Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Immigration Quota RFD
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 12:37:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Was very long, too long for comments, so I put it here.
Debate link: http://www.debate.org...
Great round by both
I will go with Sieben here. A specific framework isn't necessary since, as he pointed out, poverty goes against every moral theory out there, including Concequentialism.
This is huge. If the impoverished people cant even come to the US because of too low income, Sieben cant access any wage multiplication impacts and loses the debate right here. However, Sieben did mention in R3 2B iii, that there are no eligibility requirements for emigrating to the US. Cirrk's card did not respond to that. But, Sieben drops Cirrk's claim that many immigrants live in impoverished nations that dont even have the capacity of applying for Visas. While thats big, certainly not every foreigner's area is ruin. So I'll leave this a tie.
This is actually a pretty interesting argument Sieben came up with. Cirrk's card said that immigrants are more impoverished then natives. By that, they wouldnt pay taxes, so no impact access. But he is missing the link that says poverty = not pay taxes. They are not always equivalent. Sieben's evidence specifically says that immigrants pay taxes at a higher rate than natives and use less welfare. Whether these are in the short term or long term, the benefits still occur. Sieben gets this one.
OK, so Cirrk's main argument is that he can also access infrastructure improvements through population growth. However, Sieben can also access that. Population growth will happen with or without quotas.The only difference is that there will be more population with more immigrants, so while both sides can create more funds for infrastructure through taxes, Sieben simply access them better. As he said himself, he gets population + immigrants. Also, even though the US isn't underdeveloped, more infrastructure generally isnt a bad thing. Gotta go Sieben.
Sorry Cirrk but you said no impact in your first argument, not no-link. Obviously, tech improvements does have several impacts.
Honestly I do not like Sieben's excessive use of "Well, these people are biased" against Cirrk's sources. Its OK to do once or twice. But not against just about every source he brought up. This made the whole point of WD less about what will happen and more about who is biased and who is not.
In the wage deflation point, Cirrk did show his sources cited legitimate studies in round 4. Considering authority was siben's only real argument here, that takes it out and this goes to Cirrk.
OK, this was tough to vote on. First, Cirrk did initially drop the Peri study which showed that only other immigrants suffer wage deflation. However, Sieben talks a lot about being human-centric, we should not prefer benefits to one person over another. So, Sieben here is essentially saying that wage deflation impact, even if accepted, is OK because only other immigrants experience it, not natives. That goes against his human-centrics, since its logic says that we shouldnt prefer negative impacts to one group of people over another. If anybody suffers WD, its a bad thing. Therefore Cirrk gets this.
I personally feel a skilled-unskilled ratio is a quota. So not legitimate pro ground.
Sieben's evidence about Brains getting through elibibility is not relevant since, as Cirrk points out, eligibility does not equal quota.
Sieben continues his Authority argument. However, whether the source be biased or not, I never saw him really attack the theory that when more people emigrate out of a country, smart people inevitably go as well. In short, the logic behind brain-drain was never really answered. So I must extend that it will happen. Cirrk gets it.
However, Sieben makes a really interesting argument that Mexico will attempt to improve its economic scenario to solve the brain-drain if it begins. I feel this should have been a much bigger point in the round. The clash on this is relatively even. Until, Sieben drops Cirrks argument that Mexico is too financially unstable to afford tax breaks to keep Brain there. At that point the self-improvement cant even happen. Cirrk here.
Cirrk's initial card on this is really vague and had little warrant. It just said a collapse would cause X impact, but I never really saw why. Sieben won this one pretty early by pointing out hat it was a bunch of "would"s, with no real warrant. And the authority arguments actually worked here since the card was already questionable. So while Mexico may experience unrest, it wont collapse.
America suffers from Mexican collapse
Cirrk dropped this entirely, so even if Cirrk won Mex Collapse, it has no impact.
Sieben is successfully reducing some debt each American has to pay, improving infrastructure, improving technology, and most of all, improving the wages of thousands of immigrants who are in a poor economic state. But Cirrk is also linking him to wage deflation and harm of many foreign economies through BD. It simply comes down to weighing these impacts.
But here's what I've got. Sieben can improve the lives of tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of immigrants by allowing them to experience wages in America that will be higher than their own country. He improves tech and roads as well. But, Cirrk proves that through Brain Drain, the millions in those foreign countries will suffer economically from reduced amount of skilled people in that nation now. Secondly, the millions of natives in America will have reduced wages due to these immigrants taking lower money than everybody else. This was proved through Cirrk's Miami study which went unrefuted.
Ultimately, as ceruleanpolymer puts it, impacts outweigh, Cirrk wins.
Amazing job by both of you guys though. Truly great round about something thats probably not talked about as much as it should.