Immigration Disad EMORY
ENDI 4-Week HLM
Index
1
Immigration Disad EMORY
ENDI 4-Week HLM
Explanation 3
1nc [1/2] 4
Overview 6
UNIQUENESS
Uniq – 2nc/1nr wall 7
Uniq – ext 1 – econ means its low 9
Uniq – ext 3 – mexico proves 10
Uniq – ext 4 – border patrol 11
Uniq – ext 5 – studies show 12
LINK DEBATE
Link – social services [1/3] 13
Link – Economic opportunities 16
Link – Jobs 17
Link – escape poverty 18
Link – improved economy 19
Link – abortion 20
Link – legal services 21
INTERNAL LINK
IL – snowballs 22
IL – reverse causal 23
TERRORISM IMPACT
Terror - ↑ = more terrorists 24
Terror – hiding with immigrants key method 27
Terror – smuggle WMD 28
Terror – Al Qaeda focusing on Mexico 29
Terror – Impact 30
OVERPOPULATION IMPACT
Overpop – mpx shell 31
US Overpop Brink 32
Overpop – Illegals à US overpop [1/2] 33
Overpop à Eco disasters 35
Overpop à Poverty 37
Solving Poverty = more consumption 38
Solving Poverty = More Meat Consumption 39
US consumes Most 40
Overconsumption à Eco Collapse [1/2] 41
DISEASES IMPACT
Diseases – mpx shell 43
Diseases – Illegals spread them [1/2] 44
Diseases – Spread throughout the US 46
Diseases – Any More Bad / Brink 47
Diseases Impact 48
TB bad 49
TECHNOLOGY / HEG IMPACT
Tech/Heg – mpx shell 50
Tech/heg – illegals kill tech growth 51
ECONOMY IMPACT
Econ – mpx shell [1/2] 52
Econ – Illegals drain the economy 54
Econ – Illegals ↑ unemployment 56
Econ – Illegals hurt California econ 58
Econ – A2 illegals help Social Security 59
MISCELLANEOUS IMPACTS
Mpx – healthcare 60
Mpx – food prices 61
Mpx – energy prices 62
A2 BLOCKS for the 2NC/1NR
A2 - illegals aren’t eligible for SS 63
A2 - will come if the economy improves 64
A2 – reform solves the impact 65
A2 – ↑ enforcement solves 66
A2 Mexican Economy 67
1
Immigration Disad EMORY
ENDI 4-Week HLM
AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS
NON-UNIQUE
Non – Unique – Illegals Increasing Now 68
LINK DEBATE
No Link 70
No Link – abortion 73
No Link – legal services 74
Alt cause – Drug Violence 75
Immigrants follow the economy 76
Immigration inevitable 77
IMPACT DEBATE
Illegals Good – help econ 78
Illegals Good – don’t hurt the econ 80
Illegals Good – A2 unemployment 81
Illegals Good – A2 hurt Cali econ 82
MEXICAN ECON IMPACT TURN
Good Shell – Mexican economy 83
Mexican Econ Growing 84
Illegals key to Mexican econ 85
1
Immigration Disad EMORY
ENDI 4-Week HLM
1
Immigration Disad EMORY
ENDI 4-Week HLM
1
Immigration Disad EMORY
ENDI 4-Week HLM
1
Immigration Disad EMORY
ENDI 4-Week HLM
Explanation
The Disad
Again, another simple core of the topic disad. The plan provides a social service that functions as a ‘magnet’ to get more illegal immigrants to cross the border to take advantage of those social services. More illegals in the US bad for a myriad of reasons.
The impacts are –
Terrorism – groups will use mass groups of people coming into the US to make it easier for them to smuggle in weapons of their own. The more people coming, the less likely they are to get caught so they are less likely to try.
Overpopulation – Americans consume a ton. Increase our population destroys our environment.
Disease – legal immigrants have to get checked out and get vaccinated for diseases. Illegals come in without that which means they spread more foreign diseases
Economy – illegals hurt jobs and cost money. Pretty simple.
The overpopulation section includes some cards that are the start of a “rich Americans bad” type argument that you could make. I think it needs more work but the general argument is that when Americans get richer they consume more – overconsuming bad. So basically, poverty good.
AFFIRMATIVE
I didn’t do a 2ac because I think the best answers are specific to the aff that you are reading. So, for example if you are reading the abortion aff then the best answers are that the generic “social services” links that the neg reads don’t assume your aff. If I wrote a generic 2ac I would be afraid you would do that.
There aren’t really any link turns b/c I don’t know how the aff would logically result in less immigrants coming to the US. Which means you should probably read the impact turn in the 2ac to make sure you have some offense.
The no link cards are phenomenal – that is where I would start off my work.
1nc [1/2]
A. illegal immigration has reached historic lows – multiple studies confirm
WASHINGTON TIMES 10 – 3 – 08
[Flow of illegals into U.S. slows;Decrease seen amid crackdown, http://www.lexisnexis.com]
Illegal immigration appears to have fallen last year, marking the first drop in years and coinciding with Congress' failure to pass a legalization bill and the Bush administration's stepped-up raids and enforcement.
In a study released Thursday, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that the illegal immigrant population fell by 500,000 from 12.4 million in March 2007 to 11.9 million this year.
The study's authors caution that the finding is "inconclusive" because of the margin of error of the estimates, although the findings mirror those of the Center for Immigration Studies, which also estimated a drop in illegal immigration.
The Department of Homeland Security also said it has seen evidence that the flow of illegal immigrants is slacking off as well.
"In the history of law enforcement, there has never been zero crime, but both the steady decrease in illegal crossings at the southwest border and the unfortunate increase in violence against our agents tell us that our posture is working," Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner said.
The Pew study, which used U.S. Census Bureau statistics, says there could be many reasons for the drop: a slowdown in U.S. economic growth that has dried up opportunities for illegal workers, economic growth in Latin American countries that has kept some workers at home and heightened enforcement in the U.S.
Illegal immigration from Mexico, which accounts for much more than half of the U.S. illegal immigrant population, appears to have stalled, while illegal immigration from the rest of Latin America appears to have declined substantially.
"This recent decline is borne out by other Bureau of Labor Statistics data, cited in a recent annual Pew Hispanic Center report, indicating that the number of foreign-born South Americans in the U.S. work force declined in the first quarter of 2008 compared with 2007," the Pew study said.
Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, said his own study showed the drop began even before a spike in unemployment among the apparent illegal-alien population, suggesting that enforcement did play a role.
"We all agree that something has changed. Incentives changed and the flow changed," he said.
B. plan creates incentives for a new wave of illegals
Borjas 99 Professor of Economics and Social Policy Kennedy School of Government Harvard University, Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research
[George J., “Immigration and Welfare Magnets” Journal of Labor Economics Vol. 17 No. 4 Part 1 October 1999 JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/2660682] JH
The debate over the link between immigration and welfare focuses on two related issues. The first is the perception that there has been a rapid rise in the number of immigrants who receive public assistance. Although early studies of immigrant participation in welfare programs concluded that immigrant households had a lower probability of receiving public assistance than U.S.-born households, more recent studies have shown that this conclusion no longer holds-immigrant households are now more likely to receive welfare than native households.1 Borjas and Hilton (1996) report that when one includes both cash and noncash benefits (such as Medicaid and Food Stamps) in the definition of welfare, nearly 21% of immigrant households received some type of assistance in the early 1990s, as compared to only 14% of native households. The increasing participation of immigrants in welfare programs has spawned a rapidly growing literature that attempts to determine if immigrants "pay their way" in the welfare state.
There is also some concern over the possibility that the generous welfare programs offered by many U.S. states have become a "magnet" for immigrants. The magnet hypothesis has several facets. It is possible, for example, that welfare programs attract immigrants who otherwise would not have migrated to the United States; or that the safety net discourages immigrants who "fail" in the United States from returning to their source countries; or that the huge interstate dispersion in welfare benefits affects the residential location choices of immigrants in the United States and places a heavy fiscal burden on relatively generous states. Despite their potential importance, there has been little systematic study of these magnetic effects, and there is little empirical evidence that either supports or refutes the conjecture that welfare programs have affected the size, composition, or geographic location of the immigrant flow.3
This article begins to document the link between immigrant welfare use and some of the potential magnetic effects of welfare benefits. In particular, I investigate whether the residential choices made by immigrants in the United States are influenced by the interstate dispersion in benefits. It turns out that these magnetic effects can lead to striking and easily observable outcomes as long as immigration is motivated by income maximizing behavior. In particular, foreign-born welfare recipients, un- like native welfare recipients, should be clustered in the state that offers the highest benefits. As a result of this geographic clustering, the sensitivity of welfare participation rates to differences in state benefit levels should be greater in the immigrant population than in the native population. The empirical analysis presented in this article uses the 1980 and 1990 Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) of the decennial census to test the theoretical implications. The data reveal a great deal of dispersion in the welfare participation rate of immigrants across states and indicate that less-skilled immigrants -and, more specifically, immigrant welfare recipients- are much more heavily clustered in high-benefit states than immigrants who do not receive welfare, or than natives. The evidence, therefore, is consistent with the hypothesis that the generous welfare benefits offered by some states have magnetic effects and alter the geographic sorting of immigrants in the United States.
1nc [2/2]
C. that provides cover for terrorists to sneak into the US
TING 06 Prof. Law @ Temple
(Jan, , Orbis, “Immigration and National Security”, 50:1, p. 41-52, ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.orbis.2005.10.004)
The overwhelming majority of the millions of illegals, and even of the absconders, are not terrorists. But the sea of incoming illegal aliens provides a cover and a culture in which terrorists can hide, and a reliable means of entry. We need only recall that the Madrid train bombers resided easily in Spain (some came from Morocco, where Spanish is widely spoken) to appreciate that many Islamist terrorists are fluent in Spanish. Border Patrol apprehension figures show that among the OTMs apprehended in 2004 and 2005 were hundreds of persons from 35 ‘‘special interest’’ countries, almost all of which are Muslim. They include Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen; the number-one country in the group, with the largest number of aliens apprehended, is Pakistan. Again, these are just the apprehensions: for every alien apprehended entering the United States illegally, an estimated 3 to 9 others succeed.
the result is extinction
CORSI 05 Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University
[Jerome Corsi (Expert in Antiwar movements and political violence), Atomic Iran, pg. 176-178]
The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom.The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists.There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble.Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy –Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us.Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II, when in the last century the Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue. If the French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves, they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge.