The Instigator
Con (against)
30 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
17 Points

Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,059 times Debate No: 15143
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (7)




Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas


1. USFG: The United States Federal Government

2. Should: give acceptable reason for

3. Eliminate: remove, lift

4. Immigration quotas: prescribed number of immigrants allowed within the U.S., mostly in context of visa policy


As agreed to by both of us:

1. New arguments cannot be brought up in the last speech, unless to counter some type of abuse.

2. Drops are concessions (independent evidence and points). They need to be responded to in the next speech.

3. Setup: I speak first and last (he keeps his last block blank), he gets 2nd word.


I accept the challenge and agree to the rules.
Debate Round No. 1


Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

Topical Analysis: the resolution states the words "USFG should eliminate," this is an active phrase, meaning the USFG would be actively doing something, as opposed to the USFG being passive. Thus, voting negative literally means the USFG would make immigration quotas null and void.

The Center for Immigration Studies claims that the majority of immigration to the United States today is due to lack of available opportunity in the country of origin and a desire to find employment.

Affirming the resolution creates the following disadvantages:

1. Wage Deflation DA

A) An influx of immigrants through employment or temporary work visas causes rampant wage deflation – empirically proven and already account for illegal immigration

Beck 4 [‘Occupation Collapse' and Poverty Wages: Consequences of Large Guestworker Programs', Testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives by Roy Beck, executive director, NumbersUSA Education & Research Foundation, March 24, 2004]

Expanded foreign guestworkers programs would just add to the already long list of "Occupation Collapses" The process of wages plummeting, benefits disappearing and working conditions deteriorating in whole occupations. You will find a disproportionate population of households who are connected to collapsed occupations. All forms of adding foreign workers to the domestic labor market has been to distort the way the free market sets the value of labor by legislatively increasing supply. As federal policies allowed tens of thousands of foreign workers to enter those cities, their presence in the janitorial occupations led to a collapse of wages, benefits and working conditions. An especially dramatic example can be found in Miami where occupations began to collapse earlier due to earlier mass flows of foreign workers into the job market. But the influx of foreign workers led to a series of changes that collapsed a large number of the construction jobs into little more than minimum-wage labor with few employee protections that had previously existed. Numerous studies have detailed how jobs in this industry by the 1970s were high-middle-class industrial jobs with great safety.

B) Wage deflation kills the economy – consumer demand and investment.

Patrick Belser, Global Labour University, "Why we should care about wages," 1/18/2010,

Continued deterioration in wages is bad news for the economic recovery. The pace of the recovery depends largely on the extent to which people are able to consume whatever the global economy produces. And consumption, in turn, depends on the level of wages. The trends in real wages observed during the past few quarters raise serious questions about the true extent of a global economic recovery and also highlight the risks of phasing out government rescue packages too early. Wage deflation deprives national economies of much needed demand and can result in lengthy periods of economic stagnation. The imbalance between increasing profits and stagnating wages has contributed to the crisis by creating an explosive mixture of high liquidity on financial markets, low rates of interest, and huge household debts.

2. Brain-Drain DA

A) Less Mexicans are leaving Mexico and return migration remains stable.

Aaron Terrazas, Migration Policy Institute, "Mexican Immigrants in the United States," February 2010,

The number of Mexicans departing from Mexico has declined substantially over the past two years. In the third quarter (July to September) of 2009, about 142,000 Mexicans departed for abroad, This was 8 percent lower than the number who departed in the third quarter of 2008, 39 percent lower than in 2007, and 47 percent less than in 2006. The number of migrants departing from Mexico has historically peaked in the summer months, but this trend disappeared in 2009. Return migration has remained stable between 80,000 and 150,000 persons per quarter since 2006.

B) Affirming results in Brain-Drain.

Dassin, executive director of the Ford Foundation International Fellowships Program, "Brain Drain Is Not Inevitable," 2006,

When educated people emigrate, they leave with skills and experience crucial to solving their countries' critical problems. Public services are deprived of trained personnel, and countries lose revenue from some of their highest-earning taxpayers. Sending countries also lose educated citizens who otherwise might play key roles in developing responsive governments and organizing civil society, often resulting in political instability and regional conflict. While some researchers have called attention to the net positive effects of "brain drain," The negative effects are much stronger. Brain drain leads to a downward spiral of impoverishment and underdevelopment that drives educated people to seek better opportunities elsewhere.

C) That kills growth and results in social uprising.

Jenna Schaefer, research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, "Whatever the Outcome: The Proposed U.S. Immigration Bill: A Challenge for Calderon to Practice Self-Help in Mexico," 6/14/2007,

Calderon not only faces pressure for change from the immigration bill, but also from domestic malcontents in Mexico. It has drawn attention to Mexico's perilous economic situation and Calderon realizes he needs to implement concrete changes or face an angry and restless populace as his term winds on. Although the Mexican education system was somewhat improved under the leadership of President Fox, a disproportionate number of the educated individuals have opted to study abroad or are being recruited by entities in other countries. The loss of intellectual capital threatens Mexico's potential for economic development as society becomes encapsulated in a cycle of ineffectual education often followed by mass migration, leaving Mexico unable to benefit from the intellectual human capital it so painfully has developed.

D) Mexican collapse causes global instability and US withdrawal.
Robert Westhawk, Former global research director and portfolio manager for a large investment firm and former U.S. Marine Corps officer, "Now that would change everything," 12/21/2008,

Any descent by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone. The "rapid collapse" of Mexico would change everything with respect to the global security environment. Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal government, indeed American society at large, would have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. There would be no running from a Mexican collapse.

E) Brain-Drain hinders U.S. Economy

New York Times Upfront, September 27, 2002, No. 2, Vol. 135, p. 18

Mexicans aren't the only ones concerned. Increasingly, what happens in Mexico affects the United States, and vice versa. Mexico is America's second-largest trading partner. Mexico buys 73 percent of its imports from the U.S., and sells the U.S. 89 percent of its exports, Mexico's economic problems ripple through American cities.


***Pro Arguments***


Con is required to show that immigration quotas are the most expedient way to solve his problems. This is because the resolution is explicitly moral/pragmatic. If there is a more humane alternative, morality requires us to choose it over quotas.

Presumption in Favor of Immigration

Over a billion people live on under $1 per day [1]. Immigrating to America can multiply their current wages by a factor of 40 [2]. Many of these people live in countries torn by warfare and environmental disaster. On its face, immigration is an incredibly positive force in the world.

Immigration restrictions show callous disregard for the epidemic of human suffering. If Con's going to prohibit immigration, he needs a damn strong reason.

American Benefit

A) Spreading the debt

Per capita debt is approximately $46,000 [3]. By mathematical necessity, increasing immigration decreases the debt burden on natives. This is particularly true for non-rivalrous government projects, such as wars, whose scale depends on external rather than internal compositions.

B) Infrastructure

Concentrated consumer bases yield more investment opportunity for goods used in common. Peter Frederickson [4] and Donald Glover [5] find that population density is associated with higher quality roads.

While poorly studied in the literature, I ask the audience to compare the quality of roads, stores, libraries, gyms, etc, in cities against small towns. The fact that a gym has more members means they have more money to spend on better equipment and furnishing. High population density increases the quality of jointly-used infrastructure.

C) Scientific Progress

Once an idea is created, it can be copied an infinite number of times. We are only limited by the rate at which we generate new ideas. A larger body of intellectuals can generate ideas faster, propelling all of humanity forward. America's education is superior to Mexico's [6].

***Con Arguments***

1) Wage deflation DA

A) Wage Deflation

i) The Beck card has no links to actual studies. This is just an appeal to authority. It is testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration, whose political interest is to serve their constituents.

ii) There are no general statistics given. Of COURSE there will be micro-economic fluctuations all the time for all sorts of reasons. Don't let Con use anecdotes from micro-economies to try and describe macro-economic phenomena.

iii) Take Con to his logical conclusion - if worker migration causes wage deflation, poor americans should quarantined so they don't undercut workers in other cities.

iv) Deflation does not simply lead to economic collapse. Empirically, the deflationary "long-depression" was characterized by robust economic growth and increasing productivity in the face of falling prices [7].

B) Economic growth

i) Ignore the Global Labor university card. It's an explicitly pro-union/labor organization [8].

ii) Ignore it twice because it's another appeal to authority. For example, it blankly states that recovery depends on robust consumption without any references to economic theory or statistics.

iii) Ignore it thrice because it does not consider the effect that lower nominal wages have on prices or capital formation. Cheaper workers mean you can hire more, lower your prices, and expand investment. This is a very elementary economic mistake.

iv) George Borjas of Harvard University is reputed to be the harshest Ivy League critic of immigration [9]. He finds that the victims of wage deflation brought on by immigration are mostly high school drop outs. In table 2 (pp24), high school dropouts lose 3.6% of their wages. This is wholly miniscule. Everyone else actually experiences positive long term wage growth because of immigration [10].

Peri and Ottaviano redo Borjas' approach, but give their analysis in terms of impact on native wage earners. They find that the vast majority of wage deflation is experienced by foreign immigrants, not natives. Table 11 shows their median estimate of wage effects to be significantly higher than Borjas' [11].

Note that I have not actually enumerated any author's calculations or methodology here. Strictly speaking this is an appeal to authority. However you should prefer Ivy League economists publishing in peer reviewed journals to Con's sources. Also consider that I have been very conservative in my selection of "experts". I didn't even bother looking for what the pro-immigration economists say.

v) Even if you buy Con's argument, the economic damage caused by wage deflation can be offset by immigration fees/tax regimes. That revenue can be used to subsidize American jobs.

2) Brain Drain

A) Stable migration

i) I don't even care! Migration stabilization is not intrinsically good.

ii) TURN - Immigration quotas are unstable because rotating political seats creates uncertainty.

B) Brain drain

i) Ignore the Ford card. It's just a political action group that throws money after its issues [12]. Nothing trustworthy or academic here. "The negative effects [of brain drain are] much stronger" is just pure assertionism.

ii) Con is arguing within a nation-centric paradigm rather than a human-centric paradigm. It doesn't really matter if countries A and B have differing concentrations of smart people, especially if it results in better outcomes.

iii) The point of open immigration is to let people in irirregardless of their income or intelligence. So the brain-drain argument doesn't apply.

iv) The status quo results in more Brain-Drain than open borders. Currently the EB1-EA and EB-2 visa exempt Brains from many requirements [13] [14], allowing them to immigrate more easily than the poor.

v) Rather than set a quota, a ratio of skilled-unskilled immigrants could simply be specified.

C) Mexican unrest

i) Throw this card out. It's from another political action group [15]. It is again full of assertionisms and devoid of statistics.

ii) Take Con to his logical conclusion - people shouldn't be allowed to leave their own country.

iii) The card assumes that Mexico won't do anything to stop an increased outflux of human capital. On the contrary, jurisdictional competition has had salubrious effects in the EU. As capital became more mobile, countries competed for investment by lowering their tax rates, resulting in greater economic growth [16]. Increasing the mobility of human capital can only push Mexico to adopt wiser domestic policy to keep taxpayers.

D) Mexican Collapse

i) Another appeal to authority. It is full of unsubstantiated "woulds".

ii) It's unclear what's so bad about Mexican collapse if they can all just come live here.

iii) This is merely a short term consideration. Prefer sustained long term benefits.

E) Mexican-American Interdependence

i) The source only says Mexico is dependent on the US, not the other way around. The United States only trades $305 bn with Mexico annually [17], which is about 2% of our economy. Con fails to show significant American harm.

ii) It's unclear why Mexico would need to maintain current export levels if a large number of its people are expected to leave.
iii) Con is again operating under a nation-centric paradigm again. These are just lines on a map. It is of no moral relevance if certain longitudes suffer economic contraction.

Debate Round No. 2



1. Framework

--> He never gives any moral analytical frameworks himself. He simply states more "humane," but he doesnt give any links to any moral framework at all.

--> He has the burden here. He must show how an alternative framework: A) preempts any NC arguments and B) that he better links into this framework

--> The resolution has no moral framework encoded inot it. If the resolution states "ought" or "has a moral obligation," then yes this argument could be applicable. The resolution however points to a pragmatic one. So whichever debater shows a more positive net benefit should win.

2. Presumption in favor of Immigration

--> His analysis would be true if anyone from anywhere could enter the U.S. Changing the quota DOES NOT change eligibility requirements. However, all visas in the Pro world still are constrained. Therefore, if these people were living on less than a $1 a day, they would most likely not meet the prescribes eligibility requirements. Moreover, areas torn by war and environmental disaster probably dont have the infrastructure and info net capable of applying for visas anyway.

3. American Benefit

A) Debt

--> He gives an extremely poor analysis of the debt. His analysis would be true if: A) the majority of immigrants could pay taxes and B) the immigrants did not disproportionately account for social services and other services paid for by the debt. According to the CIS, the vast majority f immigrants are coming from Mexico, AND the majority of these immigrants would be considered under the poverty line within the U.S (low skilled workers). Thus, the impact is twofold (1) these immigrants will not be paying much in taxation, especially in income taxes, and (2) they will be receiving a large portion of social services.

--> Refer back to this point. He gives a source on the per capita debt, but he does not give a source for his debt analysis. Thus, it was his own, not back by anything. He cant substantiate this point in the subsequent rounds, it skews NC strategy.

B) Infrastructure

--> In terms of the U.S., this analysis would be true if people on visas held the same weight politically. But, apportionment of funds for projects depends heavily on political power. Since most immigrants on visas would not have the same voting power as others, the impact of density would be minimal to negligible.

--> This analysis assumes a disproportionate placement of immigrants.

--> The area with the most immigrants, namely the South, also has the highest birthrate within the U.S. (According to the U.S. Census and ABC) Thus, the NC world still accesses the benefits of the AC.

--> Study one, Source #4 was referring to population density in and growth in less developed and developing nations, thus excluding the U.S.

--> The impact of this point relies heavily on areas with no roads. Therefore, the U.S., having lots of roads is not completely applicable to this point.

C) Scientific progress

--> I see no impact to this argument.

--> Source 6 is a picture of a taco....


1. Wage Deflation

A) Deflation

i) Beck Card no links to actual studies and is politically based

--> Beck card cites a study of Miami with one of the largest influxes of immigrants to that area. Resulted in wage deflation

--> Beck was required to present his findings to the subcommittee. He wasnt working for a member. Moreover, the majority of this subcommittee was democrat, and thus more sympatetic to your position.

--> (Extend) My opponent ignores the entire substantive economic analysis. When you have an influx of people looking for a job,wages deflate because specific competition decreases. The employeer has a large pool to choose from, and thus isnt constrained by applying higher wages.

ii) No statistics

--> Camorota, director of the CIS writes: "Prior to the economic slowdown that began in 2000, I had generally assumed that the primary impact of immigration would have been to reduce wages and perhaps benefits for native-born workers but not overall employment. An important study published in 2003 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics showed that immigration reduces wages by 4 percent for all workers and 7 percent for those without a high school education.

iii) Logic Extension

--> This would make sense if there is a large influx of workers through inter-cities. No link here, and no status quo access to the harm.

iv) Long-Depression analysis

--> Alternate causalities exist, even the Wikipedia article explains it is hard to underpin an exact causality.

--> My analysis is wage deflation, not deflation in terms of currency and the amount in circulation.

B) Economic Growth

i) GLU card = bad.

--> you give no analysis on this at all.

--> (Extend) You ignore the substantive economic analysis of the card. Wages are inherently tied to a thriving economy because economic growth depends on consumption an investment. Lower wages = lower both of these.

ii) Appeal to authority - no economic theory

--> If he doesnt believe economics thrive in a capitalist society via consumption and investment, then he has not studied economics before. Read the following: A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, R&D Based models of Economic Growth, Long Run Policy Analysis and Long-Term Economic Growth

iii) Nominal wages = more capital formation

--> Cycle assumes that people can consume. Doesnt matter if a company can expand or invest more, if people cant consume goods or services it doesnt matter. Also, dependent on rate of inflation. Since debt makes inflation larger, commodities go up, and services. Thus, no solvency in AC world, people lack wages to compensate for rate of inflation.

iv) Borjas Study

--> He only provides one study from Borjas. Malanga ‘6 (Steven Malanga - Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, City Journal , "How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy" Summer 2006)

Studies show that the immigrants drive down wages of native-born workers and squeeze them out of certain industries. Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, for instance, estimate that low-wage immigration cuts the wages for the average native-born by some 8 percent. Other economists find that the new workers also push down wages significantly for immigrants already here and native-born Hispanics. Consequently, as the waves of immigration continue. At this point all my studies outweigh

--> Analysis assumes equal distribution. But this is untrue: H-1B and LSW-Visas specifically are affected. H-1b and LSW fraud magnifies link: Indian News Source, "H1B Visa Fraud uncovered expect more legislation," 4/4/2010,

2. Brain Drain

i) Ford = Bad

--> Ignores analysis

ii) Nation-centric, not human centric

--> Yes it matters, it will affect internal development

iii) Open immigration = no requirements

--> The debate is ending quotas NOT eligibility requirements.

iv) SQ

--> My impact deals with Latino Countries, esp Mexico

v) Alt

--> Thats still a quota, a flexible one, but still a quota

C) Mexican Unrest

i) Card bad

--> The group deals with promoting interests of Latino countries. How is that skewed? Links directly with immigration

ii) Logic extension

--> AC plan magnifies link

iii) Other mechanisms

--> Would make sense if Mexico was like the EU, but its not. Quotas assure specific people wont leave the country. Mexico is economically constrained, much more so than the EU.

D) Mexican Collapse

i) Appeal to authority

--> Ignores analysis, but authority makes sense, understand economics and geopolitical repercussions

ii) Not bad

--> No warrant, but collapse and influx would call for immense political pressure to secure the border militarily. This subsumes any AC benefit and makes the plan go in reverse. Turn the plan

iii) Benefits

--> If long term benefits exist


***Pro Arguments***


It doesn't matter if I don't present a moral framework. Condemning people to live in perpetual poverty is wrong according to any moral viewpoint I've ever heard of.

Con says I have "the burden". We both have burdens. Since the resolution is explicitly moral/pragmatic, he has to demonstrate absolute advantage - that immigration quotas are the best policy.

Con thinks the resolution is pragmatic, not moral. But pragmatism presupposes morality, or else what ends is Con trying to practically meet?

But don't buy Con on pragmatism. He defined "should" as "give acceptable reason for". I ask the audience to interpret it literally and vote according to what they think is acceptable. Don't condemn people to poverty.

Presumption in Favor of Immigration

Con concedes that my analysis is true but complicated by logistical factors. Even if people have a difficult time entering the US due to their own misfortune, there's still no reason to shut them out wholesale.

American Benefit

A) Debt Spreading

Con says that immigrants disproportionately use social services and don't pay taxes. His source only says immigrants are more impoverished. Julian Simon finds that immigrant families actually pay more in taxes than natives, and receive fewer benefits during their first 15 years here [1]. Francine Blau finds that when holding age and other factors constant, immigrant families are less likely to rely on welfare than native families [2].

So this will have a positive impact on the debt. That aside, Con also never considers that a large portion of government spending is non-rivalrous. The war in Iraq does not use more resources just because we have more people. Its cost get spread, and therefore reduced. I don't need a source on this because its basic mathematics.

Con doesn't think the tax impact will be beneficial because these immigrants are so poor. But this is another short term consideration. Second generation hispanics have significantly lower poverty rates than hispanic immigrants [3].

B) Infrastructure

Con says that because immigrants can't vote, the impact on infrastructure is likely to be negligible. This completely ignores all the private infrastructure I mentioned. And even if immigrants can't vote, they still put up more raw taxes. Whatever infrastructure the voters decide to implement, it gets done on a larger scale.

I don't assume a disproportionate placement of immigrants. Wherever they go, the concentration increases from what it was before.

Con doesn't get as many benefits from birth alone as from immigration+birth. Immigration is the largest reason for population growth in the US [4].

The logic associated with population density and roads applies back on all other jointly used goods.

C) Scientific Growth

Con doesn't see any impact from better technology? Technology is heavily linked with productivity growth [5].

I don't know how that picture replaced my source saying that Mexican education isn't as good as ours. Here [6]. I didn't think I really needed a source anyway.

***Con Arguments***

1) Wage Deflation DA

A) Wage Deflation

i) Democrat politicians serve american voters, not general human welfare.

The economic logic presented here is unbelievably amateurish. Yes an increase in the supply will reduce real wages, ceteris parabis. But more people also raises demand for products and increases division of labor and economies of scale. So the net effect isn't clear.

ii) The Camerota card writes that "An important study" confirms Con's arguments. Which study?

But the study doesn't even conflict with Borjas, who calculates that immigration has small short term impacts, and small long term benefits.

iii) The point is that Con's logic is immoral. If an influx of American workers to a city depressed wages, Con's reasoning requires us to quarantine them.

iv) I'm not arguing causality. If Con had read the article, there was no deflation of the total monetary base, which actually grew at 2.7% per year. The deflation was experienced by wage earners with positive economic effect.

B) Economic Growth

i) The GLU card is bad because the organization is politically partisan, and nothing else. The source doesn't even apply to the case of wage deflation because of immigration, (at worst), redistributes wealth from natives to immigrants. If anything this is a boost to consumption.

ii) Con tries to save the GLU card by interjecting his own economic logic on investment. The card NOWHERE says "investment". The card is economically illiterate because it considers falling wages in a vacuum. In real life, the price of labor is inextricably tied to the price of everything else. So if the price of labor falls, investment gets easier, consumer goods get cheaper, etc.

iii) Con worries that people might not be able to consume. But the price of consumption falls with the price of labor since they are interdependent. Con also worries about inflation, but it also makes nominal wages go up too, so there's no automatic problem.

iv) Con says I provide only one study. I have two - Borjas and Peri.

Con cites Borjas saying that immigrants reduce native wages by 8%. Prefer my statistics because I use Borjas' long term estimate, which is slightly positive. Also prefer to cut native wages by 8% so foreigners can grow their wages by more than %400 (mexican-american wage difference).

Con completely drops the Peri study, which shows that wage deflation is experienced almost exclusively by other immigrants. Extend this to nullify every Con argument complaining about wage deflation.

Con says there's visa fraud but doesn't explain why this matters.

v) Con drops this argument too. Even if immigrants have a negative economic effect, charging them immigration fees or higher taxes is a more humane/practical solution than telling them they can't come at all.

2) Brain Drain

A) Stable migration

Con drops this cold. No quotas is more stable than political quotas.

B) Brain drain

i) The Ford institute just has money, not academic or intellectual weight.

ii) Con basically just says he disagrees. Prefer to maximize human welfare universally rather than locally.

iii) There are currently no absolute requirements for a minimum income.

iv) No matter what country you talk about, Brains have an advantage in the status quo competing for the limited number of spots. Removing quotas makes it easier for disadvantaged to immigrate.

v) Con defines a quota as a "prescribed number" - a ratio is not a number. So a ratio is a more humane alternative to quotas.

C) Mexican Unrest

i) Don't let Con make appeals to authority, especially from political action groups.

ii) Con just says my plan is worse (?) I support free immigration... if you take Con through his own logic, you shouldn't let people leave their own country.

iii) Con says Mexico is more economically constrained than the EU. This has no bearing whatsoever on the theory or jurisdictional competition. Extend it in my favor.

D) Mexican Collapse

i) Con says that "authority makes sense". This is an abusive argument because his ex-marine is just giving his opinion, which I can't argue with.

ii) It's unclear why a collapse of the mexican government would warrant military intervention. I mean, I can see why a marine would think so, but there have been zounds of contemporary revolutions that the US didn't get involved in [7]

If Mexico collapses they can all come live here. No long term repercussions.

iii) Prefer my long term benefits mentioned in AC and the Borjas/Peri sources.

E) Mexican-American Interdependence

Dropped. Don't let Con extend any economic harm back on America.


Debate Round No. 3



1. Framework

Condemning people to poverty

That's an assertion, there are plenty of other places they can migrate to, e.g. Europe, where they could escape their poverty
Quotas does not mean complete blockade to immigrants, its just a restriction

Reciprocal burdens

I meant he needs to provide a strict framework from which we evaluate from. He just cant be like: "lets follow a moral framework" because that's subjective and can be misinterpreted.
But, since he has not, I propose Consequentialism, as the moral system. This means weigh impacts first. This system reconciles morality and practicality.

Definition of should

XA Consequentialism

2. Presumption

Logistical reasons shouldn't result in a quota

XA and Extend the analysis of quota vs. eligibility requirement. By dropping, he concedes there is a difference; therefore there can be no presumption in favor of Pro here because those people he wishes to save still don't meet the eligibility requirements. Thus, taking away quotas doesn't solve the issue.

3. Debt Spreading

CATO Source he gives analyzes income from the 1976. This has changed, since then.
CATO also reports that as time goes on the disparity of income between immigrants and natives increase
XA the CIS analysis. He pretty much ignores it. The analysis says that since the majority of immigrants coming to the U.S. are impoverished, then by fact of progressive taxation, they pay minimal to no income taxes.
His source from jstor analyses the impacts of immigration separate from the externalities that exist. And yes, the result is as he is say it is. But in reality, you cannot separate externalities that exist with immigration from the debate. And as the article says, the impact of immigration with these factors show that yes, immigrants do you more social services.

Non-rilvarous spending

True, but as I've stated before that a lot of immigrants live under the poverty line, and thus don't pay the majority of taxes anyway, namely income taxes.

Second-generation not in poverty

A large portion still are in poverty. Thus, by increasing the amount let in, the number would increase relative to the influx in. Thus, quotas solve poverty problem better
As the source indicates, this group is more likely to be in gangs, gang-related violence and incarcerated. Thus, he is just misplacing the problem.

4. Infrastructure

Extend the dropped argument that his analysis refers to underdeveloped countries, where infrastructure matters. Thus, the impact is negligible.
He says private infrastructure, but at this point it doesn't matter because they don't hold really any much weight politically or otherwise, they are on viass

Population more than birth

He gets no benefit because the population increases and thus infrastructure benefits exist within the status quo, with quotas.
Plus, status qou population increase is augmented by birth increases in the South. And since this is where the majority of immigrants live, South-west and South, there would be minimal improvement to infrastructure.

5. Scientific Advancement

I meant no-link, not no impact. Link would exist if a large majority of immigrants were in STEM fields. Remember, the resolution states "quotas" as in a generality. STEM fields would be overwhelmed by links to LSW.
SQ solves. We already have enough STEM visas. Eliminating quota doesn't solve


1. Wage Deflation

i) Democrats serve Americans, not general welfare

Democrats serve constituencies, which is highly pro-immigration.
Extend dropped argument that the study was independent, being presented to the subcommittee
Extend the dropped empiric from the Beck evidence, Miami study proved lower wages
His economic analysis would be true if more divisions of labor existed, but LSW rarely results in high division of labor. Moreover, demand for products does not logically extend to higher wages. Higher prices maybe, but not wages

ii) Important study?

Study done by the Quarterly Journal of Economics which shown that on average increased immigration resulted in decreased wages in areas of higher competition (aprx. 4%) Prefer study, not just limited to LSW, but also H-1B. Wider impacts than just Borjas

iii) Immorality

This logic extension doesn't exist within the SQ, if it did it would matter in the round. But it doesn't.

iv) Monetary base

My studies don't argue for a decrease of the total base. My studies pick out the areas of competition resulting from visas increases. Namely, LSW and H1-B.

B) Econ growth

i) GLU = Bad

GLU is not politically partisan against immigration, where, in this case, bias would matter. Also, the evidence doesn't have to be specific. It is simply an analysis of the correlation between wages and economic growth

ii) Card Substance

True, the card doesn't refer to "investments," it refers to wages, but as the end of the card implies wages impact almost every part of the economy, and thus by extension would affect investment. Moreover, the labor-wage correlation would work if those were the only variables working at the same time. But, that is not the case.

iii) Other factors

Inflation does matter due to the fact of government spending. Insofar as the SQ government spending ties up capital flows, etc, wage deflation would be exacerbated due to falling value of the dollar, plus an expanded pool of competition

iv) Borjas and Peri studies

No his study does not estimate future long term trends. The study is narrowly done, with variables really only accounting for specific LSW positions. This ignores the entire LSW category and the H1-B category. My Borjas studies do take this into account. Plus, this study, as indicated, assumes quotas as a market-balancer.
He says Peri studies nullify. But as the Peri evidence doesn't nullify, but turns the AC strategy. My evidence indicates that any wage deflation is enough to drive down the economy, so it doesn't matter if its for foreigners or natives. Impact is the same

He drops H1-B analysis. This is important because it shows that companies artificially deflate wages for immigrants due to legal loopholes, and these immigrants lack recourse.

2. Brain-Drain


Lack of permanent resident visas is forcing skilled workers to stay in their home countries.
Barbara Bierach, MBA Channel, "Brain Drain: Diplomas are not enough, add Green Cards please!" 5/28/2010,

The frustration of waiting for permanent resident visas and the increase in opportunities in their native countries has led more U.S.-educated immigrants to buy one-way plane tickets back home. And once they return they find good pay and speedy advancement, along with other professional and personal benefits,"

This answers main objections to the Ford Evidence. But still, he has not addressed the analysis.

iv) Disadvantaged

Removing quotas opens up doors for both

C) Mexican unrest

i) Authority

Authority in this case has close analysis to the political conditions in mexico

ii) Quotas solve and make absolute restrictions unnecessary. Plus, movement can be to other areas, not just the U.S.

iii) He is assuming the Mexican and EU governments are analogous. The EU has the liberty, politically and economically, to shape it as they will. The Mexican government does not and could probably not afford the taxbreaks needed for such an endeavor.

D) Mexican collapse

i) He misses the analysis I give afterwards. Authority measures political, economic and geopolitical impacts to determine political action

ii) Collapse of the Mexican government and by extension civil society would result in massive influx of refugees t


***Pro Case***


Ignore Con on European immigration. Unsubstantiated hypotheticals can be used to nullify ANY plan.

Consequentialism says we have to weigh the impacts... according to which standard? This is circular. Please continue using my generic human decency standard.

Quotas are a blockade to immigrants who don't get in currently.

Presumption In Favor of Immigration

Con's only argument is that people can't get in because they don't meet eligibility requirements. But if you look to my unanswered R3 2Biii, I point out that there aren't any minimum eligibility requirements. So eliminating quotas means a lot more people can come here.

And again, even if Con is right about everything there's no reason to shut immigrants out wholesale. At worst, AC is insufficient but necessary. So you still have to vote for it.

American Benefit

1) Debt Spreading

Cato source illustrates theory. It doesn't matter if the data is old. By all means, repeat the analysis on modern data.

Con complaint on income disparity is a red herring.

Con says I ignore him on taxation. Au contraire - Con ignores Simon on immigrants paying more taxes and relying less on welfare than natives.

Con complains about externalities which are dealt with under his wage deflation tags. Even still, he doesn't tell us what the net harm is.

Con's observation that a lot of immigrants don't pay taxes flies in the face of the Simon card. Regardless, debt spreading still occurs because at least some immigrants pay taxes.

Con complains that a large portion of immigrants might still be in poverty - he shows no impact. Con ignores reduction in immigrant poverty - extend humane benefits to AC.

2) Infrastructure

Con thinks this logic only applies to underdeveloped countries. Unanswered, I said "The logic associated with population density and roads applies back on all other jointly used goods."

Con doesn't give ANY reason why an increase in population won't improve infrastructure in modern countries. Extend my dropped city/scale example. Extend my observation that immigrants increase raw taxes and bring larger scale to political infrastructure even if they can't vote.

I get more benefit out of immigration than Con does no matter what because immigration increases population a lot more than birth.

3) Technology

Even if a small portion of immigrants go into R&D, I still extend benefit on this point.

Also extend benefit because an increase in consumer bases makes it more profitable to develop technology.

***Con Arguments***

1) Wage Deflation

A) Wage Deflation

i) Democrats do not serve GENERAL human welfare. Turn the appeal to authority against him.

Remember that the Beck card is just an appeal to authority. Extend my observation that the economic logic here is amateurish.

Con never rebuts it when I say "Don't let Con use anecdotes from micro-economies to try and describe macro-economic phenomena."

Con says more immigration does not enhance division of labor but offers no proof. Turn by observing wage increase of immigrants. Also look to my infrastructure argument and observe scale with population.

ii) Prefer Borjas study because it gives long term wage impacts across all socioeconomic classes using census data. Con is just wrong when he says his study is "wider".

iii) Con's logic implies that workers shouldn't be allowed to move if it will result in lower wages. Quarantine on international and domestic scales should be equally immoral.

iv) Extend to show that wage deflation does not result in economic harm.

Even if you think that competition caused by immigrants is somehow different from competition among natives, still nullify Con's B) because his cards do not mention immigration - only generic wage deflation.

B) Economic Growth

i) GLU is "pro labor" = partisan. Con drops consumption boost argument. Turn his complaints.

ii) Con continues to interject his own economic logic to try and save the card. He says it "implies" investment, which is really abusive because it means he's trying to sneak his own arguments in under an appeal to authority.

Con blankly says that wage-labor correlation does not work at the same time. But prices adjust constantly. Con drops that wages are inextricably tied up with production costs, so a fall in wages leads to a fall in price level. Again, nullify Con's fears of wage deflation.

iii) Con's discourse on government spending is a red herring. No matter what, inflation will raise wages AND prices, so there's no reason to believe wages will lag behind.

iv) The Borjas study draws data from the census, so its holistic. It also estimates long term trends as cited in R2 S11 pp24.

Con already dropped the Peri study. Don't let him pick it back up. It's a violation of the rules in R1.

Con also drops it when I tell you to prefer to cut native wages by 8% so foreigners can grow their wages by 400%. Extend humanitarian benefits to me.

Con says any wage deflation will hurt the economy. He doesn't show this anywhere. In fact he's NEVER presented macroeconomic effects of wage deflation - his only complaint is that a few americans might lose out.

I don't drop the H1-B visa analysis. I restate that Con hasn't shown any impact out of it. Lower wages for immigrants are still better than living on a dollar a day. So turn for me.

v) Dropped cold. I have a better alternative to Con's plan. Ignore all his economic complaints because they can be mitigated with immigration fees and higher immigrant tax brackets.

2) Brain Drain

A) Dropped. Give stability to me.

B) Brain Drain

i) Dropped. Ignore the Ford card.

ii) Dropped. Give human welfare benefit to me.

iii) Dropped. Give increase in immigration under no-quotas to me. Apply it to vitalize my "presumption" and cross out Con complaints about eligibility.

iv) Con says that some educated immigrants go back home, but never gives you the net. Ignore his incomplete analysis (so late in the debate).

v) Dropped. Extend my ratio plan as a superior alternative to quotas.

C) Mexican Unrest

i) Con says authority has "close analysis". He gives no reasoning or proof. Extend that appeals to authority aren't valid.

ii) Con says "quotas make absolute restrictions unnecessary" with no proof. Migration to other countries is a red herring.

iii) Con does not rebut the theory of jurisdictional competition. It doesn't matter how different the EU and Mexico are. ASUS and Exxon are different companies but they're still competitive.

D) Mexican Collapse

i) Con says authority "measures". Again, no proof. This is just the blog of an ex-marine. It is not evidence.

ii) Con talks about refugees from Mexico. So what? More benefits in AC. Con drops the fact that we don't have to intervene in case of revolution.

iii) Dropped. Ignore this shorterm niggling.

E) Dropped. Don't extend any economic harm on America.



Con's case is an appeal to authority. He's gone and found political action groups and marine bloggers supporting his case. Con's cards are just evidence that people will say anything in politics.

Prefer my use of raw statistics and wikipedia pages as unbiased sources. Even if you buy appeals to authority, prefer my extensive use of peer reviewed papers.


Con R1: "2. Drops are concessions"

Look to the poverty epidemic. Unanswered, I wrote that wages would increase by 400% (or more) under open immigration. This dwarfs Con's petty complaint that natives might lose 8% of their wages.

As a secondary consideration, give me benefit under infrastructure. Larger populations enhance the production of jointly used goods. See the unanswered city/small town comparison.

Don't let Con have any offense out of his case. He drops 1Bv, which states that immigration quotas are inferior to immigration fees. He drops 2Bv, which states that quotas are unnecessary in the face of ratios. So we have more humane alternatives to condemning a billion people to live in poverty.

Debate Round No. 4


To minimize any last speech abuse, I'm just gonna give overviews, and analysis of previous info, and since there has been a lot of information in each round, I'll just focus on the pinnacle arguments:

==On-Face Negation==

1) In every round he dropped the links to flexibility that the NC exclusively has as opposed to the AC. Even though quotas exist, the NC world has the ability to use quotas flexibly, for any amount of reasons. Thus, any drawbacks of quotas can be fixed via the flexibility advantage. However, the drawbacks from eliminating quotas can not be fixed.


1. Debt Spreading

My CIS evidence kicks his Simon evidence. As along as the vast majority of immigrants do not pay income taxes, then the debt is not equally and effectively spread among the population. Moreover, he says he accesses it for SOME immigrants: A) no impact given, no way to measure, probably negligible B) Quotas would still have immigrants within the U.S. paying taxes anyway.

2. Infrastructure

This argument lacks uniqueness. He never provided evidence about what percentage of increase is needed to access the advantage. However, A) Quotas could still solve since we still have immigration to the U.S. and B) Birth rates augment the NC access to this benefit as well

3. Technology

Either he loses this argument based on the fact that he never proves how just letting more people in solves. They can again still come through the quota system. OR this advantage accesses the brain-drain disad provided in the NC. We will zap up talent needed in underdeveloped nations

Bottomline: No evidence proves uniqueness that we NEED to eliminate the quota system. Quota system still accesses these advantages.


1. Wage Deflation

Prefer my Borjas Study and the QJE study. It includes the vast majority of visas as opposed to simply LSW visas provided in his study. Thus, my evidence outweighs on scope and magnitude. Moreover, he misses the only empirical study that I provided discussing Miami. Prefer this evidence since it goes beyond simply the theoretical analysis of his studies. Its been tested in Miami, and the result of increased immigration was a deflation of wages. Also, all his economic arguments assume increase in labor, but as ive pointed out H1-B and LSW are severely concentrated in certain areas of work, labor pools won increase. Plus, on H1-B, wage deflation as been proven empirically due to link magnification via fraud with companies using workers on H1-B visas.

2. Brain-Drain DA

The Dassin evidence points out that by the very nature of looking for employment, there will be a braindrain. My opponent says I dont provide a net for this argument. But this DA is inevitable due to the logic of the AC. Eliminating quotas => no restrictions => more immigration => best and brightest leave for better opportunities. Moreover, XA his AC 3 technology analysis. He even concedes its going to happen. Then the Schaefer evidence gives clear indication that braindrain kills economic and technological development in Mexico, which causes unrest. This then leads to a mass influx leaving Mexico, which then unlocks the Westhawk Evidence. Massive political pressure to secure the border and stop ALL immigration. THIS TURNS THE ENTIRE AC. You van vote neg here: any risk of an access to this DA means neg vote cause if it is accessed all benefits the AC wins is turned and means nothing. Thus quota system ensures that some benefits of immigration are attained while ensuring that the system does not turn on itself. Since he focused most of his time on the Wage DA, he mishandles the evidence of this DA.


1. He simply asserts that they are politically skewed. As ive pointed out, the evidence was from a non-biased source giving its findings to the immigration subcomittee, another source which watches for the benefit of underdeveloped nations in latin America, and the fact that a lot of my sources are pro-immigration/democratic

2. Wikipedia is NOT unbiased. It can be written by anyone. Plus, a lot of our stats intersect, I just used cards analyzing those studies. But he decided to analyze them himself.


These drops are irrelevant in the decision because his alternatives (e.g. immigration fees) as ive responded to in overviews throughout the rounds (maybe not directly) is that they are all asserstions with no evidence or warrants. Moreover, any wage argument he makes is outweighed by the fact that a collapse due to lack of wages and thus investment and consumption makes those wage increases irrelevant.

==My Voters==

1. He has no offense coming out of his case, and if there is offense, he doesnt explain uniqueness and how quota system cant solve it. Moreover, at least flexibility exists in the NC world. So quotas can be increased or decreased dependent on the market, etc to avoid the DAs but subsume the AC benefits. This is the easiest way out for the judge

2. Any risk of the Brain-Drain DA equals a vote for Con. This is true because the accessed impact of brain-drain in Mexico turns the entire AC and its advantages

3. Since my Wage DA outweighs in scope AND is the only study that has been empirically proven in the round, then a risk of wage deflation affects the entire economic structure of the U.S. which is based on consumption and investment. Plus the fact I have a link manifier (on H1-B) he doesnt, which exacerbates the probability of the impact being accessed.

Bottomline: pro offers negligibly impact offense but the impacts from Con are so massive that an risk of an impact outweighs the AC-Pro.



Blank round as agreed
Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 7 years ago
Great debate guys! Wow, I found myself constantly changing sides throughout the debate. You guys both have excellent argumentation hands down.

Great opening speech. Loved the brain drain argument. Also the BD, hinders economy argument, backed with good statistics.
Second round framework was great. Touched on impacts hard.
Great voters!


Very organized framework.
Good 1Nc rebuttal round 2.
Great statistics, from credible sources.
Great argumentation, and voters.

My vote:
This was a hard debate to vote on, and it took me a while to decide. Yes, there was some dropped arguments on both sides, but the ones dropped weren't really the impacting ones (excluding stable migration 2A round 3).

Basically for me what it came down to was source/statistics, card credibility. Provided you both offered great sources, I found the Pro's more credible and carrying more weight given the great amounts of statistics, as opposed to quotes from politician. However, if I could make this debate a tie, I definitely would. Great job guys, and good luck in your following rounds :)
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
Whew! That was a long debate @-@

But It was very interesting to read. Now going through there seemed to be a lot of focus on the frame-work the Con argues practicality, the Pro morality. Now since Con goes first, he does have the privilege to set the round, however his topical observation left me a bit wanting for warrants (no to say the warrant wasn't expressed through the contentions) but I need that solidified before hand to accurately interpret your case. I actually felt the Pro made an equally valid frame-work argument (honestly if not better) on morality, but the backing in his contentions I felt where weaker than the the Con's, accordingly hey had no impact for me.

Also, be careful on the Policy here. I did LD so some parts of this took me a minute to get; If you learn to argue in more common terms it helps with me giving a better RFD.

all in all great round guys!
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago
Except I extended the dropped arguments nullify both his contentions. Or did you choose to pick those up for him too?
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Freeman sayeth the rule at
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Sieben, There can be any number of arguments in favor of a single contention. For example, I contend "The bus left at noon." Arguments: (1) A prominent psychic predicted it, (2) that's what the schedule says, and (3) ten people say they saw it leave at noon.

I think Con's logic sustained the points.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Grape, Freeman asserted the 7 point rule in the last post of the Update #3 thread. I don't like it and had argued against it, but I am complying. I much prefer letting Freeman do the independent tally.
Posted by Grape 7 years ago
As I was going to post in the on the other debate, I believe it was decided that we would not be using the all 7 vote. I originally advocated for it but now I see it as needlessly confusing. It would be better to just vote normally for the purpose of the DDO scoring and then Freeman can tally the winner based on how many people in the tournament gave the majority of their vote to each side.
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago
Con only had two contentions, so i don't see how he can have 3 winning arguments, especially since he dropped at least one of my arguments per contention.

We agreed that dropped arguments count as concessions. This is not valid only because we agreed to it, but because it is general etiquette in debate.

And again, you are just interjecting your own logic into the debate. You are giving him the win for something he DIDN'T do. This is grossly unfair to me because I'm not debating you and I'm not psychic. He dropped my arguments. You pick them back up for him and then weigh them heavily enough to tip the debate. Good job.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
Roy, Freeman says we're supposed to vote normally on tournament debates. No straight sevens unless one side or the other deserves it.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Seiben, I only takes one winning argument negating the resolution to negate it. I think Con had three.

I don't think an agreement between debaters can bind the voters on a debate. Suppose you both agreed that S&G shouldn't count, is a voter bound by that? I think not. In any case, Con had two other winning arguments, each independently. I didn't put them together. I think you won the brain-drain issue.

If I couldn't tell your use of a non-word was supposed to be sarcasm, it that my fault or yours? True Con had mistakes too.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: ---- Update RFD
Vote Placed by TUF 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments. 7 points tournament requirement.
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro demonstrated an economic gain as a result of immigration. Pro had a much stronger interpretation of the framework and Con's responses to it were feeble. Con fails to justify his nation-centric view and Pro demonstrates great benefits to immigrants. I found Pro's sources to be more academic and less partisan. Very good debate overall, it was a close decision. Changing my vote to 7 points as per tournament rules.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's best arguments were that having quotas allows them to be used flexibly and that low-wage immigrants receive benefits and pay little in taxes (3a). Many S
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Link to braindrain DA outweighs any AC benefit.