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

Download 1,11 Mb.
Date conversion16.03.2017
Size1,11 Mb.
1   ...   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25

DA Links


Despite some sympathy, border enforcement remains extremely popular to all parties

Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Conservatives generally find themselves deeply split on the issue of¶ immigration. Some staunch members of the Republican Party, including¶ President George W. Bush, generally favor liberal admission policies, or¶ at least more liberal policies than the ones currently in place. Economic¶ conservatives see gains from immigration and inexpensive labor. In stark¶ contrast, another wing of the Republican Party is deeply concerned with¶ the alleged cultural impacts of immigration. This faction aggressively¶ plays on populist fear about cultural changes blamed on immigrants and¶ demands restrictionist policies and tougher border enforcement. Today,¶ this arm of the Republican Party, represented most prominently by Congressman¶ Tom Tancredo and the conservative icon Pat Buchanan, often¶ exercises great influence over the direction of immigration law and policy¶ by tapping into broad-based fears of economically and otherwise insecure¶ U.S. citizens. Poor, working, and middle-income people worry about the changes wrought by immigration and are not likely to sympathize with the desire of big business for cheap labor.¶ On the other hand, Democrats also find themselves divided on immigration.¶ Economically, they are concerned with immigration’s downward pressure on the wage scale and its impact on a long-time base of¶ Democratic support, labor unions. Although change has come in recent¶ years, organized labor, often supportive of the basic Democratic agenda,¶ has historically supported restrictionist immigration laws and policies.¶ Many liberals, however, desire the humane treatment of immigrants and¶ often push for pro-immigration and pro-immigrant laws and policies.¶ There, however, is some common ground. Many Democrats and Republicans often agree that increased border enforcement is necessary. Like tough-on-crime stances, this has proved time and time again to be a politically popular position. This is even true for those sympathetic to¶ 138 | The Economic Benefits of Liberal Migration of Labor Across Borders the plight of immigrants. In addition, influenced by public fears of being overrun by floods of immigrants, politicians of both parties often support limits on legal immigration and heavy border enforcement.

State Spending

Opening the borders would drown states in fiscal debt

Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
Immigration has had especially significant fiscal impacts on states in¶ which large numbers of immigrants live. The state and local governments in high-immigration states must bear substantial costs. Consumption¶ of emergency health services alone can have substantial impacts¶ on state and local governments.73 The state of Arizona, for example,¶ pays more than $90 million each year to provide emergency services to undocumented immigrants. The state is required to provides such services¶ by federal law but receives only about $650,000 from the federal government to help cover the services, a fraction of its their costs.74 A¶ public education, which is generally paid for by state and local governments, is also costly, even if it turns out to be a good economic investment¶ for the nation. The costs of providing law enforcement protectionsto immigrants also can be formidable.

Job Loss

Increase of migrants leads to less jobs.

Sanchez 09 (Rob, “Timeout! The case for a moratorium on legal immigration,” The Social Contract Press, Volume:20, MCJC)

One of the most obvious ways to stop job erosion in the U.S. is to stop illegal immigration and to put severe limits on employment based visas. Beware of politicians that ask us to accept the Faustian bargain of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Their claim is fallacious that CIR will solve the illegal immigration problem, but only if we expand guest worker visa programs. The following statement by Sen. McCain is not unique as many variations of it have been repeated throughout the years by political elitists who care more about increasing the supply of cheap labor than preserving the viability of the American middle class:

I believe we can pursue the security programs and at the same time set up a system where people can come here and work on a temporary basis. I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), news conference, 2003

We must be careful not to be fooled by the Morton’s Fork (false choice) offered by McCain and other promoters of CIR, who ask us to accept more immigration by increasing the number of employment based worker visas and by giving amnesty to illegal aliens — in trade for a promise of more border enforcement. It’s not a fair deal because American workers lose jobs any time there are increases in immigration — it really doesn’t matter if the increase is due to legal or illegal immigration. The only thing that matters is how much our total population is allowed to grow by flooding the labor market with more immigrants. Increased immigration means the supply of workers goes up, demand goes down, labor arbitration forces wages to go down, and job opportunities for Americans dwindle. It’s a lose-lose deal for American wage earners.

There are two very obvious means to improve the employment situation in the United States: first we must stop illegal immigration, and second most of our employment based visa programs should either be severely restricted or abolished. Until both of these happen all proposals for Comprehensive Immigration Reform should be rejected — especially if they allow any type of amnesty or the expansion of guest worker visa programs. If unemployment ever reaches zero, and we are sure our borders are secure, then it might make sense to have a public dialogue about the merits of liberalizing the immigration system.

K Args

Cap—Root Cause

Capitalism is the root problem of economic inequality, not immigration

Johnson 2007(Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
An inextricably related economic fear is that easy migration increases¶ 144 | The Economic Benefits of Liberal Migration of Labor Across Borders wealth inequality. This line of reasoning, which finds some support empirically,¶ sees cheap labor allowing business to reap greater profits, accumulate¶ more wealth, and gain at the expense of labor. As the old adage¶ goes, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This, however, may well be¶ an enduring characteristic of capitalism and a market economy, rather than the result of immigration and liberal admissions policies. Even if¶ such fears were real, it may not be possible through border enforcement¶ measures to halt highly motivated immigrants from entering the United¶ States. Other policies are necessary to address wealth distribution concerns.

1See for example Usborne, The Politics and Grossmann, Reforming Sex.

2MB. R. Mitchell, European Historical Statistics, 1750—1970 (New York, 1975), 130. By 1969 it had fallen to 2.3 percent (132).

3See Stanley Suval, Electoral Politics in Wilhelmine Germany (Chapel Hill, 1985) and Margaret Anderson, Practicing Democracy: Elections and Political Culture in Imperial Germany (Princeton, 2000). There is a good discussion of these issues in Geoff Eley, “The Social Construction.”

4Eisenstadt, “Multiple,” 5. For an even more positive assessment of “Western modernity,” see Charles Taylor, “Modern Social Imaginaries,” Public Culture 14 (2002): esp. 92, 99, 103.

5See Fritzsche, “Did Weimar Fail?,” 638; also his Germans and Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany (New York, 1990).

6See Victoria de Grazia, How Fascism Ruled Women (Berkeley, 1992), 3.

7Peukert, “Genesis,” 242,236.
1   ...   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25

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

    Main page