We begin with the story of Prudenica Martin Gomez, who died while attempting to cross the us-mexico border



Download 1,11 Mb.
Page14/25
Date conversion16.03.2017
Size1,11 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   25

A2: Econ

Link turn – influx of immigrants fuels economic growth - solves right-wing extremists who act based on economic downturn


Delacroix, former professor of management, & Nikiforov, business development specialist, 9

[Jacques & Sergey, 9, “If Mexicans and Americans Could Cross the Border Freely,” The Independent Review, Volume: 14, p. 114-116, MM]


Commentators generally assume that future immigration from Mexico must be of the same kind as the current immigration. This assumption ignores the possibility that illegality itself influences the self-selection of immigrants to the United States. Accordingly, the mention of an open border, de facto or de jure, evokes the specter of ever-growing numbers of very poor, semiliterate, non-English-speaking immigrants almost exclusively of rural origin. This scenario is naturally objectionable on both economic and cultural grounds. First, such a population tends everywhere to consume a disproportionate share of social services. Second, the poor and uneducated— who may be illiterate even in their mother tongue—may be more difficult to assimilate than middle-class immigrants. Both objections need be taken seriously, but the assumption of unchanged quality of immigration does not stand up well to examination. Illegality itself must dissuade potential middle-class immigrants disproportionately. Middle-class people are much the same everywhere. They tend to lack the skills, the stamina, and the inclination to trudge through the desert to elude the Border Patrol at real risk to their lives. If moving to the United States becomes legal for Mexicans, the character of Mexican immigration ought to change immediately toward more skilled and better-educated people. More Skilled Immigrants: Unemployment in Mexico is typically low, rather lower than it is in the United States (and, incidentally, lower than it was in the poor countries that joined the European Community and the European Union). By and large, Mexicans move to the United States less for jobs than for better jobs. Their labor resources are better employed in the advanced U.S. economy than in the underdeveloped, institutionally crippled Mexican economy. Accordingly, their labor is better rewarded here than there because it is more productive here. This general idea should hold as well for skilled and well-educated potential immigrants as it does for the unskilled and the poorly educated. Removing legal obstacles to immigration should encourage better-educated and more-skilled immigrants to enter the United States. Such higher-quality immigrants would earn more than do current Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal. Because workers’ wages signal their economic contribution to the overall economy, this improved quality of Mexican immigration should improve U.S. prosperity in general, at least in the long run. The short-term effects of an increase in immigration on U.S. unemployment remain an obstacle to opening the southern border. A Possible Influx of Entrepreneurs and Capital Opening the southern border would also increase the number of entrepreneurs migrating here. In Mexico, the distorted market conditions, overregulation, corrupt government practices, and the existence of large politically supported monopolies restrict the scope of entrepreneurial activity. Mexican entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs, who are usually avid students of American life, tend to be aware of the contrast between their own situation and that prevailing in the United States. The history of immigration to the United States suggests that culturally different groups of immigrants tend to contribute different kinds of enterprises. Thus, political correctness notwithstanding, it is not foolhardy to suppose that the influx of Italian immigrants before World War I improved considerably the restaurant scene across the United States. Likewise, current Indian immigrants, coming originally as well-educated hired hands, have contributed greatly to the abundance of hi-tech engineering start-ups in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. As strange as it may appear at first glance, some in this new breed of immigrants would also bring fresh capital. One of the constants of underdevelopment is not so much a lack of capital as the underemployment of the existing capital. The complex reasons behind this state of affairs are beyond this article (Dekle 2004), yet it should be obvious that as soon as bureaucratic and economically flash-frozen India began modestly to liberalize its economy, Indian capital appeared seemingly out of nowhere, as if by magic. (The source of this magic may be as simple as young middle-class Indian women deciding to carry a little less gold hanging from their ears in order to invest in the stock market.) Although Mexico is now liberalizing its economy and might endeavor to do so more swiftly if it had an open border to its north, such an opening would initially probably coincide with an influx of capital into the United States. Such capital would be carried by hitherto frustrated Mexican entrepreneurs ready and willing to make their own specific contributions to the U.S. economy as generations of immigrants from other countries did in earlier times.

Illegal Immigrants” contribute to Social Security, and are vital to the economy


Román 08 (Ediberto, Professor of Law, Florida International University, 9/20/2008, “THE ALIEN INVASION?” Houston Law Review 45:3, pg. 858
Moore also concluded that overall, immigrants are huge net contributors to the Social Security and Medicare programs, and immigrant entrepreneurs are a major source of new jobs and vitality in the American economy.î122 Moore ended his testimony with the following observation:¶ It is in America’s economic self-interest and in the interests of immigrants themselves that we keep the golden gates open to newcomers from every region of the world. The net gains to U.S. workers and retirees are in the trillions of dollars. Given the coming retirement of some 75 million baby boomers, we need the young and energetic immigrants now more than ever before . . . .123¶ In fact, economic analysts as well as domestic business community mainstays have long advocated for less restrictive immigration polices.124 As a leading immigration scholar recently observed, ìThe U.S. immigration laws must be fundamentally revised to make them and their enforcement more consistent with the economic needs of the nation.î125 One writer recently noted:¶ In defiance of economic logic, U.S. lawmakers formulate immigration policies to regulate the entry of foreign workers into the country that are largely unrelated to the economic policies they formulate to regulate international commerce.¶ ....¶ . . . Perpetuating the status quo by pouring ever larger amounts of money into the enforcement of immigration policies that are in conflict with economic reality will do nothing to address the underlying problem.126¶ Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, repeatedly complains about strict immigration policiesí impact on the ability for businesses to hire skilled workers.127 In terms of other sectors of the economy, an American Farm Bureau Federation study notes that ìif agricultureís access to migrant labor were cut off, as much as $5ñ 9 billion in annual production of . . . commodities . . . would be lost in the short term. Over the longer term, this annual loss would increase to $6.5ñ12 billion as the shock worked its way through the sector.î128 Preeminent economist John Kenneth Galbraith effectively responded to those who have advocated for closed borders and mass deportation of our undocumented workers:¶ Were all the illegals in the United States suddenly to return home, the effect on the American economy would . . . be little less than disastrous. A large amount of useful, if often tedious, work...would go unperformed. Fruits and vegetables in Florida, Texas, and California would go unharvested. Food prices would rise spectacularly. Mexicans wish to come to the United States; they are wanted; they add visibly to our well-being. . . . Without them, the American economy would suffer . . . .129

“Immigrants” are net positive in terms of government spending and taxes


Román 08 (Ediberto, Professor of Law, Florida International University, 9/20/2008, “THE ALIEN INVASION?” Houston Law Review 45:3, pg. 858
In terms of the second major basis for the recent attacks on immigrationóthe alleged deleterious effects on the U.S. economy–the NRC Report similarly refutes the modern xenophobes’ assertions. In fact, the report notes several of immigration’s significant positive impacts on the federal fiscal picture. For instance, the NRC Report states:¶ [A] net positive fiscal impact with immigrants and their concurrent descendents paying nearly $51 billion [in 1994ñ 1995 dollars] more in taxes than they generate in costs. . . . Particularly important were transfers from immigrants and their descendants of about $28 billion to the rest of the nation through the Social Security system (OASDHI), reflecting the young age distribution of this group.109¶ The NRC Report observes that ì[i]n per capita terms, immigrants . . . contributed about $700 more in payroll taxes than they received in OASDHI benefits each year, whereas the balance of the population just broke even.î110 ìFor the remainder of the federal budget, immigrants . . . [were found to pay] $500 or $600 more in taxes than they cost in benefits, and in total they had a positive federal fiscal impact of about $1,260 [per person], exceeding their net cost at the state and local levels.î111 With respect to overall economic impact, the NRC Report concludes:¶ Our calculations indicate that definition of the study population is critical to the outcome. If limited to immigrants themselves, the overall fiscal impact is $1,400 (taxes paid less costs generated) per immigrant. If limited to immigrants plus their U.S.-born children under the age of 20, corresponding to the immigrant household formulation, the average fiscal impact is about $600 per immigrant (or $400 per immigrant and young child). If extended to all descendants of living immigrants, the average fiscal impact is $1,000 expressed per immigrant, or $600 expressed per immigrant and descendants. Therefore, the most widely used method based on the immigrant household is the only one that returns a negative value.112¶ Therefore, not unlike the conclusions reached with respect to assertions of mass invasions that can literally change the makeup of this country,113 the NRC Report similarly discredits the allegations concerning the tales of woe regarding immigration’s negative fiscal and economic impact on the national economy.114

The need for working immigrants outweighs any desire to enforce borders


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Free migration among the NAFTA nations would be in keeping with¶ certain existing political, economic, and social realities. Labor integration¶ between the United States and Mexico is occurring. It has been fueled¶ from the bottom up. Market forces have driven U.S. employers and¶ Mexican workers in this direction for years. Governments and laws,¶ however, have been left by the wayside. Law has been a minor hindrance to immigrants and employers but has not been an effective deterrent to unlawful conduct. Efforts to bar the employment of undocumented¶ workers have been largely ineffective. Employer sanctions have¶ not been vigorously enforced and in recent years have been enforced¶ The Economic Benefits of Liberal Migration of Labor Across Borders | 165¶ with even less enthusiasm than before. Certain industries in the United States, such as agriculture and construction and many service industries,¶ rely on the type of low-wage labor provided by immigrants. Unlike other industries, which have increasingly moved operations overseas to exploit low-wage labor, jobs in these industries cannot be exported. Lowwage immigrant labor, therefore, remains essential to the U.S. economy.

Immigrants are a key role in sustaining America’s economy and demand is rising


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Today, undocumented Mexican workers are critical to the economic viability of many businesses. Agriculture, hotels and restaurants, construction, and the domestic-service industry depend on these workers. Growers have relied upon generations of migrant labor to pick the nation’s crops and keep produce prices down. Hotels and restaurants rely on immigrant labor to provide a ready and available labor force and to ensure profitability. With the number of two-wage-earner families having increased greatly in the past few decades, U.S. middle-class families demand domestic-service workers in abundance. That demand continues to increase because of the increasing participation of U.S. women citizens in the labor force.

Opening the borders would fuel US economy and create more orderly migration


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
More liberal immigration admissions would help ameliorate the rampant discrimination that the immigration laws aid and abet. The consequences of such a system need not generate fear. Open borders might ultimately have consequences similar to those brought by the increased migration of African Americans from the rural South to the urban North in the twentieth century. In the era of Jim Crow, interstate migration helped fuel economic growth and provided economic and other opportunities to subordinated African Americans. Similarly, freer movement of workers from the developing world would create economic opportunities and ensure orderly migration and the maintenance of a more fair and just set of immigration laws.

Open borders would appeal to growing globalization


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
The arguments for facilitating the migration of highly skilled immigrant workers to the United States have become increasingly powerful in light of the globalization of the international economy. In the midst of¶ globalizing markets in capital and goods, adherents of closed borders¶ must justify the exclusion of labor from a system of increasingly permeable¶ borders. Economic arguments generally favor easy migration between nations and the ready mobility of labor to its most productive use. The labor market benefits of immigrant workers to the United States are undeniable

Key industries to the economy rely heavily on employing immigrants


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Large employers in certain industries often rely heavily on undocumented immigrants. Recently, several high-profile companies have had¶ their hiring practices exposed. The poultry giant Tyson Foods faced¶ a criminal indictment, and was later acquitted, for participating in a¶ scheme to traffic immigrant workers. Its employment of undocumented¶ workers, however, could not seriously be disputed.11 Wal-Mart repeatedly makes the news for its employment of undocumented immigrants.12¶ Entire industries, such as agriculture, meat and poultry processing, construction, and the hotel and restaurant sector, have come to rely heavily on undocumented labor to remain competitive. This dependence on undocumented labor has led to vigorous resistance to federal enforcement efforts. For example, when the federal government began an¶ operation to enforce the laws barring the employment of undocumented¶ immigrants in meat-packing plants in Nebraska in 1999, state and local¶ politicians protested because of the impacts on the state economy.13 An¶ American Farm Bureau Federation study concluded that, “if agriculture’s access to migrant labor were cut off, as much as $5–9 billion in annual production of . . . commodities . . . would be lost in the short term. Over the longer term, this annual loss would increase to $6.5–12 billion as the shock worked its way through the sector.”14¶ Without undocumented workers, businesses in some industries would be forced to close. Such a collapse would drag down the U.S. economy.¶ As the preeminent economist John Kenneth Galbraith stated,¶ Were all the illegals in the United States suddenly to return home, the effect on the United States economy would . . . be little less than disastrous.¶ . . . A large amount of useful, if often tedious, work . . . would¶ go unperformed. Fruits and vegetables in Florida, Texas, and California¶ would go unharvested. Food prices would rise spectacularly. Mexicans wish to come to the United States; they are wanted; they add visibly to our well-being. . . . Without them, the American economy would suffer.15

Win win for immigrant and economy relationships


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Of course, employers are not the only economic actors to benefit¶ from immigrants. Upon migrating to the United States, immigrants often¶ see tangible economic benefits in the form of increased wages. Indeed,¶ economic opportunity is unquestionably one of the primary motivators¶ behind many migrants’ difficult decision to leave their homeland and¶ come to this country. Not surprisingly, the immigrants most likely to migrate¶ to the United States come from the developing world, where wages¶ and economic opportunities are much less than those in this country.¶ Many, perhaps most, immigrants come to this country for jobs that¶ pay more than those in their homeland. Earnings that are low by U.S. standards represent real improvements over what many migrants would be able to earn at home. Working conditions, while substandard by American lights, may well be worth the wage gains to the migrant worker from the developing world. Indeed, they may be comparable to,¶ or perhaps better than, those available in the migrant’s homeland.¶ But, there are other economic gains from undocumented immigrants.¶ Undocumented immigrants living in this country are not just workers.¶ They also are consumers who purchase goods and services. As the undocumented immigrant population has grown in this country, so has its purchasing power, and thus its importance to economic activity at the national, state, and local levels. Not surprisingly, businesses, seeing the¶ future, have responded aggressively to this new, and growing, market.

Undocumented Immigrants contribute billions in taxes for nothing in return


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Despite not having a Social Security number, undocumented immigrants can and do pay federal taxes by securing a Taxpayer Identification Number. Hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants¶ work under assumed names and false Social Security numbers. Undocumented¶ immigrants thus help keep the financially strapped Social Security system afloat to the tune of billions of dollars. They contribute to the system without ever collecting benefits.71 Thus, while many antiimmigrant activists howl at the unfairness of allowing immigrants, particularly¶ the undocumented, to utilize public resources in the form of¶ benefits, in actuality the current system, which denies immigrants access¶ to many benefits, is patently unfair to noncitizens. The fact that undocumented¶ immigrants pay taxes and contribute to the Social Security system¶ militates in favor of granting them access to certain benefits. The¶ fact that they are ineligible for most social benefit programs means that,¶ under the current system, it is the government, and not the undocumented worker, which gains handsomely.

Majority of undocumented immigrants pay taxes with no benefits in return


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
The public is generally unaware that many undocumented immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes, a fact militating in favor of their receiving¶ certain public benefits. “[E]ach year undocumented immigrantsThe Economic Benefits of Liberal Migration of Labor Across Borders | 151¶ add billions of dollars in sales, excise, property, income and payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes, to federal, state and local coffers. Hundreds of thousands of undocumented¶ immigrants go out of their way to file annual federal and state¶ income tax returns.”70 Undocumented immigrants are often counseled¶ to pay taxes in order to improve their chances of regularizing their immigration status at a later date. Somewhere in the neighborhood of onehalf¶ of all undocumented immigrants pay federal taxes. Nonetheless, ineligible¶ for major public benefit programs, undocumented immigrants¶ see few direct benefits from their tax payments.

A2: Wages

Wage impacts are small and benefits outweigh


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Any wage impacts due to immigration, according to economic studies, are relatively small.53 Moreover, immigrants may contribute to overall gains to the economy, which ultimately translates into an overall increase in average wages for all workers.54 The labor added by migrants¶ may add to the overall economic growth of the nation. As the economy grows, benefits are realized by the entire nation. In the end, the benefits provided by immigrant workers appear to outweigh the costs associated with downward pressures on wages.

Opening borders enhances the living standards for everyone


Lehman 1995 [Thomas, Adjunct Professor of Economics and Western Civilization, "Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration." Foundation for Economic Education. 1 Dec. 1995. . NG]

Many Americans argue that free immigration would destroy “working class” Americans’ ability to earn a living. They claim that allowing free and open borders to any and all immigrants would put decent, hard-working Americans out of work. Perhaps what these Americans really fear, however, is that someone will emerge from the “immigrant class” who would be willing to work for less than they while producing equal or greater output.¶ The present immigration policy of the United States amounts to nothing less than a tariff or barrier to entry on the commodity of labor, and harms American consumers in the same manner as tariffs and trade barriers on other capital or consumer goods.¶ A policy of open immigration would indeed force unskilled American laborers to compete for their jobs at lower wages. However, far from being an evil, this is a desirable outcome, one which should form the basis for a new immigration policy. By inviting competition into the American labor markets, artificially inflated labor costs could be eliminated and a greater level of labor efficiency could be achieved. As the cost of labor (itself a cost of production) decreased, entrepreneurs and producers could produce more efficiently, enabling them to offer products and services at lower prices as they compete for consumers’ dollars. Lower prices in turn increase the purchasing power of the American consumer, and thus enhance living standards for everyone. This is happening even now as some small business owners use “illegal” immigrant labor to lower their operating costs and thus lower consumer prices: “. . . small-business executives do agree that some of their competitors who knowingly or unknowingly hire illegal immigrants use the cheap labor to undercut prices of business owners who play by the rules.”[1]¶ This is good for both consumers and the economy at large. As immigration makes the American labor market more competitive, costs of production are reduced and prices decline. In the long run, even the domestic laborer who is forced to lower his wage demands is not any worse off, since what he loses in terms of lower nominal wages he may well regain in terms of lower prices on the goods and services he purchases as a consumer. Meanwhile, everyone else benefits, and no one is privileged at the coerced expense of anyone else.





A2: Welfare is Costly

Immigrants don’t and cant leach off welfare and other public benefits


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Furthermore, few immigrants aim to consume public benefits. Many¶ immigrants would never even consider attempting to access any public benefits program. They fear that receipt of any benefit could result in¶ their deportation from the country. Provisions in the immigration laws¶ give credence to this fear. The word is out in immigrant communities¶ about the risk associated with receipt of public benefits.¶ In evaluating immigrant benefit consumption, it is important to note¶ that immigrants are not even eligible for the most costly federal public benefits programs. In 1996, Congress enacted welfare reform that made¶ both lawful and undocumented immigrants ineligible for Temporary Assistance¶ to Needy Families and Food Stamps, two major federal public¶ welfare programs.69 Previously, lawful immigrants had been eligible for¶ such benefits. Although many have criticized welfare reform, it nonetheless remains clear that immigrants who are ineligible for such benefits cannot bankrupt the public benefits system. Importantly, undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for the major—and most costly—¶ public benefits programs.

Immigrants have little effect on welfare


Lehman 1995 [Thomas, Adjunct Professor of Economics and Western Civilization, "Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration." Foundation for Economic Education. 1 Dec. 1995. . NG]

Another argument used in favor of immigration controls concerns the American welfare system and its potential abuse by immigrants who migrate into America merely to feed at the public trough of social services. The claim is made that the welfare system, not potential economic freedom, is the lure which draws immigrants into the American economy. Immigrants—unproductive, slothful, and indigent—constitute a dead-weight loss on the American economy, and further increase the tax burden on productive Americans. Therefore, we must police our borders and keep out the undesirables.¶ This argument is statistically and theoretically flawed. Contrary to prevailing public opinion, current immigrants do not “abuse” the public welfare system, even in the areas where immigration (legal or illegal) is most concentrated. In fact, immigrants have little effect on the current system of taxation and wealth redistribution. As Julian Simon relates:¶ Study after study shows that small proportions of illegals use government services: free medical, 5 percent; unemployment insurance 4; food stamps, 1; welfare payments, 1; child schooling, 4. Illegals are afraid of being caught if they apply for welfare. Practically none receive social security, the costliest service of all, but 77 percent pay social security taxes, and 73 percent have federal taxes withheld. . . . During the first five years in the United States, the average immigrant family receives $1404 (in 1975 dollars) in welfare compared to $2279 received by a native family.[3]¶ Some may disagree with these statistics. Others would no doubt argue that if immigration controls were eliminated and borders completely unpoliced, a massive number of immigrants would enter the United States and overload the welfare system, causing taxes and the national debt to skyrocket. Certainly this is a possibility. But, even if we grant this argument the benefit of the doubt and concede that unrestricted immigrants would indeed flood the welfare system, the answer to the problem lies not in closing off the borders or “beefing up” border security. The answer lies in eliminating the American welfare state, and prohibiting anyone, native or immigrant, from living at the coerced expense of another.



A2: Undocumented Immigration Bad

Undocumented immigration is inevitable, attempts to police it are futile


Johnson 07 (Kevin, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, School of Law, and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies at the University of California, Davis. “Opening the Floodgates”, pg. 169, BW)
We as a nation must recognize that, under current U.S. immigration law, undocumented immigration is a fact of modern social life. Many otherwise law-abiding citizens who hold positions of prestige and authority employ undocumented immigrants in their homes. They often have undocumented immigrants care for their children, clean the house, and work in their yards. In 2004, former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik withdrew as President Bush’s nominee to be the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency now primarily entrusted with enforcing the immigration laws, because he had failed to pay taxes for a domestic-service worker who may have been undocumented. Kerik is not the first nominee to a highlevel cabinet position to suffer that fate. Conservative pundit Linda Chavez withdrew as President Bush’s first nominee for Secretary of Labor because she had previously employed an undocumented immigrant. Nor is this simply a problem for Republican Presidents. Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird, President Bill Clinton’s first two nominees for the position of Attorney General, the highest law enforcement office in the United States, experienced the same fate. The presence of undocumented immigrants in the United States is a plain reality that needs to be addressed. Open borders would provide a pragmatic, long-term solution to this nation’s undocumented-immigrant and related immigration problems. Freeing up migration through a liberal admissions policy would recognize that the enforcement of closed borders cannot stifle the strong, perhaps irresistible, economic, social, and political pressures that fuel today’s international migration. Border controls, as currently configured in the United States, simply waste billions of dollars and result in thousands of deaths. They have not ended, and cannot end, unlawful immigration.

A2: Devalues Citizenship

The argument that citizenship would be devalued is a misconception and promotes supremacy over other individuals


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Some might argue that an open-borders regime would “devalue” citizenship in the United States.108 The use of the term “devaluation” in this context is misleading. All of a nation’s residents should be treated fairly. The rights and privileges of citizens need not be diminished to increase the rights of immigrants. Any effort to maintain legal distinction to avoid “devaluation” of citizenship would require continued disparities in rights and maintenance of the status quo. Adopting a similar logic, whites could have argued that desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s “devalued” their whiteness.

A2: Causes Overpopulation

No flood of immigrants – takes out their perception links


Delacroix, former professor of management, & Nikiforov, business development specialist, 9

[Jacques & Sergey, 9, “If Mexicans and Americans Could Cross the Border Freely,” The Independent Review, Volume: 14, p. 109-110, MM]


The image of a massive, continuing, one-way exodus of Mexicans flooding the United States in all circumstances is probably unrealistic because it is a simple projection of what is going on under current conditions of legally restricted immigration. In all likelihood, legalizing immigration from Mexico would alter the movement of persons in more complex ways. Discussions of open or more-open borders nearly always assume a one-way migration of one kind of population. They presume that, given a chance, some unknown but probably large fraction of the poorer segments Mexico’s population would move permanently to the United States. They also implicitly assume no movement of population from the United States into Mexico. Both assumptions are probably wrong on several grounds. First, on the whole, Mexicans do not want to live in the United States. Although real, don’t-look-back immigrants (such as ourselves) exist, people who leave their countries usually do so in search of a better standard of living. Most simply want to earn more money. In many cases, they wish they could have their cake and eat it too: obtaining superior earnings in a foreign country, but spending them at home, where relatives live, grandmothers can be drafted as baby-sitters, and the customs and especially the language are well understood. For Mexicans, home also happens to be where their money goes further. Finally, without a doubt, some Mexican immigrants would rather raise their children in Mexico for moral and personal reasons. A rich American literature of personal experience suggests that immigrants usually find their adaptation to a new land excruciatingly painful as well as extremely difficult (McCourt 1996). The United States, far from the heaven that the native born often imagine it to be, is for many immigrants a kind of purgatory they hope will eventually lead to salvation in their home country. Furthermore, numerous immigrants of all origins spend their adult lifetime in a state of minimally functional adaptation. A surprisingly high number master only a pidgin form of the local language. They can say “a quart of antifreeze” but not “Believe me, if I had known my daughter would turn out this way, I would have brought her up differently.” In consequence, individuals who are well educated and sometimes appreciably cultured in their country of origin operate during their entire adult lifetime at the self-expressive level of a six-year-old. Or they take refuge in the exiguous, mindnumbing, limiting social space of their own ghettos, which are always psychologically much impoverished versions of their home societies. The considerable efforts that Mexican immigrants’ own philanthropic organizations exert to make their hometowns more livable attest indirectly to the emotional undesirability of emigration (Hendricks 2008). Such endeavors are not specific to Mexican emigrants. The French daily Le Figaro tells a similar story about illegal Egyptian immigrants to France (Salau¨n 2008).

The fear of overpopulation is hyped


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Moreover, despite persistent claims that the nation has reached its “carrying capacity,” it is far from self-evident that the United States is¶ overpopulated or that the country is even approaching its population limit. Although it is true that certain urban areas of the country have¶ relatively high population densities, that density fails to approximate¶ that found in certain cities and regions of the world. Moreover, many regions¶ of the United States are not densely populated at all. In fact, some states, such as Iowa, have actively sought to attract immigrant workers¶ in recent years. Today, many immigrants settle in the South and Midwest,¶ where there is room to build and expand, a need for labor, and relatively¶ inexpensive housing. Continued migration into less populous regions¶ of the United States minimizes the risk of overpopulation in the¶ major cities. Even California, most closely associated with the metropolises of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area, has thinly populated areas. In¶ addition to its Mexican colonias, the Central Valley has seen the emergence¶ of many diverse communities over the past twenty years. Today,¶ Sikh Indians, Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians, and many other¶ groups make up a significant portion of the area’s population. Besides¶ The Economic Benefits of Liberal Migration of Labor Across Borders | 159¶ adding much richness to the region, immigrants have contributed to a booming, robust economy that today includes manufacturing, technology, and other industries in addition to its world-renowned agricultural¶ sector of state and local economies.

There will be no overload, thousands of immigrants deport annually by will


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Many of the immigrants removed are long-term residents of the United States. Some of the deportations are based on convictions for relatively minor crimes, such as, in certain circumstances, driving under the influence. To make matters worse, the statistics fail to account for the hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens who depart voluntarily each year. Many, many more immigrants avoid a formal hearing and deportation order by agreeing to depart than are formally removed from the country. If voluntary removals did not occur at these rates, the immigration system in the United States would become overburdened and soon shut down. Thus, removal statistics represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Mexican citizens adversely affected by the U.S. immigration laws.

A2: Ecosystem Impact

Recent compromise was reached to build a fence spanning from The Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific, acting now is key to prevent environmental hazards


The Gazette 6/20 2013 “Harkin opposes compromise calling for more border fences”

http://thegazette.com/2013/06/20/harkin-opposes-compromise-calling-for-more-border-fences/


It’s not just the cost of maintaining a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border that keeps Sen. Tom Harkin from supporting a compromise that has improved prospects for immigration reform.“This idea of building a fence from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean is just a bad idea,” Harkin told reporters after key senators announced a compromise had been reached that called for building 700 miles of fence and doubling the number of federal agents patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border.¶ “Quite frankly, this idea that somehow we’re going to build a fence all along our border with Mexico doesn’t make sense,” he said. “It doesn’t look good for us as Americans.”¶ Harkin voted to table an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn to increase the number of Border Patrol agents by 5,000 Thursday.¶ The new deal worked out by Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee, and John Hoeven of North Dakota, would require the construction of 700 miles of border fencing and provide money for aerial drones, according to reports. It is believed the deal would increase support among Republicans for immigration reform.¶ The Iowa Democrat supports building fences where they make sense. However, he said, fencing is costly to build, damages the environment, disrupts animal migrations routes and requires continuous upkeep.¶ Among the alternatives are drones, which, he said, are relatively cheap to operate and can cover long distances, as well as other technology.¶ He also called for negotiating agreements with the Mexican government to do some patrolling.¶ “We need to hold them responsible for the protection of the border,” Harkin said. “They should have responsibilities in that area.”¶ In addition to building 700 miles of fence, the compromise would double the number of Border Patrol agents to more than 40,000, adding about $40 billion in cost to the immigration reform.

Continued border fencing along Mexico results in fragmented ecosystems


FLESCH and CLINTON 2010 (W. EPPS/ D. AARON, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, 325 Biological Sciences East, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, “Potential Effects of the United States-Mexico Border¶ Fence on Wildlife” Conservation Biology

Volume 24, No. 1) Blackwell Publishing Limited 2010


Animal movements are an important determinant of distribution, abundance, extinction, and colonization dynamics, and gene flow (Colbert et al. 2001; Hanski &¶ Gaggiotti 2004). In highly fragmented environments,animal movements among resource patches may beof greater consequence to population persistence thanthe demographic potential of the patches themselves¶ (Lande 1987). Landscape connectivity is the degree to¶ which an environment facilitates movement among resource patches (Taylor et al. 1993) and is a functionof landscape structure and organisms’ ability to perceive and respond to it (Tishendorf & Fahrig 2000). Because species’ distributions shift due to climate change¶ (Parmesan 2006), landscape connectivity may be essential for persistence (Malcolm et al. 2006), especially¶ near range margins where the size, quality, and proximity of resource patches often decline (Holt et al.¶ 2005). Although human activity has degraded connectivity in many landscapes, forecasting effects on populations is complex because movement is difficult to¶ study.¶ Along international boundaries, increasing concerns¶ over national security complicateconserving landscape connectivity. Transboundary development, including fences, roadways, lighting, vegetation¶ clearing, and increased human activity, threatens to alterconnectivity at large scales in over 20 nations. In Asia,¶ for example, a security fence recently built along the disputed India–Pakistan border may have already affected¶ wildlife movements (Pahalwan 2006). In North Americaa 1125-km security fence along more than one-third ofthe U.S.–Mexico border (U.S. Public Law 109–367) is under construction. Although fence structures vary, most¶ segments are≥4 m tall, have vertical gaps 5–10 cm wide,¶ and are associated with vegetation clearings and roads¶ ≥25 m wide. Other sections consist of vehicle barriersoften coupled with barbed-wire fences (Fig. 1). Mitigating¶ the effects of these structures on wildlife requires information on movement behavior and landscape structures¶ that foster connectivity.¶ The international boundary between the states of Arizona in the United States and Sonora in Mexico traverses adiverse region. Spanning over 600 km and a 10-fold gradient in annual rainfall, this region extends from coniferousforests near the northern Sierra Madre Occidental to vastdeserts of the Colorado River Valley. In contrast to other¶ regions along the U.S.–Mexico border, most areas directly¶ north of Sonora are federally managed, often according¶ to explicit conservation mandates, and in combination¶ with reserves in Sonora form one of the largest networks¶ of protected areas in North America (Felger & Broyles¶ 2007). Transboundary connectivity is especially relevantto conservation in this region because several major biogeographic provinces converge and produce the rangelimits of many Neotropical and Nearctic taxa (Turner et al.¶ 1995; Escalante et al. 2004). Moreover, broad elevationand moisture gradients produce fragmented distributionsof many populations (Hoffmeister 1986; Flesch 2008)¶ that presumably are linked by dispersal. Despite the biological significance of this region, virtually the entireArizona–Sonora border has been fenced or is proposedfor fencing.

Interaction is Key, fragmentation results in loss of that ecosystem


Diaz 2005 (S Díaz, D Tilman, J Fargione, FS Chapin, R Dirzo, T Kitzberger, B Gemmill, M Zobel, M Vilá, C Mitchell, A Wilby, Gretchen C. Daily, M Galetti, WF Laurance, J Pretty, Rosamond L. Naylor, A Power, D Harvell “Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends”, Biodiversity Regulation of Ecosystem Services, Chapter 11) Island Press, Washington, DC 
Many ecosystem processes and the services they provide depend¶ on obligate or facultative interactions among species. Direct interactions between plants and fungi, plants and animals, and indirectinteractions involving more than two species are essential for ecosystem processes such as transfer of pollen and many seeds, transfer¶ of plant biomass production to decomposers or herbivores, construction of habitat complexity, or the spread or suppression of¶ plant, animal and human pathogens. Because of this, interactionsbetween different trophic levels are among the most important processes by which biodiversity regulates the provision of ecosystem services, as illustrated in Figure 11.1 (see also Chapin et al.¶ 2000a). Although experimental evidence is growing (e.g. van der¶ Putten et al. 2001; Haddad et al. 2001), most of the examplescome from the dramatic community and ecosystem effects of theintroduction or removal of only one or a small number of species.¶ There is clearly still insufficient information to determine whether¶ there are general principles that describe how biotic linkages between different trophic levels and indirect interactions affect various ecosystem processes. Nevertheless, the available studiessuggest that the integrity of these interactions is important formaintaining ecosystem processes and that threats to them via habitat destruction and fragmentation (see Box 11.1) are likely to result in losses of ecosystem service

Loss of a local ecosystem results in a domino effect of biodiversity loss


Diaz 2005 (S Díaz, D Tilman, J Fargione, FS Chapin, R Dirzo, T Kitzberger, B Gemmill, M Zobel, M Vilá, C Mitchell, A Wilby, Gretchen C. Daily, M Galetti, WF Laurance, J Pretty, Rosamond L. Naylor, A Power, D Harvell “Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends”, Biodiversity Regulation of Ecosystem Services, Chapter 11) Island Press, Washington, DC 
Species composition is often more important than the number of species¶ in affecting ecosystem processes (high certainty). Thus, conserving or restoring the composition of communities, rather than simply maximizing species¶ numbers, is critical to maintaining ecosystem services. Changes in speciescomposition can occur directly by species introductions or removals, or indirectly by altered resource supply due to abiotic drivers (such as climate) or¶ human drivers (such as irrigation, eutrophication, or pesticides).¶ Although a reduction in the number of species may initially have smalleffects, even minor losses may reduce the capacity of ecosystems foradjustment to changing environments (medium certainty). Therefore, alarge number of resident species, including those that are rare, may act as ‘‘insurance’’ that buffers ecosystem processes in the face of changes in thephysical and biological environment (such as changes in precipitation, temperature, or pathogens).

Specialist species already in low numbers will be effected drastically by new fences


FLESCH and CLINTON 2010 (W. EPPS/ D. AARON, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, 325 Biological Sciences East, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, “Potential Effects of the United States-Mexico Border¶ Fence on Wildlife” Conservation Biology

Volume 24, No. 1) Blackwell Publishing Limited 2010


Results of our case studies suggest other species maybe significantly affected by security infrastructure inthe Arizona–Sonora borderlands if they are terrestrialand large enough to be physically excluded by securityinfrastructure (cannot pass through a 5- to 10-cm gap),¶ deterred by vegetation openings, or fly at heights <4 mduring dispersal. Furthermore, although bighorn sheepand many other species in discontinuous habitat patchescan disperse across nonbreeding habitat, those speciesare most likely to experience loss of connectivity atlarger scales when linkages incorporating transboundary movements are disrupted (e.g., Fig 4b). For instance,¶ desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) also occupy disjunct rocky habitat separated by valleys and make interpopulation movements approximately once per generation (Edwards et al. 2004); those characteristics could¶ increase vulnerability to disruption by border fencing.¶ Among nonmigratory birds, ground dwellers such as Wild¶ Turkey (Meliagris gallopavo) and quail (Phasianidae)¶ may not readily cross fences unless gap widths facilitate movement (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, bats such as endangered lesser-long nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae)¶ and migratory birds likely will fly over fences.¶ Among wide-ranging mammals, persistence and recovery of other species present in low numbers such asjaguar and Sonoran pronghorn may depend on transboundary movements (Krausman et al. 2005; McCain &¶ Childs 2008). Persistence of black bears (Ursus americanus) in northern Sonora and Texas may depend, respectively, on movements from Arizona (Varas 2007) and¶ northern Coahuila (Onorato et al. 2004). Population-level¶ consequences for species that are more widespread and¶ abundant such as pumas (Puma concolor) and mule deer¶ (Odocoileus hemionus) are likely to be less severe. Detailed information on distribution, movement behavior,¶ and the effects of interpopulation connectivity on local persistence are required to fully assess the potential¶ effects of transboundary development on wildlife and to¶ develop effective mitigation strategies.




Government actions inherently take in no account of the environment, this fence would be the end of those ecosystems


Bigham 2007 (Roy, Pollution Engineering, “Abuse of Power”) BNP Media March, 2007
Politicians are often accused of abusing their power. Rarely¶ do we see such a display of it than what was recently reported by the news about our Homeland Security Secretary.¶ A recent news item from the Associated Press caught this¶ editor's eye and resulted in a stunned moment of silence to let¶ the information settle in. Homeland Security Secretary MichaelChertoff announced he was waiving all environmental rulesin order to clear the way to construct a fence. The result of hisaction circumvents the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Water¶ Pollution Control Act and the National Environmental Policy Act,to name a few.The engineering proposal involves 37 miles of traditional andvirtual fencing along the U.S. and Mexico border in SouthwesternArizona. It includes radar and other infrastructure, lighting, all weather and drag roads. The project is anticipated to cost nearly$64 million.¶ According to Homeland Security spokesperson Russell Knocke,¶ Chertoff voided "environmental requirements and other legalities¶ that have impeded the department's ability to construct fencing¶ and deploy detection technology on the range." Apparently, ourgovernment has indeed authorized a single entity to ignore our¶ environmental rules and regulations at a single person's whim.¶ Chertoff needs no approval in such regards and no public comments are allowed

A2: Crime

Crimes committed by immigrants are statistically skewed – They are more law-abiding than America’s own citizens


Smith 11 (Robert, “Endgame Nearing an End: The Production of Bare Life under the U.S. Deportation Regime”, pg. 20, BW)
Even though statistically migrants commit less crimes than citizens, the 1996 laws helped produce millions of “criminal aliens” by creating new crimes out of civil immigration violations. Of the criminal statutes used in DHS immigration prosecutions in FY 2004, over 80% consisted of one of two of these crimes: “entry of alien at improper time or place,” (47%) “Reentry of deported alien” (34%) (TRAC 2005). In the years after 9/11, the imperative of finding and arresting criminal aliens was the principal governmental priority that propelled the 64% rise in detentions between FY 2005 and FY 2009. Budget appropriation bills stipulated that the Department of Homeland Security “shall prioritize the identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime by the severity of that crime” (U.S. Congress 2009). In ICE’s yearly budget request, the Secretary would start his or her speech thanking the members of Congress and in the next paragraph invoke the need to protect the American people from criminal aliens. Unfortunately for ICE’s stated mission, the 200% rise in funding in FY 2005–FY 2009 did not lead to a commensurate increase in the detention of criminal aliens. There was only a 12% rise in criminal aliens in that period, but the number of detainees who have never been convicted of a crime increased 99%, from 139,583 to 273,408. Even more troubling, in FY 2009, 76% of non-criminal arrests were made by the programs whose primary purpose was to target criminal aliens (TRAC 2010).

Criminal Stereo types are hyped


Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
However, despite popular stereotypes about the criminal alien, there is no evidence that the crime rate among immigrants in the United States¶ is any higher than that among the general population. As Peter Schuck¶ stated in a comprehensive review of the data a few years ago, Although the systematic data on point are somewhat dated, legal immigrants do not appear to commit any more crime than demographically similar Americans; they may even commit less, and that crime may be less serious. Nor does today’s immigrant crime appear to be worse than in earlier eras. The immigrants who flooded American cities around the¶ turn of the century (the ancestors of many of today’s Americans) were¶ also excoriated as congenitally vicious and usually crime-prone, not¶ only by the public opinion of the day, but also by the Dillingham Commission,¶ which Congress established to report on the need for immigration¶ restrictions. The evidence suggests that those claims were false then, and similar claims appear to be false now.85

1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   25


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page