Path to Citizenship Affirmative - Northwestern 2018.docx -...

This preview shows page 1 out of 297 pages.

Unformatted text preview: *****Path to Citizenship Aff***** Notes What Does the Plan Do? A 3 step process (the “path” to citizenship) occurs when the undocumented are granted eligibility for lawful permanent residence status: 1. Provisional Legal Status - They are given provisional legal status as they apply for legal permanent residence status 2. Legal Permanent Residence Status -- They gain legal permanent residence status, which then lets them apply for citizenship after usually meeting some requirements 3. Citizenship -- They are granted citizenship What Requirements Do Immigrants Have to Meet for Citizenship? Describing those in the plan text would make the aff very vulnerable to PICs, so as the plan is written, you don’t need to defend specific requirements. However, a likely outcome of the plan is that there would be some timeframe requirement and an English proficiency requirement, which are common in proposals. For the structural violence aff, I would recommend not defending these types of requirements because they set up the very kind of barriers to citizenship the aff critiques. At the least, read the Matos card from Solvency that says we should reduce obstacles if pressed on this in the debate or you can add the AT: conditions cp card to the 1AC. Can I read all the advantages in one 1AC? See the note under the Structural Violence Adv – it is supposed to be read as a single 1AC advantage The other 3 advantages CAN be read as one 1ac, although time-wise the current 1acs account for about 2 advantages and solvency. If you read automation and ag together, the neg may say the thesis of automation is that jobs will be successfully displaced by robots but if that’s the case automation can solve ag. That misunderstands the advantages a bit – the automation advantage says that automation triggers fears that fuel populism and that it causes tech advances that pave the way for autonomous weapons. Neither of those internal links relies on automation performing especially well, especially in a single industry like ag. Tldr; just because tech is coming and triggering populist fears, doesn’t mean it can stabilize the food supply. 1ACs 1AC – Plan Plan: The United States federal government should grant eligibility for lawful permanent residence status to undocumented immigrants in the United States. 1AC – Economy Advantage _ is the Economy Slow growth now – upticks are unsustainable and monetary policy can’t solve Lawrence Summers 18, Director of and Professor at the Center for Business and Government at Harvard, formerly: president of Harvard, Senior US Treasury official, and Vice President of Development Economics and Chief Economist of the World Bank, 5/10/2018, “The threat of secular stagnation has not gone away”, Financial Times, ? segmentId=7ac5b61e-8d73-f906-98c6-68ac3b9ee271 However, this is not what Alvin Hansen intended when he coined the phrase, nor what I had in mind when I sought to revive the concept in 2013. Rather private economy the idea of secular stagnation is that the — unless stimulated by extraordinary public actions especially monetary and fiscal policies and, or, unsustainable private sector borrowing — will be prone to sluggish growth caused by insufficient demand. On this interpretation, the past few years have confirmed the hypothesis. In the US the Congressional Budget Office forecast, which is comfortably in the mainstream, calls for annual growth of 2.5 per cent over the next three years with growth of 3.3 per cent during 2018. But what is necessary to the CBO projects growth in actual budget deficits of more than 1 per cent of gross domestic product in 20172019, with substantial further increases over time and the most rapid increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio during peak business cycle times than has ever been seen in peacetime . support this growth? As far as fiscal policy is concerned, In terms of monetary policy, indexed bond markets imply that real interest rates will be kept well below 1 per cent for the next 30 years. Meanwhile the economy has been supported by a stock market that has returned 22 per cent in 2017 and an average of 16 per cent over the past five years. This while private sector debt has grown relative to GDP. If budget deficits had been at normal levels and not growing relative to the economy, real long-term interest rates had been steady in their customary range above 2 per cent and an extra $10tn in wealth had not been created by abnormal stock market returns, it is hard to believe that the US economy would be growing much at all. And it is almost inconceivable that it would be near its 2 per cent inflation target Elsewhere in the industrial world Japan’s economy is supported by a government debt-to-GDP ratio that hovers around 250 per cent and long-term real rates of less than minus 1 per cent. Europe has seen a reduction in the ratio of government debt to GDP in recent years but like Japan has received extraordinary stimulus from sub minus 1 per cent real interest rates and increases in the flow of private sector credit. Even with this stimulus Europe and Japan have struggled to achieve 2 per cent inflation. What we are seeing is the achievement of fairly ordinary growth with extraordinary policy and financial conditions. Something similar took place in the years before the Great Recession. Whether this is sustainable depends on several factors, not least whether private sector demand will autonomously increase as the financial crisis recedes so growth can be maintained with less unorthodox policy it is more likely that a combination of rising inequality, slow labour force and productivity growth, and greater competition from developing countries will keep private sector demand subdued. and exuberant financial conditions. Perhaps it can, but There is also a question over whether the current policy mix and financial conditions can be maintained indefinitely. This is doubtful for fiscal policy especially in the US. Monetary policies involving low or negative real interest rates may be sustainable over the long term but they are likely to encourage financial risk, unsound lending and asset bubbles with potentially serious implications for medium-term stability . The greatest concern remains over whether the next downturn can be handled . Traditionally the response to recession in the industrial world has been fiscal expansion and a 500 basis point cut in interest rates. But the fiscal cannon has already been fired in much of the industrial world leaving policymakers short on ammunition. Path to citizenship reverses slow growth by boosting GDP – productivity, consumption and wage increases Ana Campoy 16, Master’s Degree from Berkeley in Latin American Studies and Journalism, Reporter for Quartz, Oliver Staley, Senior Reporter at Quartz, MS from Columbia University, 12/22/2016, “The US pays a price for keeping immigrants underemployed”, Quartz, Trump pledged to get America’s economy growing by 4% a year. Legalizing unauthorized immigrants would take him a long way toward that goal. US president-elect Donald Undocumented workers generate 3% of US GDP, or $5 trillion over 10 years, according to a new analysis from two economists at Queens College in New York. If the US government granted them permission to legally work in the country, they would be able to land better jobs and boost the economy by another .6%. The US could extract another bump in growth from the untapped earning potential of highly educated immigrants, both undocumented and otherwise. One out of four immigrants with a college degree is in a low-skill job, or has no job at all, according to another study by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI). That’s $39 billion a year in squandered wages, and more than $10 billion in missed tax revenues. the two studies underscore the often-overlooked complexity of the US immigration picture. Dealing with that picture will require far more nuanced policy than mass deportations Together, or building a 55-foot wall border wall. Not a monolith Queens College economists Ryan Edwards and Francesc Ortega analyzed data from the Center of Migration Studies, which calculated the legal status of millions of immigrants using Census data on country of origin, year of arrival, education, and occupation. The figures show that unauthorized immigrants come from dozens of nations and work in hundreds of professions. “They are not monolithic, they are not all uneducated folks from Mexico,” Edwards says. “They are from all over the world, they are from all education backgrounds, and they are in every state.” As a group, unauthorized immigrants are more likely to accept lower paid work, and are less likely to seek other, higher paying opportunities, because of the risk their status will be discovered, Edwards says. Despite those concerns, 60% of unauthorized immigrants are in middle- to high-skill jobs, according to MPI. The deportation of 11 million unauthorized immigrants—a proposal Trump laid out early in his campaign but has since backed away from—would cost the US about $435 billion annually, and ultimately about 2.6% of GDP. Granting them permission to stay, on the other hand, would benefit the economy. Documented immigrants are almost 30% more productive than undocumented counterparts, because they’re able to take jobs at the maximum of their ability, according to Edwards and Ortega. One study found that wages increased 20% for formerly undocumented workers a year after legalization. That doesn’t mean workers in the US legally—about 75% of the total immigrant population—are earning their full potential, even if they are highly skilled. Nearly a quarter of immigrants with a college degree who have become US citizens, and about a third of those who are legal permanent residents, are under or unemployed, per the MPI analysis. (The rate for unauthorized college graduates is 40%.) Wasted brains The loss of immigrant contributions is only growing as their educational level rises, a phenomenon MPI has dubbed “brain waste.” Over the past couple of decades, the share of immigrants with a college degree, both with and without papers, has been steadily expanding. While the proportion of college graduates is about the same for all immigrants and the US-born population, more recent arrivals—those who came within the past five years—are considerably more educated, per MPI. Population Share of college educated US born 31% All immigrants 30% Arrived in the past 5 years 48% The shift in immigrants’ education profile has to do with a variety of factors, none of them US visa policy, says MPI president Michael Fix. Fewer Mexicans are entering the US due to improved economic opportunities and a falling birth rate in Mexico, as well as stepped up patrolling along the border. Those Mexicans who are coming tend to be better-educated than in the past. More women are also entering the US with college degrees, and Indian and Chinese immigrants have surpassed their Mexican counterparts in numbers. All of this should be great news for the US, which faces labor shortages as baby boomers retire. “If you have an immigrant flow that’s highly educated, they’re going to be more productive,” Fix says. Yet nearly 2 million college-educated immigrants, a quarter of all of those who hold a degree, suffer from “brain waste.” MPI’s analysis found many causes for this, ranging from lack of English proficiency to the difficulty of getting foreign degrees validated, to racism. Hispanic and black immigrants were more likely to be in low-skill jobs than their equally educated white counterparts, the study showed. Getting rid of employer bias might be hard, but officials in the US could adopt relatively simple policies, such as offering language courses or making professional licensing easier, to better profit from the country’s immigrant population, MPI suggests. Immigrant costs While undocumented immigrants unquestionably contribute to the US economy, analysts who favor tougher restrictions say their gains don’t outweigh the larger costs to the economy. By accepting lower wages, they drive down the pay for the lowest-skilled US workers, and cost more in social benefits than they contribute in taxes, says Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies. Households headed by immigrants—documented or undocumented—cost $6,234 on average in federal cash, food, housing, or medical benefits, 41% more than the $4,431 used by native-born households, according to a CIS analysis. While legalization may boost incomes, and therefore yield more tax revenue, it also makes it more likely that the newly-documented immigrant population will access those benefits, as they no longer risk deportation, Camarota said. “Theres no possibility that people, who on average have a 10th- and 11th-grade education, come close enough to contributing enough in tax to make up for what they consume,” Camarota says. But this simple equation—taxes vs. benefits—glosses over other important elements in the balance of immigrants’ impact on the US. While low-skill foreign workers depress wages for certain groups, such as prior immigrants and high-school dropouts, skilled immigrants can increase both pay and employment for natives by sharing their knowledge, and through innovation, according to a comprehensive analysis (pdf) published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine earlier this year. immigrants help the economy in other ways—by lowering the costs of products and services through cheaper labor, for example, and by buying those products and services as consumers. And while immigrants tend to be a fiscal drag for local and state The study, dubbed “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration,” also found that governments, they have a positive effect on federal finances. Wages are unique – lack of documentation depresses them now and legalization boosts them Tim Worstall 16, Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, 3/24/2016, “Illegal Immigrants Depress Wages: So, Make Them Legal Immigrants”, Forbes, These are not quite the stated results of George Borjas' latest research into immigration, legal and illegal, but legal immigrants don't depress wages very much if at all (even Borjas' own work only sees an effect on high school dropouts) but it appears that illegal ones do. Thus a useful policy would be one of making legal the illegal immigrants so as to remove their downward pressure on wage rates. The second flows from why illegals have a greater downward there's two points that do flow from the work he's done. The first is that pressure on wages than legals: and this aids us in understanding that most of the welfare state is not actually a subsidy to employers at all, but it increases their costs by raising the reservation wage. The WSJ discusses the recent work here: they’re willing to take jobs pretty much regardless of how much or little they get paid, new research from Harvard University finds. Men in the U.S. illegally are more likely to work than their native-born counterparts, and The study fleshes out the behavior of udocumented workers—a group that by its nature can be difficult to analyze. The challenge of studying the roughly 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. leaves policy makers guessing on the implications for a wide range of proposals—from offering such workers a path to citizenship to kicking them out of the country. if people will work pretty much whatever they get paid then of course unscrupulous employers can get away with driving down wages. And no doubt some employers of illegals do exactly that. This then lowers wages in general of course: and thus the illegals have a greater effect upon wages than legal immigrants. For legal immigrants are protected by everything that the rest of us are protected by: minimum wage laws, basic treatment standards and so on. Thus we might say that the way to reduce the impact of illegals on wages is to offer some method for them to legalise their situation. Now, However, the really important economic point to grasp here is why the illegals will work for pretty much any wage: The Department of Homeland Security estimates that 11.4 million undocumented persons reside in the United States. Congress and President Obama are considering a number of proposals to regularize the status of the Any future change in the immigration status of this group is bound to have significant effects on the labor market, on the number of persons that qualify for various government-provided benefits, on the undocumented population and provide a “path to citizenship.” timing of retirement, on the size of the population receiving Social Security benefits, and on the funding of almost This paper provides a comprehensive empirical study of the labor supply behavior of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Using newly developed methods that attempt to identify undocumented status for foreign-born persons sampled in the Current Population Surveys, the empirical analysis documents a number of findings, including the fact that the work propensity of undocumented men is much larger than that of other groups in the population; that this gap has grown over the past two decades; and that the labor supply elasticity of undocumented men is very close to zero, suggesting that their labor supply all of these government programs. is almost perfectly inelastic. It's that last phrase: labour supply is almost perfectly inelastic. We normally think of both income and substitution effects when thinking about wages. The first is the idea that there's some income we think we need to make and we'll work until we do so. The second is that we find other things interesting in life as well, over and above work, Near perfectly inelastic means that the income effect is entirely dominating here: there's almost no substitution going on. Even if we offer $2 an hour and that's the only work going then the illegals will do that rather than going fishing as we would. and what we get paid to work has to be higher than that value. Otherwise we won't work. Why? The obvious answer being that the illegals don't have access to the welfare state. They don't get Section 8 vouchers, don't get SNAP, don't get unemployment pay, don't get the near 80 varied programs that exist. And that's what explains the difference in labour supply. If an employer tries to take advantage of us legals with very low wages not only can we report them but also we can just walk away from the offer. We've got something we can fall back on other than a $2 an hour job. Illegals do not. And this is what explains the difference in labour supply. The point to really grasp here though is not about illegal labour at all. It's about all that shouting that welfare is a subsidy to employers of low wage labour. But it isn't, is it? Look what happens to the price of labour when there's no welfare available. It doesn't rise at all: it falls. Thus welfare (other than the EITC, which is only paid to legals in work) is, far from being a subsidy to employers, an anti-subsidy. It raises the wages that employers must pay: in the jargon it raises the reservation wage. Our first public policy point was that we might want to find some way for illegals to legalise their position: so as to reduce the downward pressure on wages. And the second is that we need to be very clear about welfare. The payment of welfare benefits, those available to those in and out of work, is not a subsidy to employers. Far from it, it raises the reservation wage, we can't insist upon raising the minimum wage in order to reduce that welfare subsidy to employers: because that subsidy doesn't exist. forces them to pay more to get people to come to work. Thus Claims that immigrants are bad for the economy are myths and rely on flawed studies – reject them Philip Wolgin 13, Senior Policy Analyst on the Center for American Progress Immigration Policy team, Ph.D. in American history from the Univer...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture