who work here but can't be full participants in American life. Its provisions against illegal
immigration are weak -- the Congressional Budget Office's most optimistic take suggests the bill would reduce future levels by only half
-- and there is reason to think they will be set aside as previous enforcement promises have been. The status
quo, flawed as it is, is preferable to passing this bill.
Immigration reform will increase undocumented immigration – the CBO underestimates
overstays and Obama won’t enforce it
Spiliakos, July 12, 2013 - columnist for First Thing
[Pete Against A Permanent Underclass, Against Gang of Eight-Style Immigration
Reform http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/07/12/against-a-permanent-underclass-against-gang-of-eight-style-immigration-reform/)
The CBO estimated that the original Gang of Eight bill would have only reduced future illegal immigration by
twenty-five percent. They estimated a reduction of around one-third to one-half. That would still leave up to seven million or
more illegal immigrants in the US ten years from now even if the bill passes and the enforcement provisions are fully implemented. That is still a large permanent underclass.
It is worse than that. The CBO assumes that internal employment enforcement will be implemented by the
Obama administration. The Senate bill grants legal status first. The structure of the bill means that there would
be no incentive for the Obama administration to implement employment verification. Employment verification could be
“delayed” (like other portions of laws that President Obama finds inconvenient), and this would likely increase the size of the illegal immigrant population. Mandatory and
universal employment verification needs to come before any amnesty. It is worse than that. The
CBO estimates that a major channel for future
illegal immigration would be low-skill guest workers who overstay their visas. The guest workers would work
here, they would not have access to the American welfare state, they would not be eligible for citizenship, and
they would face deportation if they underwent a spell of unemployment. The Senate immigration plan actually plans to create a brand
new exploited underclass. So now we get two exploited underclasses.
Immigration reform will fail because the Immigration Service is poorly managed and corrupt.
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Serve Those Waiting in Line Few
organizations in the federal government have received poorer marks for efficiency and
service than U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Currently, there are over 4.4 million people waiting to
immigrate to the U.S. lawfully. Some of the applicants have been waiting over two decades. The USCIS has little
proven capacity to reform or effectively expand operations. In addition, since it operates on a cost-fee basis, much of the burden is offloaded onto immigrants in the form of higher fees—where applicants pay more and receive less. Transforming USCIS. The Department of Homeland
Security needs a strategic management plan to reform this troubled agency. A serious reform plan must include (1) a different funding model for the USCIS, (2) a
comprehensive overhaul of the agency’s service support enterprise, and (3) much better integration of USCIS programs with immigration enforcement and border control. The
reform can be implemented through appropriations rather than the revenue of increased fees, and Congress should appropriate the necessary funding. Further, USCIS must
deliver a comprehensive and realistic plan for upgrading its services and information technology and fund the program through annual appropriations and produce a detailed
procurement timeline so that this program does not fall behind due to a still-maturing procurement capability at DHS.[21] All these steps should be a prerequisite for
considering greatly expanding the mission of the department to process far greater numbers of people.
Immigration reform hurts US wages – both short term and long term
Morgan 2013 – Vice President for Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation [Derrick, , “First Take on the
CBO Report: Amnesty Hurts U.S. Workers,” The Heritage Foundation, June 18, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/18/first-take-cbo-report-amnesty-hurts-u-s-workersand-wont-work/, Accessed July 16, 2013]
Effect on Workers Congress
should pass only immigration reform measures that are good for American workers. The
economic goal should be increased after-tax income for those in the United States lawfully. This bill appears to fail that test
in the years following enactment, since per capita gross national product (GNP) would be lower in the bill all the way out past 2030 (Figure
2). (See also “S. 744 would reduce per capita GNP by .7 percent in 2023” [page 14].) CBO notes that by 2033, a range of estimates indicate that per capita GNP could be lower
or higher. Wages
also seem to take a hit in the first decade or so, according to CBO. If Heritage is right about the heavy fiscal costs of amnesty
would be even more important to measure post-tax wages than
simply per capita GNP or wages in any event.
starting around 2026 (13 years after a potential enactment), then it
Long solvency time frame – the Senate Bill requires indeterminate security improvements
before reform starts
Gomez July 10, 2013 - Assistant Professor in the School of Justice and Social Inquiry at Arizona
State University (Alan. “GOP immigration plan hinges on border security; The hurdle is: What defines 'secure'?”. July 10, 2013. LexisNexis)
Republicans in the House of Representatives say any immigration bill they pass must ensure that the nation's
Southwest border with Mexico is secured before any process can begin for undocumented immigrants to apply
for citizenship. But as they prepare to meet today to plot the way forward on immigration legislation, there is no consensus among GOP
lawmakers on exactly how to secure that border or what "secure" even means. The Senate passed a bill last month
that
allows the nation's 11million unauthorized immigrants to get temporary legal status as the federal
government rolls out a $46billion "border surge," flooding the region with Border Patrol agents and
surveillance equipment. Ten years later, if the border security plan is fully implemented, those immigrants
could then begin applying for green cards, and U.S. citizenship three years later.
Immigration reform won’t boost growth enough to create jobs – it replaces American workers
Conneen, July 15, 2013—staff reporter at ABC 7 News [Mike, worked at KNAZ/KPNX in Flagstaff/Phoenix, KXRM in Colorado
Springs and KUSA in Denver, “Immigration: Protesters rally against comprehensive reform”, Center for American Progress, July 15, 2013,
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/07/immigration-protesters-rally-against-comprehensive-reform-91412.html#ixzz2ZEs0g5ZR, accessed July 16, 2013]
The counter-argument from supporters of the Senate's bipartisan “Gang of 8” bill is that immigration reform
would mean more legal workers, which results in more spending and therefore a more robust economy.
Supporters also dispute the claim that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens because those are
typically low skill, low wage jobs -- in industries like construction, agriculture and other labor -- that everyday Americans won’t take.
But at the march, protesters said that's a fallacy. “I just came from down south where I went on a listening tour and I visited with people in North
Carolina and South Carolina,” Durant said. “I mean, these are jobs that people will take, that they're willing to do. They just need
to be paid a good, fair wage.” “You know what's happening is we're driving down wages by flooding the labor
market by bringing in so many workers,” she said. Several speakers at the rally blamed President Obama and
Democrats for high unemployment rates, especially in the black community.
Immigration reform cannot help the economy unless there is Education and Welfare reform
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Creating an Opportunity Society Regardless of the adjustments that might be appropriate, no
set of immigration reforms will effectively
contribute to the American economy and civil society if Washington does not implement fundamental reforms to
increase opportunities for economic mobility. Key to creating an opportunity society, and of even greater
import than addressing immigration reforms, is undertaking fundamental reforms in education and welfare so
that the immigrants that do come here have every opportunity for assimilation and success in their new
homeland. Welfare Reform. In 2011 alone, the government spent more than $927 billion on 79 welfare programs—
nearly $9,000 per year for each poor and low-income person, with the majority of recipients being U.S.-born citizens and legal immigrants. (Illegal immigrants receive a small
portion of welfare benefits.) Means-tested
welfare—government aid to poor and low-income people—is now the thirdmost-expensive government function. Even before the current recession, one out of every seven dollars in total federal, state, and local government
spending went to means-tested welfare. Despite such major expenditures, poverty rates have remained virtually unchanged since the 1960s, and the welfare system continues
to grow. It
is time to reform welfare and make it work for the poor, not against them. Welfare programs must be
reformed to encourage work, not dependence on government.[29] Education Reform. For generations, Americans have correctly
understood that a good education is key to pursuing the American Dream. But despite the central importance of education, and massive government spending, American
schools, colleges, and universities are underperforming and failing thousands of students across the country
every year. Fundamental reforms are required to limit federal intervention in education; to encourage state and local leaders
to allow parents control over their share of education funding by letting them to select the right school for their children; and to remove obstacles and give a green light to
innovation in school and college educations.[30]
New waves of immigrants cannot integrate into the economy - Nativist Backlashes against
Language and Cultural differences make assimilation difficult
Skerry 2000 - professor of political science at Boston College
[Peter fmr congressional aide “Do We Really Want Immigrants
to Assimilate?”, March/April 2000, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2000/03/immigration-skerry] LG
Salins's third assimilation criterion-taking pride in American identity and believing in our liberal democratic
and egalitarian values-has typically been a difficult one for immigrants to satisfy. But the problem has for the
most part been not with immigrants, but with native-born Americans' perceptions of them. The assimilation of
newcomers has long been characterized by the emergence of new ethnic group identities in response to
conditions in America. The classic example, of course, is how earlier this century European peasants left their
villages thinking of themselves as Sicilians, Neapolitans, and the like, but after arriving here gradually came to
regard themselves as they were regarded by Americans-as Italians. Later, they, or more likely their children and grandchildren, came to
see themselves as Italian-Americans. Yet the fact that such group identities were one stage in the assin-tilation process was lost on most native-born
Americans, who condemned "hyphenated Americans" and considered such group identities as a fundamental
affront to America's regime of individual rights. Similarly today, immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala,
Colombia and other Spanish-speaking countries do not come to the United States thinking of themselves as
"Hispanics" or "Latinos." That is a category and a label that has come into existence here in the United States.
Andjust as with European-origin groups earlier this century, Americans are troubled by this assertion of group
identity and fail to understand it as one step in the assimilation process. Still, there is one important difference between group
categories like Italians earlier this century and Hispanics today. For the latter designates a racial minority group (as when we refer to
"whites, blacks, and Hispanics") that is entitled to the same controversial benefits-affirmative action and the
Voting Rights Act—that black Americans have been granted. These are group-based claims of an extraordinary
and unprecedented nature about which Americans have reason to be anxious. But, once again, such group claims are in response
to conditions here in the United States, specifically the incentives presented by our post-civil rights political institutions. To focus on one immigrant group-Mexican
Americans-I would note that Mexicans in Mexico do not agitate for the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action. Mexicans engage in such efforts only here in the United
States, and they do so because our institutions encourage them to. Perhaps
even more to the point, such institutions and programs,
originally established in response to the demands of black Americans, have been crafted by our political elites
in the name of the very same liberal democratic and egalitarian values that Salins invokes.
Immigration reform causes Irresponsible spending – increasing immigrants will cost hundreds
of billions in social services
Morgan 2013 – Vice President for Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation [Derrick, , “First Take on the
CBO Report: Amnesty Hurts U.S. Workers,” The Heritage Foundation, June 18, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/18/first-take-cbo-report-amnesty-hurts-u-s-workersand-wont-work/, Accessed July 16, 2013]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its cost estimate and economic impact documents for S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act, today. We are still analyzing the lengthy reports, but already a few items stand out as noteworthy. Reducing Flow CBO reports that S.
744 would
have only a marginal impact in reducing future illegal immigration. According to CBO, S.744 would reduce the future
inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. over the next two decades by only 25 percent. CBO estimates that by 2033,
7.5 million new illegal immigrants will have entered the U.S. and taken up residence. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert
Rector estimates that these new illegal immigrants could cost the taxpayers (federal, state, and local) some
$400 billion over 20 years. The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to the rhetoric of the bill’s sponsors, who have said the bill “contains the toughest border
immigration enforcement measures in U.S. history.” Measures to increase border security or make an amnesty contingent on securing the border first have been voted down
by the bill sponsors and their allies in the Senate. Effect on Workers Congress should pass only immigration reform measures that are good for American workers. The
economic goal should be increased after-tax income for those in the United States lawfully. This bill appears to fail that test in the years following enactment, since per capita
gross national product (GNP) would be lower in the bill all the way out past 2030 (Figure 2). (See also “S. 744 would reduce per capita GNP by .7 percent in 2023” [page 14].)
CBO notes that by 2033, a range of estimates indicate that per capita GNP could be lower or higher. Wages also seem to take a hit in the first decade or so, according to CBO. If
Heritage is right about the heavy fiscal costs of amnesty starting around 2026 (13 years after a potential enactment), then it would be even more important to measure post-tax
the amnesty portion of the bill
would be very costly to U.S. taxpayers. It provides only a look at the first 10 years in any real detail. (It includes only a sketch of the second 10 years.) As
we noted last week prior to the report: Specifically, the bill allows those who move from unlawful status to registered provisional
immigrant status to obtain few benefits initially. Then, upon entering legal permanent resident status, they
would be eligible for additional benefits, and in time they would qualify for the full panoply of means-tested welfare and
entitlement benefits. It is important to note as well that the most significant costs during the lifetime of would-be legalized
immigrants are during their retirement years after they qualify for Medicare and Social Security. For the vast majority
wages than simply per capita GNP or wages in any event. Costs The CBO report also does little to assuage concern that
of unlawful immigrants, that is well past the 10-year budget window. Heritage has noted that an amnesty would be costly to American taxpayers, would not stop unlawful
immigration, and would be unfair to those who immigrated lawfully or did not enter the U.S. illegally. Tomorrow, Heritage will host an event to discuss the CBO report in more
detail.
Comprehensive immigration reform fails – only incremental reform avoids partisanship and
contradictions.
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Fixing America’s broken southern border and deeply flawed immigration system is often framed as a stark choice between
doing nothing or accepting a massive, sweeping, complicated bill that works at cross-purposes to its stated goals.
Those are tragic options for the future of freedom, fiscal responsibility, and responsible governance. Americans
should demand better. Today, Washington defaults to turning every big issue into Obamacare—solutions that
are labeled politically “too big to fail,” but in practice not only fail to address root problems, but make those
problems worse. Repeating this practice will be a disaster for immigration and border security. Worse, if Americans
acquiesce to a “comprehensive” immigration bill they will send Washington yet another signal that they are satisfied with a government that just does “something” rather than
demanding governance that actually solves problems. There
are practical, effective, fair, and compassionate alternatives.
Washington has simply never tried them. For many years, The Heritage Foundation has laid out a problem-solving road
map for addressing the obstacles to immigration and border security reform. The principles behind these
proposals have always been about fostering the freedom, security, and prosperity of all Americans in equal
measure.[1] In addition, the Foundation’s approach recognizes that Washington has a responsibility to help resolve the conditions that the federal government helped
create, with porous borders, burgeoning transnational crime, and millions living in the shadows. Immigration reform can move forward, focusing on common
sense initiatives that begin to address the practical challenges of immigration and border security. The key is to begin by
working on the solutions on which everyone can agree rather than insisting on a comprehensive approach that
divides Americans. Also, Washington must implement the mandates already on the books, follow through on existing initiatives, and employ the authorities that
Congress has already granted before taking on new obligations. What is needed next is a piece-by-piece legislative agenda,
implemented step by step that allows transparency, careful deliberation, and thoughtful implementation within
responsible federal budgets.
CIR - --Ext – Bureaucracy
Immigration reform will fail – poor leadership at the Dept of Homeland Security
Carafano and Zuckerman July 2013 – Heritage Foundation [James, Steven, and Jessica, Napolitano Out: 5 Next Steps for
Homeland Security,” The Heritage Foundation, July 12, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/12/napolitano-out-5-next-steps-for-homeland-security/, Accessed July 16,
2013]
Today, Janet Napolitano announced her resignation as the Secretary of Homeland Security. The new secretary
will face some significant challenges. The Senate must take seriously its responsibility to confirm a nominee with the skills, knowledge, and attributes to
do the job right. In particular, America will need a secretary with the talents to take on the following five tasks. 1. Combat transnational terrorism.
There have been at least 60 Islamist-related transnational terrorist plots aimed at the U.S. since 9/11. The department cannot afford to neglect what is and should remain its
core mission. 2. Get cyber-serious. It would be a huge mistake to put government in charge of the Internet, let alone ask Homeland Security to tell us how to manage our lives
online. Yet the department has a significant role to play in mitigating and managing the threat of major disruptions. The new head of the department needs to be a cyberserious player. 3. Save our Coast Guard. This service is battling above its weight. From the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico, it has more missions than resources. The Coast Guard’s
modernization program is woefully inadequate. Fixing the Coast Guard must be a top priority. 4. Enforce
immigration law and border security.
The department was failing in this mission area before the Senate passed its incomprehensible mess of a bill.
Unrealistic expectations and an unbelievable inability to even enforce current law could sink the department
without strong leadership that gets beyond doing little more than cheerleading for an amnesty bill. 5. Get politics and
pork out of homeland security. From the Transportation Security Administration to fire grants, there is too much wasted money, wasted time, and
wasted effort on feel-good government spending and programs that don’t deliver results. There is too much
putting what is politically correct before what is good common sense. It is time for strong, nonpartisan,
professional leadership.
CIR - --Ext – Wages
Empirical studies prove Immigration reduces wages for low skilled workers
Gaston and Nelson 2011 – President of Global Development Centre and Professor of Economics
at Murphy Institute [Noel and Douglas, “Bridging Trade Theory And Labour Econometrics: The Effects Of International Migration,” Journal of Economic
Surveys (2013), June 23, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00696.x/pdf, Accessed July 17, 2013]
Aggregate labour at time t (Lt) is itself a CES aggregate of workers with varying schooling and labour market experience. This is constructed by first aggregating workers with
differing experience, but the same level of education into an education-based aggregate (Lit); and then aggregating those lower level aggregates across education groups into
aggregate labour (Lt). Thus, the input to the top-level aggregator is ____ where σ E is the elasticity of substitution between the education aggregates. The lowest level
aggregator combines workers with different levels of experience into iso-education level aggregates ____ where σ X is the elasticity of substitution between experience classes
within an education group. Using the condition that the wage equals the marginal product for skill group ijt (taking the sole good, GDP, as numeraire), the wage is given by
____ Borjas uses fixed effects to recover the relevant elasticities. From equation (3), the estimates of αij and η can be used to calculate the Lit. Borjas uses education groupspecific time trends to approximate the θ it and the number of immigrants in each skill group as an instrument for the size of each skill group. Borjas then applies the same
methods as those applied in analysing production functions using regional data to simulate the effects of immigration shocks on wages. He calculates that US
immigration in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in a 9% reduction in the wages of high school dropouts and a
4.9% reduction in the wages of college graduates. These are the two education categories with the highest
shares of immigrants. For high school graduates, wages fell by 2.6% and workers with some college were only
minimally affected.
Immigration reform kills low skill wages – Harvard economists prove
Bloomberg 2013 [Alex Kowalskim- Staff, “Immigrants With Right Skills Ride U.S. Hiring Wave: Economy”, 2/19/13, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201302-19/all-the-right-skills-immigrants-ride-u-s-hiring-wave-economy.html] LG]
a fellow
at Harvard University Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in Feb. 5 testimony before Congress that
an influx of less-skilled workers is detrimental. His commission, charged by Congress with investigating how
immigration affects the labor market, found that guest workers in areas such as agriculture are vulnerable to
exploitation and their presence depresses wages and offers employers little incentive to improve working
conditions. At the same time, his commission found that allowing the high skilled into the country contributes to global competitiveness. Immigration Debate
There are, of course, experts who argue otherwise. Michael Teitelbaum, vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform from 1991 to 1997 and now
CIR - --Ext – Deficits
Undocumented workers hurt many local and state economies---immigrants are not evenly
distributed
Davidson 13, writer for the New York Times (Adam Davidson, “Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?” The New York
Time, 2/12/13, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Accessed 7/17/13)
The problem, though, is that undocumented workers are not evenly distributed. In areas like southern Texas
and Arizona and even parts of Brooklyn, undocumented immigrants impose a substantial net cost to local and
state governments, Shierholz says. Immigrants use public assistance, medical care and schools. Some immigrant
neighborhoods have particularly high crime rates. Jared Bernstein, a fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, told me that these
are also areas in which low-educated workers are most likely to face stiff competition from immigrants. It’s no
wonder why so much political furor comes from these regions.
Immigration reform will cause crippling deficits – the 1985 reform bill proves
Carafano and Morgan July 2013 –Defense Policy Studies and Economic Policy at The Heritage
Foundation [James and Derrick, “Fireworks Back Home Over Immigration Reform,” July 8, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/7/fireworks-back-home-over-immigration-reform, July 16, 2013]
On balance, is the Senate-passed bill good for current citizens? The
cost to taxpayers rose to $48 billion by the final vote. Sponsors loaded the
there's the harm to the nation's
long-term fiscal health. The estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants, on average, have much less education
and lower skills than current citizens. They already receive significantly more in government benefits than they
pay in taxes. After amnesty they would qualify in 13 years for the full panoply of benefits - including welfare, Social Security and other entitlements. This would cost
taxpayers trillions of dollars. Such questions beg this one: Why would we make the same mistake twice? America celebrates our heritage as an
bill with wasteful pork and kickbacks to secure votes, like $1.5 billion earmarked for a "jobs for youth" program. Then
immigration nation where economic and cultural rewards to individual immigrants enrich the country as a whole. The challenge before the Senate was to arrive at appropriate,
step-by-step ways to encourage legal immigration and prevent illegal immigration, not to push through sprawling, one-size-fits-all legislation. In
1986, when
Congress last passed amnesty, the sponsors said it was a "one time" thing. The government gave out amnesty
and legal permanent residency to at least 2.7 million people after President Ronald Reagan signed the
Immigration Reform and Control Act. He later recognized it was a mistake. That law didn't stop illegal immigration. It
encouraged more illegal immigration by sending the message that eventually, the government would hand out
another amnesty. Now the House and the American people are presented with a Senate bill that would have us go down the same road: amnesty first, promised
security and enforcement later. Some argue that the bill isn't amnesty, but that's double-talk. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was right in 2010 when
he said "an earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty." Yes, this "comprehensive" bill sets small penalties and a short wait
for benefits. But it allows millions, including many who committed crimes, to remain here legally and eventually become citizens. It rewards those who broke the law, even as
millions of others obey the law by waiting in line. This is unfair. It's amnesty. And that's why House members are hearing about it.
CIR - --AT: Low Skilled Workers
Immigration reform isn’t necessary to solve low skilled workers – guest worker programs can
solve.
Carafano 2008 – Vice President for Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation [James,
“Immigration Inertia,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2008/04/immigration-inertia, Accessed July 16, 2013]
But something
must be done. American employers likely won't just sit by while Congress does nothing -- frozen between those who want amnesty at any cost and
needs workers. With the economy slowing, it's more
important than ever to get employers the workers they need so that they can prime the business pump again.
those who want secure borders and iron-clad enforcement of the law. America
High-tech companies are demanding more visas for high-skilled workers. They just can't get enough. On April 1, foreigners with specialized skills and a college degree or
higher could apply for a U.S. work visa for fiscal year 2009. The quota -- 65,000 -- was filled almost immediately. Admitting such a low number of qualified workers hurts the
high-tech industry in the United States and pushes the smartest people to work in competing countries. Some
U.S companies that are desperate for
workers, such as Microsoft, have moved certain branches to Canada and Mexico. Adding these kinds of workers
to our economy makes sense. A National Foundation for American Policy study concluded the average S&P 500 company creates five new domestic jobs for
each H-1B visa employee hired. We also need low-skilled workers. According to the Labor Department, between 600,000 and 800,000
here illegally are working on America's farms -- mostly because employers can't find legal workers to do the
job. In a sense, though, illegal labor isn't cheap labor; it's subsidized by communities crushed under the burden
of education, emergency-room care and other benefits and entitlements they must pay to take care of America's
shadow work force. With food prices rising and many communities emptying their tax coffers, the need for more legal agricultural workers has never been more
severe. America wants border security and workplace enforcement, along with a legal workforce adequate to its needs, now -- not when it's convenient for the Congress. The
administration must continue to increase border security and more stringently enforce immigration laws. But Congress must also streamline current visa programs, raise caps
One measure should be to provide incentives for temporary worker visas to
participate in a voluntary land-border exit checkout system. Workers that check out should automatically be
eligible to qualify for future temporary worker programs. Those that don't should be barred from participating
in future programs. Employers should post bonds that are redeemed when their workers check out. Countries whose workers exceed a 2 percent over-stay rate for a
and implement measures to reduce visa over-stay rates.
visa category should have their citizens barred from participating in that category of temporary work program. Workable solutions are possible. But can Congress muster the
will to make them happen?
Focusing on low skilled workers increases the cycle of poverty
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Making Immigration and Non-Immigration Programs Serve the Economy Human
capital has long been America’s greatest natural
resource. For all of its history and long into the future—much of these resources have and will continue to be imported. The issue of “whom” America
should import misses the point that this is not a decision that should primarily be determined by Washington.
America is a free-market society and labor is part of that market. The market should decide. The government’s job is to
facilitate the movement of labor in a manner that keeps America free, safe, and prosperous. Equally as important, for the free-market exchange of labor to work, the
United States must become and remain an “opportunity society,” rather than a magnet for trapping low-skilled
labor in a cycle of poverty and impoverishment without the opportunity for social mobility or patriotic
assimilation. All of these initiatives can be taken without implementing comprehensive immigration reform,
providing the United States with all of the economic benefits of immigration with none of the crippling costs.
Immigration reform would hurt the economy – it may expand the GDP, but hurt the standard of
living for people within the economy and increase government spending
Morgan July 2013 - Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at The Heritage
Foundation [Derrick, “Immigration: White House Report Ignores Unfair, Unworkable, and Costly Amnesty,” The Heritage Foundation, July 10,
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/10/immigration-white-house-report-ignores-unfair-unworkable-and-costly-amnesty/, accessed July 16, 2013]
Today the White House released a report called “The Economic Benefits of Fixing Our Broken Immigration System,” detailing purported economic growth from immigration
reform and drawing significantly on the Congressional Budget Office report on the Senate comprehensive immigration bill (S. 744). The
White House’s report
fails in several areas. Measures of Economic Well-Being First, the report repeats self-evident truths about the economy and fails to grapple with
the most relevant measure of well-being. An increase in population that would result from massively increasing
immigration and forgiving those who broke our laws would by definition increase gross domestic product (GDP),
but a bigger economy does not by itself make anyone better off. The proper economic goal should be increased
after-tax income for those who are in the United States legally. This bill appears to fail that test in the years
following enactment, since even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that the Senate bill would lower per-capita
gross national product (GNP) all the way out past 2030 (Figure 2). The CBO notes that by 2033, per capita GNP could be lower or higher. When
the heavy fiscal costs, most comprehensively calculated by Heritage, are taken into account, those currently present legally will
almost certainly be worse off. Ignoring Amnesty The White House report also largely ignores the amnesty provisions of S. 744 and certainly does not provide
separate economic analysis of such an amnesty. (Any GDP increase from an amnesty would be nearly entirely consumed by the
illegal immigrants themselves.) Such an amnesty is unfair to those who respect U.S. laws, and it is costly to
federal, state, and local taxpayers to the tune of trillions of dollars over the lifetime of the illegal immigrants.
CIR - --AT: High Skilled Workers
Immigration reform fails – it doesn’t focus on skilled workers and most immigrants won’t
come forward
Morgan July 2013 - Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at The Heritage
Foundation [Derrick, “Immigration: White House Report Ignores Unfair, Unworkable, and Costly Amnesty,” The Heritage Foundation, July 10,
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/10/immigration-white-house-report-ignores-unfair-unworkable-and-costly-amnesty/, accessed July 16, 2013]
Heritage has long maintained that proper reforms to our immigration system, particularly those that emphasize high-skill immigration, could lead to economic growth that is
fiscally responsible, because those with a college degree pay significantly more in taxes than they receive in benefits and services. Under
the Gang of Eight’s
bill, only 15 percent of new immigrants would be skill-based. The CBO also predicts that as a group, new
immigrants would have below-average skill and education levels. So if we can get the bulk of economic growth from reforming our legal
immigration system, why wouldn’t we do that instead of insisting on an unfair, unworkable, and costly amnesty? Does Not Fix the System The report, though titled “Fixing Our
Broken Immigration System,” fails to contend with the CBO’s plain measure of the bill’s ineffectiveness. The
CBO predicts that the bill would reduce
illegal immigration by one-third to one-half. That means millions more illegal immigrants would enter or stay
in the U.S. illegally, and we will face the same problem we face now in just a few years. In addition, the CBO predicts that
millions of currently illegal immigrants will remain in the shadows and not apply for amnesty; neither S. 744
nor the current Administration has explained what they will do with respect to these millions of illegal
immigrants.
High Skilled workers cannot replace US workers – there is a labor shortage
West 2011 - founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. [Darrell M West,
“Creating a "Brain Gain" for U.S. Employers: The Role of Immigration”, January 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/01/immigration-west] LG
U.S.
employers have a large, unmet demand for knowledge workers. They are eager to fill jobs with well-trained
foreign workers and foreign graduates of U.S. universities—particularly those with degrees in the sciences,
technology, engineering and mathematics—the "STEM" fields that continue to attract too few U.S.-born
students. In 2008, the "Tapping America’s Potential" business coalition reported that the number of U.S. graduates in STEM had been stagnant
for five years, and that number would have to nearly double by 2015 to meet demands. Meanwhile, the United
States is falling behind in the pace of innovation and international competitiveness. Evidence for the decline in
innovation is the decreasing U.S. share of international patents. In 2009, for the first time in recent years, non-U.S. innovators earned
more patents (around 96,000) than did Americans (93,000). Only a decade earlier, U.S. innovators were awarded almost 57 percent of all patents.
Immigration reform not key to high skilled workers – most enter with visa waivers
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Visa Waiver Program. The
Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which allows for visa-free visits to the U.S. for up to 90 days for
the citizens of member states, provides great economic benefits to the United States as well as additional
security measures and effective tools for combating visa overstays. According to the latest figures from the Congressional Research
Service, in fiscal year (FY) 2009, 16.2 million visitors entered the United States under the VWP, making up nearly 51
percent of all foreign visitors to the United States during the same period. Frequenting restaurants, shops, and hotels, VWP
visitors infused a total of approximately $100 billion into the U.S. economy in FY 2008, contributing to a travel
industry that supports nearly 14 million American jobs. These economic benefits, coupled with the added security provided under the program,
should not be ignored.[25] Expanding the program to qualified nations ought to be a priority. Congress has successfully provided additional
authorities to expand this program in the past without comprehensive immigration reform —it can do so again.[26]
Immigration reform isn’t necessary to solve high skilled workers – guest worker programs can
solve.
Carafano 2008 – Vice President for Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation [James,
“Immigration Inertia,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2008/04/immigration-inertia, Accessed July 16, 2013]
But something
must be done. American employers likely won't just sit by while Congress does nothing -- frozen between those who want amnesty at any cost and
those who want secure borders and iron-clad enforcement of the law. America needs workers. With the economy slowing, it's more
important than ever to get employers the workers they need so that they can prime the business pump again.
High-tech companies are demanding more visas for high-skilled workers. They just can't get enough. On April 1, foreigners with specialized skills and a college degree or
higher could apply for a U.S. work visa for fiscal year 2009. The quota -- 65,000 -- was filled almost immediately. Admitting such a low number of qualified workers hurts the
high-tech industry in the United States and pushes the smartest people to work in competing countries. Some
U.S companies that are desperate for
workers, such as Microsoft, have moved certain branches to Canada and Mexico. Adding these kinds of workers
to our economy makes sense. A National Foundation for American Policy study concluded the average S&P 500 company creates five new domestic jobs for
each H-1B visa employee hired. We also need low-skilled workers. According to the Labor Department, between 600,000 and 800,000
here illegally are working on America's farms -- mostly because employers can't find legal workers to do the
job. In a sense, though, illegal labor isn't cheap labor; it's subsidized by communities crushed under the burden
of education, emergency-room care and other benefits and entitlements they must pay to take care of America's
shadow work force. With food prices rising and many communities emptying their tax coffers, the need for more legal agricultural workers has never been more
severe. America wants border security and workplace enforcement, along with a legal workforce adequate to its needs, now -- not when it's convenient for the Congress. The
administration must continue to increase border security and more stringently enforce immigration laws. But Congress must also streamline current visa programs, raise caps
One measure should be to provide incentives for temporary worker visas to
participate in a voluntary land-border exit checkout system. Workers that check out should automatically be
eligible to qualify for future temporary worker programs. Those that don't should be barred from participating
in future programs. Employers should post bonds that are redeemed when their workers check out. Countries whose workers exceed a 2 percent over-stay rate for a
and implement measures to reduce visa over-stay rates.
visa category should have their citizens barred from participating in that category of temporary work program. Workable solutions are possible. But can Congress muster the
will to make them happen?
CIR - --AT: Remittances Solve
Remittances don’t work for Low Skilled workers – Brain Drain will kill economies
Edwards 2007 - postmedia correspondent in New York (Steven. “Fast track immigrants with skills, Gates urges: He rejects idea
brain drain hurts developing nations”. The Financial Post. March 24, 2007. LexisNexis)
Of course, unskilled workers from many other parts of the world find it far more difficult to enter the United
States -- and notwithstanding the positive impact of the money they send home, their home countries are
arguably worse off for their departure. A recent UN conference on international migration and development said African countries like Angola, Kenya,
Burundi and Mozambique have lost 33% to 55% of their highly educated population to developed countries. Mary Robinson, a former UN human
rights commissioner, says the rich countries must start spending more on training their own people, instead of
raiding poor nations. "It is of utmost importance to stop the brain drain," she said recently. One of the most affected areas
is the health sector. "In the U.S., where I am currently living, 500,000 nurses and 200,000 doctors are needed by the year 2015," Ms. Robinson said. "Nurses are being
imported. The fact of acquiring them cheaply by not having to educate them is unacceptable."
Remittances have little impact on the Mexican economy – High transaction fees and low
income
Rosenblum, 2000 – International Studies Association [Marc R. March 14-18, 2000 U.S. Immigration Policy: Unilateral and
Cooperative Responses to Undocumented Immigration 1 http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/rom01/]
Finally, the current U.S. immigration enforcement regime has positive and negative consequences for Mexico on economic and political levels. On an economic level ,
Mexico benefits enormously from migrant remittances. However, because undocumented immigrants receive
below-market wages, and because there are high transaction costs associated with the transmission of
remittances, these flows are lower than they “should” be.
CIR - --AT: Immigration Reform Solves Deficit
Savings from immigration reform are doubtful – Drones are expensive
Matthews 2013 – staff writer Choices Magazine [Laura, International Business Times Immigration Reform 2013: Drones are costly
border security tools with few results to show 6/21/13 http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2013-drones-are-costly-border-security-tools-few-results-show1318505#)
Indeed, lawmakers can afford to spend that much money, especially after the Congressional
Budget Office forecast a near $1 trillion savings
over the next 20 years if comprehensive immigration reform is enacted. However, the cost-effectiveness of
adding more drones on the border is being heavily criticized. Some experts say it doesn’t make sense to add
more drones on the border -- even if they can be paid for -- because these unmanned aerial systems have more
success in narcotics seizures than they do in illegal immigrants’ apprehension. According to Customs and Border Protection data,
drones have contributed to the seizure of more than 66,000 pounds of narcotics last fiscal year and only 143 people involved in illegal activities. That’s after flying 5,700 hours
in fiscal 2012. It
costs $18 million to buy one drone and between $2,500 and $3,000 an hour to operate predator or
reaper drones.
CIR - --AT: Immigration Reform Reduces Immigration
Enforcing immigration laws is key to reform – without enforcement, people will ignore the law
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Enforcing the Law
All sides on the immigration debate concede that workplace and immigration laws must be enforced if the
United States hopes to have a long-term sustainable management of migration flows that maintains
sovereignty, respects the rule of law, fosters a healthy competitive economy, and brings the hidden population
out of the shadows. Heritage has long held that by and large, the federal government does not need new legislative authorities
or congressional mandates. What is required is an effective federal implementation strategy that will achieve
results at reasonable costs without undermining civil liberties or disrupting the economy. The right strategy is
often called the “broken windows” approach to law enforcement. Focusing on gangs, drug dealers, and violent criminals, as the Administration
prefers to do, is important—but not enough. Social scientists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling introduced the “broken windows theory”
nearly three decades ago. Its premise was simple: By enforcing laws for “petty” crimes, police can help create a “well
ordered” environment that discourages more serious crime. The same approach must be taken to enforce
immigration and workplace laws.[16] Anything less is just enforcement “theater.” Federal–State–Local Cooperation. The Section 287(g)
program, already authorized by Congress, is demonstrably the most effective and flexible program for federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement to cooperate on issues of
mutual interest. The Department of Homeland Security, however, has all but abandoned the program in favor of one-size-fits-all initiatives that suit the department’s intent to
focus as exclusively as possible on felony-criminal aliens. It is clear that the Obama Administration, along with its legal assault on state and local immigration enforcement
laws, does not respect the rights of states or the important role they play in curbing illegal immigration. Congress does not need comprehensive immigration reform to reassert
its legislative and oversight authority to preserve the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to use the 287(g) program. Congress can reverse the burdensome
regulatory changes made in July 2009 and continue to fund the program.[17]
Immigration reform is ineffective in reducing future illegal immigrants – it has a minor impact
Seper July 12, 2013 - The investigative editor for The Washington Times (Jerry. “Ex-agents scoff at plan for border;
Find criminal aliens, they say”. The Washington Times. July 12, 2013. LexisNexis)
The nonpartisan CBO said the McCaul bill, known as HR 1417, would require Homeland Security to measure the effectiveness of the department's border security strategy at
U.S. ports of entry and along U.S. borders. The CBO also said the bill would direct the inspector general's office at Homeland Security to carry out covert testing of security at
ports of entry and report the results to the Congress. Based on information from the affected agencies and the costs of similar activities, the CBO estimated that implementing
HR 1417 would cost about $5 million from appropriated funds over the 2014-18 period, and that enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenue and would
impose no costs on state, local or tribal governments. Earlier
this month, the CBO said the Senate bill would keep tens of
thousands of additional illegal immigrants from crossing the border each year, but would still stop only
between a third and half of future illegal immigration. The agency's analysis, which takes into account the 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents
and 350 miles of new pedestrian fencing, said the bill would close the border to about 1.3 million people over the next decade
but about 4 million more illegal immigrants still would get through.
Immigration reform won’t work – Obama will only choose to enforce the parts he wants
Payne July 2013 – Assistant Director of Strategic Communications at The Heritage Foundation
[Amy, Assistant Director of Media, “Morning Bell: Decision Time on Immigration,” The Heritage Foundation, July 10, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/10/morningbell-decision-time-on-immigration/, Accessed July 16, 2013]
As Heritage experts have explained, Congress can address every major aspect of immigration reform and border security without a comprehensive bill. The
plan on
the table has severe flaws—and besides, we can’t even trust that laws will be implemented as they’re supposed
to be. Just look at Obamacare. The Obama Administration has delayed or changed more than a dozen aspects
of that law. So promises from Senators and Representatives about how a law will work can be undone or simply
never fulfilled. (That’s what happened the last time Congress granted amnesty to illegal immigrants—the promised border security provisions never materialized.)
The Senate-passed bill doesn’t secure the border. It doesn’t stop the flow of illegal immigrants. It doesn’t
prevent visitors from overstaying their visas. It doesn’t help aspiring Americans who are waiting in line to come
here legally. And for not doing these things, it costs American taxpayers trillions. As House Republicans consider their course, it
would be wise to look at commonsense things the country can do without saddling taxpayers with a do-nothing, trillion-dollar monstrosity.
CIR - --AT: Path To Citizenship Key
A path to citizenship kills immigration reform – it only recreates the problem of an
underground population
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Dealing with the Shadow Population The
existence of a large shadow population in America is injurious to the rule of law, an excessive burden
on many local communities, and harmful to civil society. Addressing this issue is an important component of reform. But it
is wrong to make it the linchpin of immigration and border security. As a first principle, reform efforts to address this issue should make
the problem better not worse. For that reason, amnesty as a core requirement of immigration is a disastrous policy. Amnesty
would undermine all other efforts to fix the system and could well leave future generations in the same
predicament as millions find themselves in today.[27] In addition, amnesty would incur trillions of dollars of federal
outlays in the form of long-term benefits to low-skilled workers. The key to addressing the shadow population is to develop appropriate
fair, practical, and compassionate solutions on which everyone can agree—measures that do not require amnesty. The Obama Administration abused its “prosecutorial
The
Administration should defer to Congress to determine long-term solutions that are appropriately tailored and
clearly targeted toward the cases to be addressed.[28]
discretion” when it stopped enforcing parts of the immigration laws and implemented by regulation what several previous Congresses chose not to legislate.
A path to citizenship costs trillions – it creates a permanent underground population
Heritage Foundation Immigration and Border Security Reform Task Force July 17 2013
[ “Advancing
the Immigration Nation: Heritage’s Positive Path to Immigration and Border Security Reform,” June 17, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/advancing-the-immigration-nation-heritages-positive-path-to-immigration-and-border-security-reform, Accessed July
16, 2013]
Dealing with the Shadow Population The
existence of a large shadow population in America is injurious to the rule of law, an excessive burden
to civil society. Addressing this issue is an important component of reform. But it
is wrong to make it the linchpin of immigration and border security. As a first principle, reform efforts to address this issue should make
the problem better not worse. For that reason, amnesty as a core requirement of immigration is a disastrous policy. Amnesty
would undermine all other efforts to fix the system and could well leave future generations in the same
predicament as millions find themselves in today.[27] In addition, amnesty would incur trillions of dollars of federal
outlays in the form of long-term benefits to low-skilled workers. The key to addressing the shadow population is to develop appropriate
on many local communities, and harmful
fair, practical, and compassionate solutions on which everyone can agree—measures that do not require amnesty. The Obama Administration abused its “prosecutorial
discretion” when it stopped enforcing parts of the immigration laws and implemented by regulation what several previous Congresses chose not to legislate. The
Administration should defer to Congress to determine long-term solutions that are appropriately tailored and
clearly targeted toward the cases to be addressed.[28]
Including a pathway undermines all other aspects of immigration reform – empirically proven
– it overwhelms other reforms
Carafano 2013 – Vice President for Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation [James,
“Don't
Link Terror to Immigration Policy,” The Heritage Foundation, May 6, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/5/dont-link-terror-to-immigration-policy,
Accessed July 16, 2013]
Legacy of Failure Arguably our most recent problems started with Lyndon Johnson’s immigration “reforms” of 1965. Hitting at the same time as Johnson’s “war on poverty,”
these reforms dumped more immigrants into a poverty-prolonging dependency on welfare. This was followed by a wave of unlawful migration from Mexico. In
1986,
Washington came up with a silver-bullet solution so simple, both liberals and conservatives could love it. It was
a magic formula—grant amnesty, create temporary-worker programs, enforce immigration and workplace
laws, and beef up border security—and Ronald Reagan signed it into law. But, in the real world, amnesty came
first, and it overwhelmed the imperfect and sometimes nonexistent attempts at implementing the other
initiatives. Throughout the 1990s, for example, the United States actually spent increasing amounts on border security. Perversely, this wound up contributing to the
growth of the unlawful population. Since it was harder to get in (and out), migrants stayed in this country instead of going back to Mexico after working a few months, as they
had in the past. Workplace enforcement did not fare much better. When officials actually started going after serial scofflaw employers in the meatpacking industry, they were
so successful that the industry quickly and effectively lobbied Washington to shut down the enforcement initiative.
Legalization solves better than citizenship – it maintains the rule of law and avoids a moral
hazard
Baker 2013 - Research Associate at the Brookings Institution (Ross K. “Legalization, but not citizenship”. USA Today. June
11, 2013. LexisNexis)
Citizenship is the most precious gift that America can confer. For many people outside our borders, it is equivalent to winning a megabucks
lottery. So why are members of the Senate so determined to grant it to people who did not play by the rules? Democrats want to reward a constituency
that has proved itself both loyal and influential. Republicans see it as a form of damage control, hoping to
ingratiate themselves with Hispanic voters whom they have systematically alienated. Each party sees a political dividend in
creating millions of new voters who could be registered upon receiving citizenship. But conservatives might
have a good point. Why confer an unmerited reward of citizenship on those who entered the country illegally? Proponents of a path to citizenship
argue on their behalf that they are living "in the shadows." But bringing them out into the sun light can be
accomplished by legalization and registration. Our security will be enhanced because we will then know who
and where they are. They will be spared from deportation and able to lead normal lives. For most, legal resident
alien status will be enough. It is unlikely that removing the path to citizenship will cause many to pull up stakes
and return to their native country. DREAMers are exception Now, there are about 2 million people judged as illegal who are completely blameless and
should be placed on an expedited path to citizenship: the people brought to this country as children by illegally entering parents. For them, called the DREAMers after the
DREAM Act, the shadows need to be lifted. They are certainly worthy of citizenship, much like non-citizens who served in the U.S. military after 9/11. While lawmakers are at
it, they might want to reassert the validity of the birthright provision of the 14th Amendment, which states that those born in the USA are citizens. Enough of the disparaging
term "anchor babies," used by those who quibble with the amendment's plain language. They are our babies because they were born on our soil. A long road ahead The
immigration process still has a long way to go. It will be subject to amendment on the floor of the Senate and
then be taken up by the House, where many Republicans consider the citizenship provision objectionable.
Rather the risk losing the bill in its entirety, senators should be prepared to abandon the path to citizenship
portion when they sit down with their House colleagues. To endow a pathway that began in a violation of the
law with the gift of citizenship is to venture down a road of moral hazard and perverse incentives that invites
the gaming of the system.
Immigration reform will fail – a pathway to citizen ship will overwhelm enforcement reforms
Carafano 2008 – Vice President for Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation [James,
“Immigration Inertia,” The Heritage Foundation, April 13, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2008/04/immigration-inertia, Accessed July 16, 2013]
"I'm in favor of immigration," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) once said. "But we also need rules." Most Americans probably agree. So why are sensible rules so hard to come by?
Last year, lawmakers on Capitol Hill tried and failed to pass comprehensive immigration and border security
reform. The bill died largely because it tried to do too many things. For example, it would have granted amnesty to the
millions here illegally and put all of them -- whether they came here to work hard or to commit crimes -- on a
path to citizenship. Fortunately, that approach collapsed. But the problems persist. America needs to regain control of its
broken southern border and restore the integrity of U.S. immigration laws. Employers, meanwhile, need legal workers to grow the
American economy. Doing nothing won't make these troubles go away. There is, in fact, a lot that can be done. Yes, without disgorging a
massive comprehensive bill hundreds of pages long and stuffed with special-interest demands -- one that members are
expected to vote on first and read later. The problem is, congressional leaders appear unwillingly to let anything come to the floor. Certain lawmakers are insisting that nothing
be done unless Congress follows last year's flawed formula. Right now, the leadership is listening. Holding immigration reform and enforcement hostage won't work. An
amnesty-first strategy formed the basis of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli legislation, Washington's last major
attempt at an overhaul. Then, an estimated 3 million were "unlawfully present." Now it's easily five times that
number. Rampant fraud and a tsunami of applications overwhelmed the system. The number of visas for legal workers was far
too small to meet the needs of a growing economy. Border security and workplace enforcement couldn't keep up with the demand
for undocumented workers. Americans learned their lesson. That's why they soundly rejected this approach a
second time.
Immigration reform fails – it lacks effective enforcement and the pathway makes other reforms
impossible
Carafano 2013 – Vice President for Defense Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation [James,
“Don't
Link Terror to Immigration Policy,” The Heritage Foundation, May 6, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/5/dont-link-terror-to-immigration-policy,
Accessed July 16, 2013]
To see the Gang of Eight offer another sequel to the deeply flawed 2007 bill is a huge disappointment. First, it
repeats the mistake of the past by starting out with a sweeping amnesty—more generous than the 2007 bill. Unlawful immigrants
would gain “legal” status on Day One. After that, Washington will somehow fix everything else. That is a recipe for disaster. There is plenty in the bill to
suggest that it will operate the opposite of what’s advertised. The “border triggers” are a good example. For years the Department of
Homeland Security has been unable to produce meaningful metrics to gauge control of the border. The secretary of homeland security routinely claims “the border has never
been more secure,” even though she knows she can’t prove it. This is the team that is going to be relied to make sure unlawful migration is never again a problem? Further,
the bill ignores costs. It creates new agencies and programs left and right. It obligates spending by exempting
the bill from the sequester restrictions under the Budget Control Act of 2011. It takes no account of the longterm entitlement obligations the federal government will occur when millions of currently unlawful immigrants
qualify for benefits. Finally, the bill is riddled with exceptions, waivers, sweetheart deals, and shaky
requirements that bypass most of the security and enforcement commitments made by the Gang of Eight. For example, the
proposal would allow documents “issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe” to be used for identity and
employment purposes. There are numerous Indian tribes along the southern border, including the Texas Kickapoo, the Ysleta Del Sur, and, the largest, the
Tohona O’Odham. Indian reservations already serve as drug pipelines and have been cited as weak links in border
security. Given these problems, does it really make sense to add this exemption to legislation aimed at minimizing identification fraud? Bad border security,
crummy immigration policies and programs, lax workplace enforcement are all problems to be solved.
Bundling them like a Verizon promotion is not the answer.