501-1.hoe Heidt Solt Neg Immigration

Michigan 7 Wk.
Seniors 2006-2007
***case*** AT: Moral Obligation to Immigrants (113) Utilitarianism Good (117) AT: Slavery (1/5) Immigration Bad-Generic Immigration Increases RichIPoor Gap (112) Immigration Increases Rich/Poor Gap (212) Immigration Reinforces Racism No Solvency-IllegalsInevitable Plan Causes More Immigrants . Population Growth Turns Case Plan too Fast-Kills Hopes for Assimilation Immigrants Pay Now Increased Immigration Doesn't Solve SocSec Social Security Not Collapsing Social Security Collapse Inevitable Immigration High Mexican Immigration High Plan Increases Immigration Naturalization Down Backlash Low Immigration Backlash White Backlash (1/2) Backlash Impact Backlash Turns Case AT: No Backlash AT: Public Won't Backlash AT: Only Elites Backlash Immigration Doesn't Solve SocSec Crisis Spending Link Unskilled Immigrants Key to Econ Amnesty Doesn't Solve Econ AT: Illegals = unemployment Public Hates Plan GOP Opposes Plan Public Wants Wafl Plan Fractures Conservatives Immigrant Base Opposes Terrorism Link Assimilation Fails Immigration Threatens Culture Naturalization Key To Identity American Culture Key to Heg Protestant Beg Solves Ethnic Violence National Memory Good AT: National Ideology Risilient Brain Drain D/A 1NC (112) Open Borders CP Solvency IRCA CP 1NC IRCA CP Solvency (113) Lopez CP Solvency (113) PRAs Counterplan Wall counterplan Agamben Links Assimilation Links Nationalism Links Assimilation=Coercion
Immigration Neg II
I . .
................................................................................................................................................. 4 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 .......................................................................................................................................................................9 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 20 ............................................................................................................................................. 21 .............................................................................................................................................................. 22 ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 ................................................................................................................................................................... 24 .................................................................................................................................................................. 25 ............................................................................................................................................. 26 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 ....................................................................................................................................... 28 ............................................................................................................................................................... 29 ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 39 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 4 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 50 .................................................................................................................................................. 51 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 58 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 59 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 60 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 6 ................................................................................................................................................................. 68 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 6 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 70 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 72 .................... . ......................................................................................................................................... 75 .................................................................................................................................................................. 76 ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 78 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 79 .................................................................................................................................................................. 80 81 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................... 83 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 4 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 85 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 88 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 94 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 96 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 97 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 98 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 99
Hannah. Jacinth. Jordan. Lasky. Simi. Will
Michigan 7 Wk Seniors 2006-2007
Assimilation Impacts State Policies Affect Assimilation Citizenship Bad-Racist Alternatives Aff-Multiculturalism Perm
............................................................................................................................................................................... 100 ............................................................................................................................................................ 101 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 102 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 105
Immigration Neg 11
/ . .
.................................................................................................................................................................... 109
Hannah. Jacinth. Jordan. Lasky. Sirni. Will
Michigan 7 W k Seniors 2006-2007
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
AT: Anti-Immigration Laws Racist

The underlying justification for anti-immigration advocates is not race - it's the sheer number of immigrants Beck 96 (Roy, Washington, D. C. editor of The Social Contract, The Case Against Immigration, 1996)
If one side points out that some immigrants are prone to crime and destructive behavior, others note that most immigrants arrive with high motives, good character, and laudable behavior. Some observers fear that the volume of non-European immigration threatens to swamp America's cultural heritage; others welcome an ever more multicultural society. Nonetheless, the chief difficulties that America faces are are because of current immi~ration not triggered by who the immi~rants but by how many they are. The task before the nation white America: it is about protecting and in setting a fair level of immigration is not about race or some vision of a horno~eneous enhancing the United States' unique experiment in democracy for all Americans. including recent immigrants, regardless of their particular ethnicity. It is time to confront the true costs and benefits of immigration numbers, which have skyrocketed beyond our society's ability to handle them successfully.
Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will
Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

AT: MORAL OBLIGATION TO IMMIGRANTS (1/3)
1 -Immigration Neg I1
We have no moral obligation to illegal immigrants - rather, public policy makers have an obligation to abide by the law to uphold citizen's interests Spingola 05 (Deanna, "Illegal Immigration & the Law," htt~://www,newswithviews.corn/S~innola~deannaI .htm)
Non enforcement of any law gives criminal license to the lawless. If an individual breaks the law, there should be consequences or others will follow the example of the unfettered lawbreaker. Justice also dictates that there cannot be selective prosecution based on some arbitrary standard or personal status. What good is the law if it does not apply to all, including arrogant, badly behaving elected officials? Laws are for the protection of the innocent and those who abide the law. The proper role of government is to enforce the laws for the overall welfare and security of its citizens. Elected officials should be held accountable for the enforcement of all laws and should not be at libertv to sus~end certain re~ulations the financial benefit of a few business own in^. politically dona tin^ citizens or for that cross our borders daily. It for some other hidden political motive. The laws should not be suspended for the hordes of ille~als immigrants come into our countw. Some may come to "do the jobs that Americans won't do" does not matter why or how the ille~al
and who knows where that rationalization came fiom? Yes, many wish to come to America for better opportunities. The reason America might be so attractive is because of the freedoms allegedly guaranteed by the very laws the illegals and our errant representatives are trashing. Many of the illegals are from countries that are impoverished because of the socialistic and otherwise immoral behavior of that country's leaders. Some of those leaders encourage illegal entry into America for their worst citizens: the morally corrupt and criminal element of their society. Why would Vicente Fox, an alleged good friend of Bush, dump all of his problem people on a country that has attempted to financially benefit his country with generous trade pacts? Is it America's responsibility to take care of the cast-off citizens of other countries? Should our taxes pay for incarceration of their criminals? No, it is the government's job to protect its citizens fiom the encroachment of others. Countries have borders for a
reason. America has generallv welcomed those who desire to emigrate and become a part of this nation. Our ancestors were all immigrants. But they usually did not come here illegally to suck up our resources or engage in criminal behavior. They came with a desire to work and contribute to their communities. They had an interest in the success of their villages and towns. They constructed homes, farms, churches and synagogues which demonstrated their permanence. They embraced the language and culture while still honoring and retaining their heritage. They did not demand that we adapt to their language and culture - after all they were entering our
country as guests. Currently, there are two members of the House of Representatives who have demonstrated the legal and moral courage to uphold the Constitution while most of their congressional peers apparently do not take their oaths all that seriously. Congressmen, regardless of party, are obligated to uphold the laws that they enact in behalf of the rest of us. These two courageous representatives are Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. Rather than demonstrating the courage of Tancredo and Paul, they often question or ridicule them. On 10 May 2005 George W. Bush was in the country of Georgia, formerly a part of the Soviet Union. When our elected officials leave the country, watch out! That is when we need to be super vigilant. Included in an address he delivered to the citizens of Georgia, he stated: "At the same time, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected - the territorial [sic] and sovereignty of Georgia must be respected by all nations." [I] Why does he recognize and encourage the protection of Georgia's sovereignty but not America's? Why does the success and stability of other countries matter more than the sacred oath that he made during his inaugural ceremony? He solemnly vowed, with his hand on the bible, to uphold the Constitution of this great nation. Obviously, this must be another way of taking the Lord's name in vain. He also stated in his inaugural address: "My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it f r . [2] Well, Mr. Bush, the borders are not firm and constitute an ongoing threat. What im" are his policies that make "America last" and every other country first? press release on 29 April 2005: "President Bush's administration has clearly stated that it rejects the vigilantism carried out by individuals on the border In a Mexico C ~ t y and he has said that he will not condone violations of the law." [3] He is the one in violation - by this obvious treacherous lack of enforcement of his country's laws. The press release further stated: "It should be noted that this year, by Mexico's initiative, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted by consensus a resolution on migrants' rights in which states are urged to adopt effective measures to punish any detentions of migrants by individuals and to pursue and punish any violations of the law that result from this conduct." [4] "The Mexican government will assist with any lawsuits, anywhere, that are brought before the corresponding authorities if arrests are made by individuals or if the rights of Mexican citizens are violated." [5] "As has been stated previously, Mexico reiterates its commitment to continue working with officials at all levels of the United States government in the search for mechanisms that assure that Mex~canmigration to the United States is legal, safe, orderly and respectful of their rights." [6] WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS? Logically, an American citizen should be able to sue the Mexican government for loss of wages due to their lack of respect for our laws. Or a group of ex-employees who have been displaced by illegal immigrants ought to be able to initlate a class action suite against their ex-employer for loss of wages as well as racial discrimination. There are no coincidences in politics. If something happens, you can be sure that it was planned that way. The constant influx of illegal immigrants, including other than Mexicans, affects our economy, morality, safety, health, social structure, politics and every other aspect of our lives. Our southern border has become the world's gateway to our ultimate downfall. The agenda includes a planned perpetual foreign onslaught designed precisely for the results that it is achieving - the collapse of America and the eventual merging of adjacent nations into a tyrannical one world government. This devised merge is destroying the middle class. That Continued...

AT: MORAL OBLIGATION TO IMMIGMNTS (2/3)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Continued... will result in a two class society, the rich and the poverty stricken. The poverty stricken will then rely completely on the government for sustenance. He who writes the check, controls. Because federal oficials look the other way and the "mess media" are absolutely ignoring the illegal immigration situation we can assume that they do not view it as a problem. It is but a means to an end. More than few "conservative" talk show hosts continually claim that the "mess media" has a liberal bias. I seriously question this evaluation. If it were actually liberally biased their attack on Bush regarding the borders would be merciless. The media isn't right or left. This constant vocal contest between the so-called conservative right republicans and the liberal left democrats is a distracting political maneuver. The political agenda of the media, owned and controlled by big money in influential places, is compatible with that of Bush. They are on the same side: it is the CFR insiders against America. It is totally inconsistent to create a Department of Homeland Security and speedily ram the Patriot Act through congress yet completely disregard the enormous border breach. The Patriot Act was devised and written during the Clinton presidency but was not implemented until America's utter vulnerability after 9111. So essentially it is not about safety or homeland security. Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are a farce. The more obvious purpose is the additional withdrawat of certain individual freedoms. We have been deprived of personal liberties with a promise of national security and we are less safe than before 9111. The only benefactors of Homeland Security are the individuals appointed to run yet another government agency - in other words - the squandering of our tax dollars. George W. Bush has a moral oblipation to abide by and enforce the laws of this nation. Another slothful servant, Bill (I did not have sex with that woman.) Clinton, by his deceitful behavior and low life explanations, introduced a new moral mentality regarding intimate relationship practices, much to the dismay of teenager's parents who now cite this disreputable individual as reason for their own immoral behavior. However, Clinton certainly did not set the precedent for lying - that has and is standard procedure for the administration. This is not simplv about
motives. Among them are the following: they the justifications for illegal entry into this country. Of course, illegals have com~elling come to take the iobs of Americans. sell drugs, receive health care and get social security benefits after their return to Mexico. Their motives, whether good or bad. are beside the point. That is not the primary concern. The plain and simple fact is Illegal Immigration is Illegal.
We have no moral obligation to illegal immigrants. They should be viewed as criminals who committed a crime entering the nation Walker 7-24-06 (Bruce, Editor - Enter Stage Right, One way to treat illegal workers, htt~://~~~,enter~tageright.com/archive/articles/0706/0706iIlegwork.htm)
The controversv over illegal immieration would be seen more clearlv if we viewed the illegal immigrants as convict labor. Although convicts do work in jobs within the American economy, many of those jobs outside of prison, there is - or should be - a general consensus that the best solution should be to have as few convicts as possibie and consequently as little convict labor as possible. Why? There are several reasons. Illegal immigrant workers. like convict labor. are people who have broken our law. While it is true that American governments (federal, state and local) have enacted entirely too many laws and criminalize entirely too much behavior, most of the people who wind up in prison or on probation have committed real crimes, like theft or assault or burglary. 1llee;al i m m i ~ a nworkers t have effectively committed the crime of burglar?, by entering illegalIv the nation of another. Making people into criminals or law-breakers is not in the interest of anv societv that desires to live bv the rule of law. The habit of law breaking spreads easily, as we learned during Prohibition. Those who work in the underground economy undermine those who play bv the ruIes. It is not iust illegal immierants but businesses who have become criminals by our failure to enforce immigration laws. The verv market forces that have made America affluent penalize honest employers and reward criminal employers. The moral authority of laws is thus doubly weakened: by illegal immigrant workers and by illegal native employers. Because illegal immigrant workers, like convict workers, can work - or can be pushed into working - more cheaply that legal workers. the consequence of illegal immigrant workers is the same as the consequence of convict labor: the law-breakers will work more cheaply than the law-abiders; the criminals will economically undercut the legal workers, operating outside of prisons or outside the immigration laws of our nation.

AT: MORAL OBLIGATION TO IMMIGRANTS (313)
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
We have no moral obligation to illegal immigrants. They should be treated as criminals - our appeasement of their behavior threatens to collapse civil society Fisher 3-26-06 (Pete, RenewAmerica.us, "Criminal acts defended by pro-illegal immigration" http://~~~.renewarnerica.us/columns/fisher/060326) I am beginning to wonder if there is something in the water these days when so many people are defending the rights of people, who under current law should have no rights as citizens. After all, they are not citizens. They are criminals who lied and smuggled themselves into our nation bv the millions. They are an element that is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars a vear, and it is tax revenue that is lost. I know the IRS will never let me or any other legal taxpaver go without paving taxes without extremely high penalties and seizure of property. Why is it they are not going after the illegats? Because the truth is, most have one or several SSN cards that are stolen or forged. In essence, they cannot be tracked down easily if the names and numbers can be switched by shuffling the deck of SSN cards many of these people hold. This also makes it harder for law enforcement officials to enforce the laws, and even if these people are arrested, many walk out and assume a new identity in minutes with another name and number. If a legal citizen were caught doing the same thing-, we would be orosecuted and punished accordinalv. Yet so many are heralding the greatness of illegal immigrants in this nation and excusing their law breaking activities as if it were nothing more than spitting; on a sidewalk. Now, when 9-11 occurred most Americans wondered how those Arab terrorists were able to walk around so easily and slip in and out our society undetected. Illegal immigration and the attitude towards it has been a large contribution to easy access. If we turn our heads continuallv on illegal activity, it will become commonplace in our societv when people break the law and no one looks to see what is happening. In fact, with the liberal media and people like Hillary speaking up for these criminals, it has already hit that point. The message we are getting is that it is ok to break immigration laws and be used as slave labor as long as we get cheap labor for our hotels and car washes. I think this is despicable at best to condone activity as such, especially in light of the fact that we need to be more watchful of who crosses our borders and the massive expense to enforce our laws. I have high praise for the Minutemen who give of their time and abilities to do what the government has refused to do. And given the high population of citizens in this country who have spoken out against this for years and are only now seeing their elected officials act on it, I would be almost surprised at Hillary's support of illegal immigration, were it not her history of condoning illegal activity to glean votes from a particular ethnic group in the nation. Releasing several cop killers in NY comes to mind, and the next presidential election could gain another several million votes in the Hispanic sector. So we can see why Hillary would sell her soul, there are votes involved. In her mind, it's an even trade. But I cannot see the average citizen in support of this unless they are incredibly ignorant of the costs both financially and security wise to this nation. Even while driving through Woodstock, Illinois last week I saw an insurance company with signs in Spanish that in essence said "no license, no problem." How can insurance companies do this? It should be against the law for someone without a license to get solid insurance. I know of a case once where a man was driving his new motorcycle without a license. He got into an accident, and the insurance company refused to pay because he was unlicensed. This in turn cost the person who was hit to have their insurance company pay for the damages and go after the man. And in turn, the insurance companies will hike rates to continue having to chase unlicensed drivers, which is even harder to do if the individual has a false identity and is here illegally. So why the huge support of illegal criminals? BY condoninn this activitv and suvvortinrr watered down laws. the nation becomes weaker. not stronger. If we turn our heads and allow criminal activity like this to continue. we undermine all we have as a free nation of laws and structured societv. It is a shame to those who support an element that walks unpunished while continually breaking the law. By punishing companies who use this form of slave labor, I agree. I fully support heavy penalties that will not allow them to condone illegal activity.
Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors

UTILITARIANISM GOOD (1/7)
Immigration Neg II
We should not hold ourselves accountable for the personal, voluntary acts of others - illegal aliens made the voluntary decision to cross the border. Commoner 72 (Barry, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology, 1972,204-7)
/
I
--
I I
.*
All this has taken some people by surprise. For there is a myth in some political circles that public policy is determined more by narrow self-interest than by concerns for values as nebulous as the integrity of the environment. They would argue as well that there is no way to establish the general public attitude toward the moral acceptability of a given balance between benefit and risk and that, realistically, this judgment can only be made by some appropriate governmental agency. The answer to this argument is that public opinion has, in fact, already established rather well-defined limits to the risks that are acceptable for the benefits to be derived from a wide range of activities. The benefit/risk issue is associated with many aspects of personal life: driving a car, traveling in a train or an aircraft, skiing, working in an industrial plant or li&ng near it, the use of x-rays for medical diagnosis, watching a color television set, using a microwave oven or a synthetic insecticide. These are personal, voluntary acts. Other benefitlrisk issues relate to large-scale social enterprises
in which the risks are taken involuntarily. These include the widespread use of pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture, all forms of power production, air pollution due to urban traffic, and indeed all of the massive sources of environmental pollution. Recently efforts have been made to evaluate, from the available statistics, the quantitative balance between the benefits and risks associated with such activities that has been accepted by the general public. For a number of such activities, Chauncey Starr has evaluated the risk (which he defines as, "the statistical probability of fatalities per hour of exposure of the individual to the activity considered) and the benefit, calculated from the dollar equivalent value derived by the individual from the activity. The ratio of benefit to risk that is acceptable to the public can be seen from a plot of the risk against the benefit, calculated in these terms.

UTILITARIANISM GOOD (217)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
The results of such a plot are quite striking. When the value of the benefit is small, the acceptable risk is also relatively low; as the value increases, the acceptable risk also rises-but at a rate that is very large relative to the increase in value (the acceptable risk rises, approximately, in proportion to the cube of the benefit). Also, as the beneficial value of various activities increases, the acceptable risk reaches an upper limit. Since a wide variety of activities fit this general formula, we must conclude that there has been, deeply inherent in our society, some general standard of public judgment regarding the acceptable balance between benefit and risk. Moreover, the influence of a purely moral factor such as the distinction between an involuntary and voluntary activity is measurable in the results. Involuntary and ,voluntary activities fall on separate curves of the same general shape, but for the same benefit the acceptable level for invol~~ntary is 10,000 times less than that acceptrisks able for voluntary ones. These calculations show that the acceptable beneGt/risk ratio is determined by a general public consensus; where regulatory agencies are involved, their actions appear to reflect rather than create the common public view. In effect, they place a numerical value on a matter of public morality-that, in Starr's words, "'we are loath to let others do unto us what we happily do to ourselves." A

UTILITARIANISM GOOD (3f7)
Ignoring consequences is immoral and idealist. We must produce the best end, regardless of the morality of the means Alinsky 72 (Saul D., Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, March 1972,25)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cast; of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns
to play his mother oP against his father in
the politics of
when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's "conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action"; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough for people to be "corrupted" for them.

Immigration Neg I1
/ --
The men who pile up the heaps of discussion and literature on the ethics of means and ends-which with rare exception is conspicuous for its sterility-rarely write about their awn experiences in the perpetual struggle of life and change. They are strangers, moreover, to the burdens and problems of operational responsibility and the unceasing pressure for immediate decisions. They are passionately committed to a mystical objectivity where passions are suspect. They assume a nonexistent situation where men dispassionately and with reason draw and devise means and ends as if studying a navigational chart on land. They can be recognized by one of two verbal brands: 'We agree with the ends but not the means," or "This is not the time.'Yhe means-and-end moralists or nun-doers alwuys wind up on their ends without any means. The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive-but real-allies of the Haves. They are the ones Jacques Maritain referred to in his statement. "The f ~ n r p cnilin
\
\ but a way of escaping virtue." These non-doers were the

i
ourselves by entering the context of history is not virtue,
ones who chose not to fight the Nazis in the only way they could have been fought; they were the ones who drew their window blinds to shut out the shameful spectacle of Jews and political prisoners being dragged through the streets; they were the ones who privately deplored the horror of it all-and did nothing. This is the nadir of immorality. The most unethical of all means is the nonuse of any means. It is this species of man who so vehemently and miIitantly participated in that classicaIly idealistic debate at the old League of Nations on the . ethical differences between defensive and offensive weapons. Their fears of action drive them to refuge in an ethics so divorced from the politics of life that it can apply only to angels, not to men. The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.

UTILITARIANISM GOOD (517) No right is absolute. Judgement depends on one's political position. Alinsky 72 (Saul D., Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, March 1972,271
Immigration Neg 1 1
/ --
he second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the fitdgrnent of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. If you actively opposed the Nazi occupation and joined the underground Resistance, then you adopted the means of
assassmation, terror, property destruction, the bombing tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis. Those who opposed the Nazi conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists, courageous beyond expectation and willing to sacrifice their lives to their moral convictions. To the occupation authorities, however, these people were IawIess terrorists, murderers, saboteurs, assassins, who believed that the end justified the means, and were utterly unethical according to the mystical rules of war. Any foreign occupation would so ethically judge its opposition. However, in such conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory. It is life or death. To us the Declaration of Independence is a glorious document and an affirmation of human rights. To the British, on the other hand, it was a statement notorious for its deceit by omission. In the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Particulars attesting to the reasons for the Revolution cited a11 of the injustices which the colonists felt that England had been guilty of, but listed none of the benefits. There was no mention of the food the colonies had received from the British Empire during times of famine, medicine during times of disease, soldiers during times of war with the Indians and other foes, or the many other direct and indirect aids to the survival of the coIonies. Neither was there notice of the growing number of allies and friends of the colonists in the British House of Commons, and the hope for imminent remedial legislation to correct the inequities under which the colonies suffered. Jefferson, Franklin, and others were honorable men, but they knew that the Declaration of Independence was
Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Sirni, Will

UTILITARIANISM GOOD (6/7)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
a call to war. They also knew that a list of many of the constructive benefits of the British Empire to the colonists would have so dihted the urgency of the call to arms for the Revolution as to have been self-defeating. The result might well have been a document attesting to the fact that justice weighted down the scale at least 60 per cent on our side, and only 40 per cent on their side; and that because of that 20 per cent difference we were going to have a Revolution. To expect a man to leave his wife, his children, and his home, to leave his crops standing in the field and pick up a gun and join the Revolutionary Army for a 20 per cent difference in the balance of human justice was to defy common sense. The Declaration of Independence, as a declaration of war, had to be what it was, a 100 per cent statement ~f the justice of the cause of the colonists and a 100 per cent denunciation of the role of the British government as evil and unjust. Our cause had to be all shining justice, allied with the angels; theirs had to be all evil, tied to the Devil; in no war has the enemy or the cause ever been gray. Therefore, from one point of view the omission was justified; from the other, it was deliberate deceit. History is made up of "moral" judgments based on politics. We condemned Lenin's acceptance of money from the Germans in 1917 but were discreetly silent while our Colonel William B, Thompson in the same year contributed a million dollars to the anti-Bolsheviks in Russia. As allies of the Soviets in World War I1 we praised and cheered communist guerrilla tactics when the Russians used them against the Nazis during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union; we denounce the same tactics when they are used by communist forces in different parts of
the world against us. The opposition's means, used against us, are always immoraI and our means are always ethical and rooted in the highest of human values. George Bernard Shaw, in Man and Superman, pointed out the variations in ethical definitions by virtue of where you stand. Mendoza said to Tanner, "I am a brigand; I live by robbing the rich." Tanner replied, "I am a gentleman; I live J l by robbing the poor. Shake hands." -.. - -
r
r l

Life is the ultimate right. Any risk of war trumps rights. Alinsky 72 (Saul D., Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, March 1972,29)
Immigration Neg I1
I --
The third rule of the ethics of means and ends i that s in war the end justifies almost any means*Agreements on the Geneva rules on treatment of prisoners or use of nuclear weapons are observed only because the enemy or his potential allies may retaliate. Winston Churchill's remarks to his private secretary a few hours before the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union graphically pointed out the politics of means and ends in war. Informed of the imminent turn of events, the secretary inquired how Churchill, the leading British anticommunist, could reconcile himself to being on the same side as the Soviets. Would not Churchill find it embarrassing and difficult to ask his government to support the communists? Churchill's reply was clear and unequivocal: "Not at all. I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Mitler invaded Hell I would make at Ieast a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." In the Civil War President Lincoln did not hesitate to suspend the right of habeas corpus and to ignore the directive of the Chief Justice of the United States. Again, when Lincoln was convinced that the use of military commissions to try civilians was necessary, he brushed aside the illegality of this actbn with the statement that it was "indispensable to the public safety." He believed
that the civil courts were powerless to cope with the in- ' surrectionist activities of civilians. "Must I shoot a simpleminded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not tou a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert .
..

AT: SLAVERY (115)
The status of illegal immigrants is clearly distinct from that of slaves - immigrants are not slaves Verdon 5-06 (Steve, Illegal Immigration the New Slavery?, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/05/illegal immigration the new slaverv/)
Immigration Neg I1
Between special interest groups served by a growing underclass and big business special interests intent on maintaining a steady supply of cheap labor, it's apparent to many in this debate who has the interests of America in their heart ... and who is simply looking for access to the 2006 equivalent of, or next best thing to slaves. Here the assertion is merely made that illegal immigrants are equivalent to or the "next best thing to" slaves. However, most illegal immigrants satis@ the following list: * They come to this country voluntarily (atbeit illegally, and often at risk to their lives), * They voluntarily take a-iob that a employer voluntarilv offers to pay, * They can leave that iob and look for another, * They can live where the please (and can afford), * They are free to spend their money as they see fit. Not quite in line with the definition of slavery. To be sure there are cases of forced labor even the U.S., however, fiom what I have been able to find so far, such cases are more the exception than the rule. In fact, anti-illegal immigration folks Iike Michelle Malkin frequently enjoy pointing out that illegal immigrants aren't "in the shadows" (and hence not likely to be subject to forced labor). And to the extent that forced labor is a problem, a well run guest worker program and an amnesty plan for those already here would solve that issue to a large extent as well. No compared to actual slavery such as was the case in the U.S. lets look at Radley Balko's take on it, Now - and I can't believe I even have to do this - let's talk about fucking slavery. See, Mr. Riehl, with slavery, Africans were kidnapped fiom their homes. fiom halfww across the world. They were packed into ships against their will. like meat. They were beaten and bred like animals. They were murdered if they resisted. Thev were bought and sold as if they were mules. Thev were routinely ripped from what littIe semblance of family they were permitted to have if their "employer" wished to sell them. Slaves who escaped (i.e., "looked for other emplo~ment")were whipped, shot. or lynched. And all of this went on for generations.-emphasis in the original.

AT: SLAVERY (215)
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
America is becoming homogenous in terms of race Etzioni 01 (Amitai, The Monochrome Society, 2001, xv)
The volume opens with an exploration of the relationship among
racial and ethnic groups that make up American society. I turned to this subject when I read repeatedly that a considerable number of public leaders and colleagues believe that American society is in the process of being deeply transformed -from being a Europeandominated society to one governed by a "majority of minorities." Black, Latino, and Asian Americans - I read - will become the majority of the country's population sometime afier the year 2050 and will carry us in fundamentally new directions, compatible with their values and interests. I found that those who foresee such a turn are inadvertently racists, because they assume that people's pigmentation will determine their personal, social, and political views and actions. I show herein that the vast majority of all Americans, whatever their background or race, basically hail the same virtues and have the same dreams and aspirations. Moreover, far from growing apart, we are coming together through intermarriage and other processes to be discussed. America does not make homogenization a virtue, but neither does it employ apartheid of any kind or color. The record shows that, in American society, diversity continues to be well contained by unity. We are much more a monochrome society than a rainbow society, or one in which colors do not mix and there is no place for white (Chapter I).

AT: SLAVERY (315) America is becoming homogenous in terms of race Etzioni 01 (Amitai, The Monochrome Society, 2001,5)
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
As I see it, both views-that of alarm and that which celebrates the ending of the white majority and the rise of a majority of minoritiesare fundamentally wrong because these positions are implicitly and inadvertently racist: they assume that people's pigmentation, or, more generally, racial attributes, determine their visions, values, and votes.15 Actually, I claim and will show that very often the opposite is true.
The fact is that America is blessed with an economic and political system as well as culture and core values and much else that, while far from flawless, is embraced by most Americans of all races and ethnic groups. (To save breath, from here on, race is used to encompass ethnicity.) It is a grievous error to suggest that because American faces or skin tones may appear more diverse some fifty years from now, most Americans who hail from different social backgrounds will seek to follow a different agenda or hold a different creed than a white majority. While, of course, nobody can predict what people will believe or do fifty years hence, there is strong evidence that if they behave in any way that resembles current behavior of white, black, brown, yellow, red, or other Americans, they will share the same basic aspirations, core values, and mores. Moreover, current trends, during a period in which the nonwhite proportion of the population already has increased, further support the thesis that while the American society may well change, whites and nonwhites will largely change together. A fair number of findings, we shall see shortly, support the thesis that American society is basically much more of one color-if one looks at conduct and beliefs rather than pigmentation and other such external, skin-deep indications.

AT: SLAVERY (415) The airmafive's discourse isohtes Hispanics, increasing racial polarization Etzioni 01 (Amitai, The Monochrome Society, 2001,lS)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Especially important for the future "monochrome-ness" of Arnerican society is the way Hispanic Americans come to view themselves and to be characterized by others. The special significance of this development, surprisingly infrequently discussed, is that Hispanics constitute the fastest-growing, major American social group due to high levels of immigration, high rates of childbirth, and because the group is gaining in political self-awareness and experience. Given that the number of African Americans is growing much more slowly (mainly because there is very little immigration from Africa), and that this group already has a relatively high level of political presence and hence less room to grow in this area, Hispanics are very likely to overtake African Americans in the next decade as the leading nonEuropean group in American society. As a result, in the next decades, we are quite likely to stop talking about a black and white society, one in which Hispanics are not mentioned at all or only as an afterthought, as countless books and essays did in the recent past, and instead focus on the relationship between European Americans and Hispanic Americans. The picture that is going to emerge from such a change in perspective wiII be deeply affected by the way Hispanics are depicted. Some attempts have been made to define Hispanics as a separate race -a brown one. If such a characterization had caught on, it would have increased divisiveness in America; fortunately, from the viewpoint
of those who favor a monochrome society, most Americans and the media continue to view Hispanics as an ethnic group rather than a race. Attempts to change the social construction of Hispanics, however, continue. Instead of simply treating them as one white group among others (groups that differ in their features, for instance, many immigrants from the Middle East are quite "dark," but are viewed as whites in contemporary America), continuous attempts are being made to classi@ Hispanics as something different- and to lump them with the nonwhite groups. Thus, recent press reports employed the category "non-Hispanic whites," who are projected to Iose their majority in July 2001 in California, and in later years all over A m e r i ~ a . ~ ~ There is of course no God-given or scientific reason to classify Hispanics as different from other white ethnic groups. Indeed, the category of "non-Hispanic whites" reflects a mixture of the ways statistics are kept (which themselves reflect normative and political pressures) and an ideological agenda, although those who use this term do not necessarily subscribe to it or are even aware (ofthis agenda. (As Orlando Paterson says, "These are all basically political decisions, the census always just reflects changing attitude~.")'~ The ways Hispanics come to see themselves in the near future is the single most important factor in determining to what extent America will continue to be a primarily monochrome society. If Hispanics view themselves largely as white, continue to share basic American values, and recognize that they are not all of one kind (just the way other white groups are not), America's diversity will not overwhelm its essential unity. If Hispanics view themselves as if they were a racial minority, of one kind, and increasingly ally themselves with those African Americans who seek social and normative separateness (which by itself is a declining number), maintaining a monochrome America will be seriously challenged.

AT: SLAVERY ( 9 5 )
Immigration Neg II
/ --
The terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" are culturally insensitive misnomers Etzioni 01 (Amitai, The Monochrome Society, 2001,20)
William Westerman of the International Institute of New Jersey complains about Americans who tend to ignore the cultural differences among Asian nations, which reflect thousands of years of tradition. He wonders how the citizens of the United States, Canada, and Mexico would feel if they were all treated as indistinguishable "North Americans ."74 The same holds for the so-called Latinos, includng three of my sons. Americans of Hispanic origin trace their origins to many different countries and culture^.^' Eduardo Diaz, a social service administrator, puts it this way: "There is no place called Hispanica. I think it's degrading to be called something that doesn't exist. Even Latino is a A Mexican American office misnomer. We don't speak worker remarked that when she is called Latina it makes her think "about some kind of Many Americans from Central America think of themselves as "mestizo," a term that refers to a mixture of Central American Indian and European ancestry. Among those surveyed in the National Latino Political Survey in 1989, the greatest number of respondents chose to be labeled by their country of origin, n as opposed to "pan-ethnic terms such as "Hispanic" or la tin^."^^ A recent extensive survey comparing Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central/South American attitudes and political behavior found numerous differences among these groups. Support for legal abortion ranged from 32% (Ce'ntrallSouth Americans) to almost double that (60%, Puerto Ricans). In response to a question about pa* 'affiliation, the percentage of Hispanics identifying themselves as Republicans ranged from 12% '(CentrallSouth Americans) to 34% (Cub a n ~ )Large differences were also found in the rate to which differ.~~ ent Latino groups became United States citizens, which reflected differences in their feelings both about their country of origin and their willingness to become Americans. The percentages of those who had become citizens ranged from 53% (Cubans) to 26% (Central1 South Americans).''

IMMIGRATION BAD-GENERIC
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Rapidly increasing immigration will lead to a laundry list of impacts Beck 96 (Roy, Washington, D. C. editor of The Social Contract, The Case Against Immigration, 1996)
Over the long span of history from the founding of the nation in 1776 until 1965, immigration varied widely but averaged around 230,000 a year. This was a phenomenal flow into a single country, unmatched in world history. it should be noted that during large parts of that period, the United States-with vast expanses of virtually open landwas much better able than today to handle 230,000 newcomers annually. Suddenly in the 1970s and 1980s, at the very time that the majo~ity Americans were coming to of the conclusion that the U.S. population had grown large enough, immigration soared above American tradition, averaging more than 500,000 a year. And it has been running around 1 million a year during the 1990s. Until recently, policymakers and politicians of every stripe had ignored what public opinion polls found to be the public's growing dissatisfaction with the abnormally high level of immigration. Majority public opinion can be shallow, fleeting, and wrong, but an honest look at major trends during the recent mass immigration shows that ordinary Americans' concerns can hardly be dismissed as narrow and unenlightened: Whole industries in the 1970s and 1980s reorganized to exploit compliant
foreign labor, with the result that conditions have deteriorated for all workers in those industries. Lone: trends of risinp U S wages .. have been reversed. Povertv has increased. The middle-class way of life has come under siege; income disparities have widened
disturbingly.
Aggressive civil riphts programs to benefit the descendants of slaverv have been watered down, co-opted. and undermined because of the unanticipated volume of new immigration. A nearly half-centurv march of economic propress for black Americans has been halted and turned back. The culture-and even language-of many local communities has been transformed against the wishes of their native inhabitants. Instead of spawning healthy diversity, immimation has turned many cities into caldrons of increased ethnic tension and divisiveness. A stabilizing U.S. population with low birth rates (like other advanced nations) has become the most rapidly congesting industrialized nation in the world (resembling trends in Third World countries). Vast tracts of remaininp farmland. natural habitat, and ecosystems have been destroyed to accommodate the rrrowing ~opulation. Environmental progress has been set back by the addition of crime syndicates headquartered in the new immigrants' home countries have tens of millions of new polluters. Numerous or~anized pained solid beachheads of operations. Law enforcement agencies have been confounded just as they thought they were near victory over the crime organizations that other ethnic groups had brought with them during the Great Wave. It is common when discussing those negative trends to focus on individual immigrants' skills, education, and morals, their country of origin, culture, and race.

IMMIGRATION INCREASES RICHPOOR GAP (112)
/ -Immigration Neg I1
Immigration increases the rich-poor gap, increasing poverty and creating social tension. Immigrants may create economic growth, but it is a growth that only the upper class enjoys. Beck 96 (Roy, Washington, D. C. editor of The Social Contract, The Case Against Immigration, 1996) Nonetheless, immigration definitely brings some benefits to a nation. In fact, most Americans may have benefited as consumers because the immigrants have kept the vrice of labor lower, which mav have led to lower prices than otherwise would have occurred. But consumers also tend to be laborers drawing those depressed wazes. According to the UN report, it is onlv for the upper crust that the financial benefits of immigration tend to outweigh the losses. And that serves to increase income disparity.
Who wins and who loses? A glance through the roster of immigration winners quickly finds business owners who have followed a low-wage labor strategy. Land develovers. real estate aeents. home mortgage officials, and others who tend to profit from population growth are winners. Owners of high-tech industries have lowered their who have costs by importing skilled immigrants who will work at lower wages than college-educated Americans. P e o ~ l e can afford nannies. eardeners. and housekee~ers benefited fiom lower costs. Americans who prize cultural diversity are among the non-financial winners. Others have won by having the security, prestige, or pay of their jobs enhanced by the high immigrant flow. That would include immigration lawyers, refugee resettlement agency personnel, officials of immigrant-advocacy groups, and educators and other social services employees who work with immigrants. Unfortunately, the roster of immigration losers is much larger and includes some of America's most vulnerable citizens: poor children, lower-skilled workers, residents of declining urban communities, large numbers of African Americans, the unskilled immigrants who already are here and face the most severe competition from new immigrants, and even some of America's brightest young people, who lose opportunities to pursue science-based careers because of some corporations' and universities' preferences for foreign scientists and engineers. Also among the losers fiom immigration are all Americans who prefer to live in a more middle class and less economically polarized society. Under low-immigration conditions from 1925 to 1965, the United States enjoyed increasing egalitarianism. But by the middle of the 1980s, it had a larger gap between the rich and poor than could be found in any other major industrialized nation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Nearly every community receiving substantial numbers of immigrants has experienced increased disparities among its population and diminished cohesiveness. Even many Americans who would gain financially from high immigration into their community have come to oppose it because of the changes it would bring; they don't want to create a community of rising disparities, even if they would make more money. Consider the recent examples of Clay County, Alabama, and Clay County, lowa. In Alabama, the county chamber of commerce helped organize business, civic, and educational leaders in 1995 to discourage an Arkansas corporation from using immigrant labor to expand its existing poultryprocessing operations in rural Clay County. Asked if it wasn't a little strange to have a chamber of commerce opposing local economic and population growth, executive director Carolyn Dunagan said: "I don't know about other places, but here when it comes to a choice between quality of life and growth, quality of life is the most important." The Clay County leaders acted out of two primary concerns: (1) The importation of immigrants likely would hurt the county's black workers, harming their already modest economic position; and (2) the impoverished, Deep South county was having enough trouble trying to create a cohesive culture out of its black and white residents, without adding foreign cultures and languages into the mix and contributing to a population growth unlikely to pay its own way. Mayor Irving Thompson of Ashland, the county seat, told me that many townspeople believed the corporation was preparing to recruit immigrant workers in response to recent protests by local black employees over working conditions. "The fear," high school history teacher Mark Tucker said, "is that the next time black workers walk out over a labor problem, they'll be replaced by Third World workers." It is not a frivolous fear; replacing black employees-more than any other Americans-with foreign workers has become somewhat commonplace around the country under Washington's expanded immigration programs. In Clay County, Iowa, the economic enticements were greater. An outside corporation sought a zoning change to allow it to start up operations in an abandoned plant in Spencer, the county seat. An enraged citizenry crowded into the high school fieldhouse in an emotional demonstration before the city council, winning unanimous approval to block the corporation. Why would they kiss good-bye 350 new industrial jobs for the city of 11,000? In a word: immigration. The proposed operation was in an industry with a long track record of drawing foreign workers. Local advocates for the new jobs accused opponents of being racist. Opponents, though, noted that the community had freely embraced refugees over the years, and that their concern about an influx of foreign workers was that the experience of other cities showed an unacceptable change in a previously egalitarian way of life. The most telling reason Spencer citizens gave for blocking the newjobs was: "We don't want to become another Storm Lake." Until the 1980s, Storm Lake-less than an hour's drive to the south-had been like a twin to Spencer: neighboring agricultural county seat, same size, similar history and economy, a shared bucolic, safe, midwestern lifestyle with excellent schools, and the same epic prairie sky of uninhibited expressiveness. But a corporation similar to the one just blocked in Spencer moved into Storm Lake and immediately began attracting foreign workers. The steady flow soon turned Storm Lake into one of the scores of new immigration hubs created by federal immigration mandates since 1965.

IMMIGRATION INCREASES RICH/POOR GAP (2/2)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
The unrequested changes to life in Storm Lake followed patterns similar to those in many new-immigration cities. Overnight, Storm Lake schools were dealing with the cultural ramifications of a student body that now is one-fifth immigrant (predominantiy Laotian and Mexican) and with the challenges of teaching in different languages. New facilities have been needed to handle the growing population of high-fertility foreign families with their tow incomes and low tax payments. Some Storm Lake residents have lost their jobs to immigrants; more have seen their wages depressed because of the loosening of the labor market and the immigrants' lower expectations. The immigrants have tended to occupy housing units in higher densities than natives and have settled in enclaves, changing the character of neighborhoods and causing some elementaty schools to be disproportionately filled with newcomers. For the first time, parts of town became undesirable in the real estate market based on which schools had high populations of students who didn't speak English. A community, which previously had little reason to think in terms of haves and have-nots, became a starkly stratified society Especially unsettling-but to be expected in a community of wide disparities, transience, and separate cultures-has been the deterioration in Storm Lake residents' sense of safety. The crime rate soared above that of the rest of Iowa. It is four times higher than crime in Spencer, its former twin. To a visitor from a coastal city, where the national trend toward economic stratification has been visible longer, Storm Lake still can seem like a delightful place to live. But to those who knew the city before, the changes have been difficult to accept. "It breaks my heart to see what has become of my hometown," said Mary Galik, a Storm Lake native who moved to Spencer. Given a choice, there was nothing about the creation of sharp disparities in the Storm Lake population that Spencer's citizens wanted to risk duplicating. Even main street merchants did not oppose efforts to block the new industry. As business owners, they favored the new plant because it would have increased their retail sales, explained Bob Rose, program manager of the merchants' economic growth organization. But as parents and grandparents, the merchants did not look favorably on economic development that might endanger what they saw as Spencer's special midwestern small-town culture and quality of life.
Nationally during the last two decades of high immigration. the richest 20 percent of Americans have enioyed some economic improvement and the richest 1 percent have reaped strong increases of income. But the average wage for most American groups has declined. No scholar suggests that increased immigration is the chief culprit in America's overall decline in wages. The economist Paul Krugman, of Stanford University, says the obvious central cause of the disappointing economic conditions for the American majority since 1973 is the drastic drop in the rate of growth in output (productivity) per worker. But the experts are uncertain about precisely why productivity growth has dropped so low and stayed there.4 Clearly, though, Congress picked a terribly inappropriate period of U.S. history to be increasing the number of U.S. workers through immigration. At the same time immigration was snowballing in the 1970s, the labor market was being flooded with baby boomers who were reaching employment age and with a big increase in married women seeking jobs. Based on recent research by several economists, it would appear that the big increases in the labor supply probably contributed to the drop in productivity growth, and definitely worked against efforts to improve it after it did drop. Research by the economist Paul Romer explains that the problem with a large increase in the number of workers is that it tends to result in a lower amount of capital investment per worker. It is the capital investment per worker, along with technology, that is the most important ingredient in increasing per capita output, according to Romer's study, published in the authoritative National Bureau of Economic Research journal. Thus, immimation during the last two decades, bv greatly increasing the labor suvplv. would seem to be undermining capital investment per worker. the very process that could send wages upward again. Romer's research flies in the face of today's immigration advocates, who insist that the federal government must continue to run a highimmigration program in order to boost the economy. Adding workers usually does increase the nation's overall economic output, but not by enough to improve the circumstances of the average worker. "In fact, what the data suggest is that labor productivity responds quite negatively to increases in the labor force," Romer maintains. Looking across American history, Romer found that when the nrowth in number of
workers went up (throu~hhigh immigration and fertilitv). there was a decline in the nrowth ofger capita output-just as has occurred durine this latest time of hiph immigration and depressed wages.5 Studies by Harvard's Jeffrey G. Williamson have found that during those same periods of high immigration, the United States became less of a middle-class society and experienced its highest degree of economic disparity-justas is happening during the current period of high immigration.6 It isn't difficult to see how an abundant supply of new foreign workers could retard wage increases. U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert B.Reich fretted in 1994 that constant suppl~es foreign labor have enticed many employers to continue relying on low-paid, low-sk~lledjobs, instead of making technological improvements and then training of workers for more productive, higher-paying jobs.7
A U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics study concluded that immigration was responsible for roughly half the decline in real wages for nativeborn high school dropouts in the f i f h largest metropolitan areas during; the 1980s. The study found that immigration accounted for 20 to 25 percent of the increase in the wage gap between low-skill and high-skill workers.8 And economists Timothy J. Hatton and Jefiey G. Williamson declared in 1994 that all standard mainstream economic models predict migration will tend to lower wages where immigrants settle.9 Because the United States has had a surplus of workers, even the profits of the small recent growth in per capita productivity have not been ~ a s s e d to the workers. Krugman has noted that when the number of workers surges. "the way that a freely functioning labor on market ensures that almost evervone who wants a job gets one is by allowing wage rates to fall, if necessarv, to match demand to supply." Most of the profits from recent increased productivity have gone to Americans in the top 1 percent of income.10 According to the research of immigrant economist George Borias, high immigration during the 1980s helped facilitate a massive redistribution of wealthmore than $1 00 billion a year-from American workers to the upper class.11

IMMIGRATION REINFORCES RACISM
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Immigration uniquely hurts African Americans - it reinforces job discrimination, racism, and poverty Beck 96 (Roy, Washington, D. C. editor of The Social Contract, The Case Against Immigration, 1996) The uncompleted agenda of economic and political equality of opportunity for the descendants of American slavery ranks as perhaps our most troubling and pervasive national agony. No social problem seems untouched by the acrimony of racial recriminations that rises out of the failure to end the massively disproportionate presence of blacks in poverty. Despite a thriving. large uouulation of well-educated, well-paid. hiehlv productive black Americans. one-third of the total black population seems intractably stuck in povertv-and the number has been increasing throughout most of this era of rising immigration. High immigration has eliminated the best economic friend black Americans had: a tight labor market. Little known to most Americans, the 1924 to 1965 period of low immigration contained the economic golden era not only for i m m i ~ a n t s for black Americans. According to papers in the Journal of Economic Literature, tightbut labor conditions during that time helped all Americans to make impressive gains. Real incomes of white males. for exampIe. expanded two-and-one half-fold between 1940 and 1980. But for black men. thev quadrupled, rapidly closing the gap between races. The greatest increases for black workers occurred before 1965. the year both the Voting Rights Act and the Immigration Act were uassed.14 Those who blame racism for the worsening wages for lower-skilled blacks todav might consider that institutional and social racism were thriving in the 1940-65 period. But racism and the absence of civil rights laws and affirmative action-could not halt phenomenal economic progress for black Americans during the tight-labor conditions of that era. If the black economic trends in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s had continued, America would be a far different society today. But progress for the average black wage earner stalled in 1973. The rapid ballooning of the labor supply has conspired to strike most Americans, but black Americans have been hit the hardest. During renewed mass immigration, the wage gap between black and white workers has widened since 1973.15 Immigration and loose labor markets hurt black workers more than others in part because American employers always have tended to put African Americans toward the back of the hiring line, Harvard's Ronald F. Ferguson suggested in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences' exhaustive study on the state of black Americans. When the hiring line is short-and especially if it is shorter than the number of jobs to fill-the anti-black prejudice of employers is less harmful. By lengthening the hiring line with so many immigrants over the last three decades, Washington has made the end of the line a lot farther fiom the fiont.16 Recent investigative reports by the Wall Street Journal and New house Newspapers have shown the preference of emulovers for i m m i ~ r a n workers over African Americans. And t businesses owned bv immigrants appear to be especially heavy practitioners of anti-black iob discrimination. thev found. The federal government's immiaration program allows into this country evew year: several hundred thousand foreign persons an special work visas; nearly a million legal immigrants: and another few hundred thousand illegal aliens. They settle disproportionately in the neighborhoods of lower-income blacks. with whom they tend to compete for iobs, education, social services, and housing.
The increase in poverty is due to many changes in society. Certainly, there is merit to the arguments of analysts who point to a long list of contributing behavioral traits that have risen in prominence, such as illegitimacy, divorce, single parenting, and involvement in drug use and trade. But the labor economist Vernon Briggs, Jr., of Comell University suggests an immigration connection to even those factors in his immensely useful history, Mass Immigration and the National Interest. "Immigration policy was not purposely intended to harm black Americans, but it has done just that," he says. He finds the increase in labor supply caused by immigration to be a significant factor in the inability of young, non-college-educated black males to obtain jobs that pay enough to support a family and make marriage an option. And that is one of the causes of the incredible increase in black illegitimacy, he maintains. "The longer it [immigration] is allowed to function as a political policy, the worse are the economic prospects for blacks."l7
According to a 1993 Urban Institute report, 53 percent of black men between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-four did not earn enough to support a family of four above the poverty level. "We hear people talking about black families falling spa*" said Roger Wilkins of George Mason University. "But we don't hear anybody talking about putting black men to work, giving black families the economic wherewithal to stay together and raise their children."lS Some political leaders have been fearful oftalking about immiaration, saving that highlighting the negative effects of immigration on black Americans risks pitting one Proup of disadvantaged Americans (poor blacks) against another (poor immigrants). In fact, though, the harm of continued immigration to poor Latino, Asian, and Caribbean immigrants in this country is very similar to what it does to black Americans. The immigrants and other disadvantaged moups among us would benefit fiorn any immigration changes designed to help the descendants of U.S. slavery.
Federal offic~als wring their hands over the failure of government programs to more apprec~ably help the black underclass. While Congress argues over which programs actually work, one would think that it would not intentionally take action that would weaken the chances of the members of the underclass resuming their march into the middle class. Yet the federal government continues its program of importing foreign labor into poor black communities. Considering the political climate and current federal budget realities, it is unlikely that Congress soon will increase the spending aimed at helping poor black Americans, But with a revised immigration policy, Congress could at least take the stance of first doing no harm to the black poor, drastically cutting immigration would cost the government next to nothing, and would take considerable pressure off poor black communities and the programs designed to serve them.

NO SOLVENCY-ILLEGALS INEVITABLE
No solvency - illegal immigration is inevitable
Doherty 2006 [Brian, Author of This Is Burning Man, "Immigration and the Welfare State?" August, http://www.reason.com/0608/fe.ng.immigration.shtml]
Ultimately, how many people waved which sort of flag, or how many years you can have been here illegally before you have to leave and come back, or what particular hoop you are asked to jump through by whatever law does eventually pass, will have little effect on the forces that make immigration a recurring and increasingly tedious American telenovela. The solution to the legal crisis immigration represents won't come through immigration law itself, which again and again has proven itself useless at fully stemming the irresistible tides of human desire for a better life. No matter how much money is spent or how the law is jiggered, it is not immigration policy that has created unnecessary tears and strains in America's social order. Rather, the welfare state is at the root of any legitimate claim that immigration (legal or illegal) is an assault on the American nation. (There are plenty of illegitimate complaints, based merely on distaste for the often-imaginary hell of running into Spanish-speaking peopIe in day-to-day life or seeing some flag not of your nation, but such arguments do not deserve consideration,)

PLAN CAUSES MORE IMMIGRANTS
Granting amnesty leads to future illegal immigration
/ --
Immigration Neg I1
Gillespie 2006 [Nick, Editor of Choice, "Bush's Border Bravado," August,
http:I/www.reason.corn/0608/fe.ng.immigration.shtml~
As important, kindness to today's immigrants in the form of amnesty--er, guest worker programs-regardless of threats to get tough in the future, will inevitably have the effect of ginning up more immigration. Why? Because potential immigrants recognize that such "time inconsistency" clearly signals that we will be lenient to fwture immigrants despite rhetoric to the contrary. As economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute summarizes, "If we are willing to grant amnesty for immigrants today, we will be willing to grant amnesty again five years later." And clearly we are: Virtually no oneand certainly not the president or the Senate-is talking about mass deportations of currently undocumented workers and children.

POPULATION GROWTH TURNS CASE
Population growth, caused by immigration and immigrant-fertility rates, kills the environment and risks individual rights Beck 96 (Roy, Washington, D. C. editor of The Social Contract, The Case Against Immigration, 1996) For three decades, Americans have demanded that their government protect and restore the country's natural environment so that it could continue to meet human needs for health, food, recreation, psychic or spiritual nourishment, and commerce. A nation's concern for the natural resources entrusted to it within its borders is, at its heart, concern for the descendants of the present inhabitants. It is anticipating the pain that our greatgrandchildren might have if we destroy their chance of ever experiencing or using parts of our present natural endowment. Conflicts often described as pitting the needs of people against the needs of the environment frequently realty are conflicts of the needs of today's people versus the needs of our descendants. At enormous costs, as taxpayer and consumer, the average American since 1970 has slashed his or her destructive impact on the country's environmental resources. The results in aggregate are impressive: rivers no longer catch fire or run in brilliant colors (as I witnessed when 1 first began covering the environment for newspapers during the 1960s); the air in our cities is far cleaner and even heatthy much of the time; the bald eagle has been rescued from oblivion. But we have fallen far short of our goals. Forty percent of America's lakes and streams remain unfishable and unswimmable. The giant factories of biodiversitv-the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades-teeter in precarious ecological health. Thirtv-five states are withdrawing groundwater faster than it is being replenished. In 1988, fifteen years after passage of the Endangered Species Act, five hundred plant and animal species still were listed; by 1993, the number had increased to more than seven hundred. The most important change in America that has so counteracted all the positive efforts to restore and preserve the environment is this: an additional 65 million U.S. residents. If we were still the 203 million Americans of 1970 whose government committed itself to saving the U.S. environment, most of our environmental goals would have been met or be within reach by now. But there now are more than 265 million of us! Immigration has been a substantial cause of the negative environmental news that must be mixed among all the good. This is not because immigrants are environmentally bad people. but because they are people. Like the Americans they join, immigrants flush toilets, drive cars, use public transportation, require land to feed, clothe, and house them, and to provide the materials (and space) for their commerce, recreation, and waste disposal. As additional people, they require more streets, parking lots, and all sorts of other asphalting of farmland and animal habitat. More than 1 million acres are blacktopped each year. Not onlv do immigrants do all those additional things to the U.S. environmental resources. but they add to the world's overall environmental problems by emitting far more hydrocarbons into the air than they did in their home countries. Having already destroyed some 50 percent of its wetlands-the prime incubators of biodiversitv-the United States is filling in another 300.000 acres a year to accommodate its expanding population. With 90 percent of northwestern oldgrowth forests gone. there is intense pressure to log much of the rest. U.S. immi~ration policy, combined with the much higher fertility of immigrants, has been the number-one cause of population growth since 1970. Using recent U.S. Census Bureau data and projections, demographer Leon Bouvier of Tulane University ran a computer study which found that immigrants and their descendants since 1970 have comprised more than half of U.S. population growth. t Thev will be responsible for 90 ~ e r c e n of the population expansion between now and 2050, if current fertility and immigration rates remain constant. Thus, to whatever extent environmental problems can be blamed on U.S. population growth, the preponderance of that blame rests on U.S. immigration poIicy. Chanrzinn the composition of the immigration stream-whether bv skill. countrv of origin, education. etc.-will not diminish the threat. Onlv a reduction in numbers will deal with the environmental problem. The fight against air pollution may be America's greatest environmental success story. Despite Herculean cleanup efforts, however, about 40 percent of Americans livgin metropolitan areas that still fail to meet some of the Environmental Protection Agency's health standards. How different would this statistic be if there were 65 million fewer Americans driving cars and using electricity? And it only gets worse. Each year, the U.S. population grows by another 3 million people, most of them immigrants and the descendants of recent immigrants. As expensive as it has been to clean up the air thus far, that was the easy and cheap task compared with what lies ahead. Every additional 1 percent of decrease in air pollution now becomes much more expensive than before, in terms of both money and restrictions on personal freedom. Because 65 million more people are contributing to the air pollution, the emissions per person must be cut another 30 percent just to make the air as clean as it would have been if our population had remained at 1970's 203 million. That will take care of this year. But what about next year, and the decades afterwards? The U.S. Census Bureau currently considers the most likely population scenario to be one of fertility continuing close to the present rate and of immigration running slightly below recent levels. Under those assumptions, it projects an increase to nearly 400 million Americans by 2050: that is another 130 million Americans, almost all of them resulting from post-1970 Dose a chillinn threat to biodiversity. farmland, recreational spaces. and air and water quality in the immigration policies. Such fi~ures United States. To avoid fiirther encroachment on those resources, federal and state governments must enforce deep cuts in material standards of living and in individual freedoms (such as choices of transportation and where to live) to accommodate another 130 million people. Nothing in the current political climate suggests that such cuts will occur. The more likely direction now appears to be toward cuts in environmental standards and enforcement. According to the conservation biologist Thomas Lovejoy, the United States doesn't have a lot of environmental leeway. An adviser to the U.S. government who has been decorated by the Brazilian government for his decades of work with the rainforests, Lovejoy says the United States is "demonstrably losing biological diversity.... On top of the general threat of pollution and other stresses, we have some areas that are really sort of close to 'last-minute' situations.... Population growth is probably the single most important factor in the ability to protect biological diversity and manage the environment."24
Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, WiIl

PLAN TOO FAST-KILLS HOPES FOR ASSIMILATION
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Shift in the racial and ethnic balance inevitable. However, it will be slow. Assimilation inevitable, however, the plan makes it worse because it is a sudden increase. Gardiner 2004 (Steven L. Gardiner, Beloit College, Benjamin L. Hooks Institute for Social Change - University of Memphis, "THE MORE THINGS CHANGE: IMMIGRATION, DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE RISE OF WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS IN AMERICA") According to the official projections of the United States Census Bureau, the next five decades will bear witness to an un~recedented shift in the racial and ethnic balance of the countrv.3 In this relatively brief span of time, the percentage of the ~ o ~ u l a t i o n designated "white" will likely decline from its current super ma-iority of 70-plus percent. to less than 50 percent of the population. Non-Hispanic whites will be, for the first time in United States historv. a statistical minority. These numbers are considered to be conservative pro-iections of current trends. particularly by white nationalist movement allies (Brimelow 1995, Beck 1996). The decline in the relative percentage of white Americans, of course, is not an entirely new phenomenon. The fertilitv rate of white. non-Hispanic women in the United B t e s has been dropping precipitously since the end of the post-war "baby boom" and current levels are well below replacement.4 Yet as recently as 1960, whites constituted 88 percent of the population, a percentage which has been relatively stable since the Civil War (Gibson & Jung 2002, 19).5 The decline in white fertility, however, is only a small part of the story. The narrative of white demographic decline is being written, primarily, in the language of immigration. It is only since Congress passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act Amendments of 1965 that American racial and ethnic demographics have taken the turn sketched above (Office of Immigration Statistics 2004, 5). Passed during the Johnson Administration, during the height of the Civil Rights era, the 1965 Act repealed the most blatantly racist aspects of the Immigration Act of 1924. It abolished the national origins quotas which had, quite intentionally, limited non-white and non-European immigration to the United States. The results are pro-iected to be dramatic. Currently constitutin~ little less a the 4 percent of the population. Americans of Asian descent are predicted to more than double to 8 percent by 2050. Likewise Hispanics, who currently make up about 12.6 percent of the total povulation-already UP from 6.4 percent in 1980 (Gibson & Jung 2002, 19 nearly double as a proportion of the total population. to 24.4 percent. bv the middle of the twenty-first centurv. Meanwhile, as the relative proportion of the population described as white noes down, and the proportions of Asians and Hisvanics rapidly increases, the relative size of the black population will be stable. Again, according to Census Bureau projections, black Americans. who today constitute about 12.7 percent of the total, will increase modestly, to 14.6 uercent.6 Another way to parse these data is to say that the demogra~hics race and ethnicity in the United States, which have been l o n ~ of been perforce, largely defined by a binomial opposition between a white maioritv (80 to 90 percent) and a black minority (10 to 20%), redefined.7 With ethnic "Hispanics" outnumbering blacks, and Asian Americans constituting a politically significant demowaphic. the politics of race will become a lot more complex. New inter-racial (and inter-ethnic) political alliances will become vossible, the results of which are difficult to predict.
jm
w,

IMMIGRANTS PAY NOW
No tax evasion now
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
GiHespie 2006 wick, Editor of Choice, "Bush's Border Bravado," August, http:llwww.reason.com/06O8/fe.ng.immigration.shtml]
Immigration restrictionists argue, not without some merit, that illegal immigrants don't fully pay into the socialwelfare system from which they benefit. Restrictionists tend to overstate the effect of illegal immigrants on American wages and they understate the amount of taxes even illegals pay. About two-thirds of illegals pay Medicare, Social Security, and income taxes. All pay sales taxes and property taxes (directly if they own property, or, more likely, indirectly via rents that reflect property taxes). And since 1996, the only public funds illegals can really access are for emergency medical care and primary and secondary education(and only 10 percent of illegals send kids to public schools).

INCREASED IMMIGRATION DOESN'T SOLVE SOCSEC
Immigration Neg 1 1
/ --
As long as we live longer, the dependency ratio is going to be high - increased immigration isn't the solution Grant, 2004 (Lindsey, Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population, "Social Security And The Fear of Aging", NGP, h~p://www.npg.org/forum~series/ssfearofaging.html) <An older aooulation is a goal. not a threat. We want to live longer, and we have been. As we do, the average age rises. There is really up. very little we can do about it. Immigration in the United States is driving our vo~ulation but it isn't having much effect on the to devendencv ratio (the number of dependents per 100 people of working age).2 More immieration would drive vo~ulation unthinkable levels. without making Social Securitv solvent. Higher fertility would have similar conseauences. If we choose to lower fertility to stop population growth, it will actually improve the dependency ratio for awhile, but then the working population will age. We can't have a ratio and lone lives.> low de~endencv The 'dependency ratio' is flawed Grant, 2004 (Lindsey, Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population, "Social Security And The Fear of Aging", NGP, http://www.npg.org/forum~series/ssfearofaging.htm1) <The "Deuendencv Ratio" Is a Flawed Measure. T suggests that all "working age'' u e o ~ l e working. and that nobodv else is. Im~licitlv, t are it suggests that prosveritv is closelv linked to the ratio. Neither assumution is correct. And it uses an arbitrarv definition of "working age." (The UN definition is 15-64 years of age, but college bound people are potentially the most productive workers, and they don't enter the work force until their 20s.) The deuendencv ratio in the United States is now about 50. It was uu in the middle 60s in the 1960s. The UN Population Division expects it to rise to 61 in the 2040s, but that of course depends on how accurate its population projection is. Other figures for 2000 were 47 (Japan), 48 (Italy), 47 (Germany) and 54 (France). In theorv. the lower the devendencv ratio. the more favorable it should be. In fact. the correlations are verv loose. All those figures are verv "favorable" -- and those countries' central problem perversely enoueh is unem~lovrnent.> Immigration is the root cause of our social security woes - increasing immigration will only harm the economy Grant, 2004 (Lindsey, Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population, "Social Security And The Fear of Aging", NGP, http://www.npg.org/forum~series/ssfearofaging.html) <Mass Immigration Is the Problem, Not the Answer. Immigration is offered as a solution. but it is uart of the moblem. It is drivin~ U.S. gowulation upwards bv the immigrants' numbers. bv the numbers of their children and descendants, and by the high average fertility of the immigrants. Two thirds of the Census Bureau's projected U.S. population growth through 2050 is the result of post-2000 immigration. Mass immigration -- narticularlv the immigration of unskilled people that U S . uolicv now encourages -- makes the management of retirement more difficult. not easier. It drives down wages and thus weakens Social Securitv. Lowwane workers. when they retire. draw more from Social Securitv than they had put into it. Better paid workers, on the other hand, make a net contribution to the system over their lifetime. Welloaid workers thus subsidize ill-uaid ones. Employers welcome mass immigration because it lowers their costs. Prosperous householders like it because it provides cheap household labor. It may or may not lower other prices, but it certainly holds wages down, particularly for the less skilled workers with whom most immigrants compete. And it retards the investment in labor saving techniques that is essential to maintaining a high wage labor force.> Alternate Causality - declining worker benefits Grant, 2004 (Lindsey, Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population, "Social Security And The Fear of Aging", NGP, http://www.npg.org/forum_series/ssfearofaging.html) scaling back their labor force and the waaes and verks that labor had come to eniov. In low wage countries. Cornorations are ~resentlv industries which had heretofore paid high wages, workers are forced to choose between a reduction in wages or unemvlovment. The the United States is ~ o i n g wrong wav. Productivity is rising, but not hourly real wages, which have been stagnant since the mid-1970s. g . 1 1 That Drocess in turn siphons off Social Securitv taxes.>
< T h States and Europe are feeling the competition from The United e E r

SOCIAL SECURITY NOT COLLAPSING
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Social Security isn't collapsing - even Bush is exaggerating in order to pass his proposal Boxer, 2005 (Barbara, California Senator, "Peace of Mind vs. a Gamble: The Social Security Debate", Speech, February 11')
&
< "bankru~tcv." "collavse." Let's look at the definition of these three words, according to the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. crisis: "a and situation that has reached a critical phase." bankruptcy: "utter failure or impoverishment." collapse: "to break down completely." Is it true The that Social Securitv is in crisis? Is bankrupt? Is collavsin~? answer is a resoundine NO. According to the most conservative estimates, Social Securitv will be able to pav full benefits for 38 vears. In other words. a 37-vear-old worker todav will get full benefits until he or
s l s >
Social Security is doing fine - the president is just using scare tactics in order to accomplish a longtime right-wing goal - to collapse social security Boxer, 2005 (Barbara, California Senator, "Peace of Mind vs. a Gamble: The Social Security Debate", Speech, February 1 lth)
< m y in 1983. , Democrats and Republicans, we resolved the challenge then iust as we can do now. So whv would an otherwise optimistic George Bush
it sound; it is not about bringing together Democrats and Republicans as Ronald Reagan did to ensure that full benefits will be there for all Americans. It is about one thing and one thing onlv: destrovine: Social Securitv. How do I know that? Am I being partisan? Am I being unfair by stating in a very clear way that I believe the true goal here is to destroy Social Security? Not at all. I am simply telling the truth as told by this very White House. On Januarv 6.2005. the White House wrote a Social Securitv memo. Although marked "not for
'
Security battle is one we can win - and in doing so. we can helw transform the ~olitical ~hiloso~hical and landscape of the countrv." Imagine: for six decades - that's 60 vears - 0
w o r d s let's talk about these scare tactics So

e for a moment - the "iceberg" strategy. If someone told vou that your family would be in solid s h a ~ for the next 38 vears. vou would probablv breathe a sigh 2 to pay for ue -~ ki ie vour your rent or mortgage, feed your kids, take care of your health care, and send your kids to college. nn eve on the future. vou would have to trv to earn more. save more. and Dreaare for that 38th year. You wouldn't have to throw ur, vour hands and sell vour house. And vou certainlv wouldn't call vour situation a crisis. Frankly, we all face the fact that expenses go up over the years and our families need to prepare for those challenges. When it comes to Social Securitv. President Bush not onlv wants to sell the house. but the car. the antiaue grandfather clock. and the wedding band. In essence. he is walking awav from the foundation of America's most successful insurance program using scare tactics Of course we should be used to this by now from this administration. They are the ones who told us that tax cuts to the wealthiest among us would bring unparalleled economic growth - which hasn't happened. They are the ones who told us that $50 to $100 billion of oil in Iraq would pay for all the reconstruction of that country - which hasn't happened. They are the ones who told us "Mission Accomplished," when tragically it wasn't. They are the ones who told us that a booming economy would lower our deficits - and they are now the highest in history. They are the ones who told us that the Medicare prescription drug bill would cost $400 billion over 10 years - when, in fact, it is now reported to cost $1.2 trillion. So a message I have for the American people is this:
m . >
Michigan 7 Wk, Seniors 2006-2007

Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Bush was wrong before and he is wrong now - its just a scare tactic Boxer, 2005 (Barbara, California Senator, "Peace of Mind vs. a Gamble: The Social Security Debate", Speech, February 1 lth)
<This isn't the first time that this uresident has ~redicted end of Social Securitv. In 1978. as a candidate for Congress. he predicted the the end of Social Securitv bv the end of 1988. He was wrong then. and he is wrong now. But what is worse now. is the use of the full power of the uresidencv to do the following: scare the American ueoule and hold out privatization as the savior of Social Security. And if he succeeds. this is what will hauuen: he will turn Social Securitv from a guaranteed benefit into a euaranteed cambIe.>
There is no reason to try to 'save' social security because it is doing fine - theres only a risk of irreparable damage MECEP, 1999 (Maine Center for Economic Policy, Christopher St. John, Executive Director of the Maine Center for Economic Policy, lobbyist at the Maine State Legislature, where he represented low-income individuals and groups on such issues as health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, utility regulation, and taxation, "Keeping Social Security Strong", Choices - Vol5 No 1, January 25*, http://www.mecep.org/MEChoices99/ch 1 25 99.htm)
CManv members of the uublic are currently tryine to understand the real status of the Social Securi5 program and outions for its future. Various uro~osals "save" Social Securitv are being discussed. some of which in fact would do unnecessarv and irrewarable damake to to deuend on Social Securitv and will Iikelv draw the the uroeram. ieopardizing: the securitv of millions of Americans who ~resentlv maioritv of their suuuort from the Program at some time in the future.>
Social security wont collapse by 2030 MECEP, 1999 (Maine Center for Economic Policy, Christopher St. John, Executive Director of the Maine Center for Economic Policy, lobbyist at the Maine State Legislature, where he represented low-income individuals and groups on such issues as health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, utility regulation, and taxation, "Keeping Social Security Strong", Choices - Vo15 No 1, January 25th, http://www.mecep.or~/MEChoices99/ch 99.htm) 1 25
<In general, there is a common sense recognition that Americans are living longer. that the large block of babv-boomers now working to and will eventuallv swell the retired uouulation in uro~ortion the working uo~ulation, that these demographic realities may require changes to keep the program in balance. But the timing and size of these uotential changes are less well understood. lead in^ to exaggerated and uremature assumutions about the ~rogram'sill health. The Economic Policv Institute uoints out that the ratio of workers to social securitv recivients is now 3.3 to 1. and is uroiected to shrink to 2 to 1 in 2030. At first glance. this suwests a much greater difficultv for those workers uavroll taxes to support social securitv benefits in the future. But thev also point out that in 1960 the ratio of workers to reciuients was 5 to 1. indicating that the svstem has been able to accommodate the reduction of workers per recivients to date. This has been accomplished by gains in workers productivity and wages as well as the social security tax increases adopted under President Reagan. It would auuear from these nroiections that the ratio of workers to recipients is ~ o i to shrink less in the next thirtv n ~ years than it has in the last thirtv-nine. Another way to look at this relationship is the ratio of all nonworkers (including both children and dependents for each elders) to workers. In this case, when the baby-boomers were children in 1960, the ratio was actually higher: worker, compared to todav's .7 to one worker. Bv this measure. the ratio of .795 to I oroiected for 2030 seems less alarming.>
Social security is doing fine - the reserves won't start being used until maybe 2041 Grant, 2004 (Lindsey, Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population, "Social Security And The Fear of Aging", NGP, http://www.npg.org~fonrm~series/ssfearofaging.htm1)
<Social Securitv Is Not in a Crisis. We will need to accommodate the aging babv boomers in the United States. but the crunch is vears awav. Social Securitv is runnine a large and rauidlv rising surplus right now (unlike Medicare, which is in much worse shape, partly because of the ill-advised new prescription insurance program). It will be collecting more than it disburses until 2017 or 2019, according to different actuaries. must be sun~orted current wroduction. S i m ~ l drawing down an accumulated reserve is legitimate bookkeeuine. but it does not bv v necessarily generate the flow of commodities to suuuort the retired. The policy issue is how to prepare to keep the SociaI Security cash flow in balance in the decades after 2020.>
<

I
Immigration Neg I1
I --
The evidence that says the social security system is going to collapse isn't reliable Francis, 2005 (David R., Staff Writer for the Christian Science Monitor, "Social Security Cure: Procrastination", Christian Science Monitor, February 14", http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/02141p17s01-cogn.html) <You don't have to look hard for suggested solutions to Social Security. President Bush proposes private accounts. Liberals want a number of minor tweaks. One common proposal is to raise the maximum level of wages subject to payroll tax from its current $90,000 to, say, $150,000. Here's another solution to the alleged crisis: Do nothing. That's right. Imore the doomsavers. Wait for a decade or two. and See if the ~ l o o m v predictions are coming true. It's not as crazy as it sounds because of one simple fact: No one reallv knows whether the forecast of a solvency oroblem will come true or iust maduallv fade awav. Whv? Because economists have great difficultv making accurate long-term oroiections. And 75-vear economic forecasts - upon which all the current alarm is based - are about as reliable as the Farmers' Almanac. A little history helps to clarify the picture. In 1995. the Social Securitv Trustees said the program would be unable to pay full benefits in 2030. Now. a decade later. the date is 2042. But that is just an actuarial estimate based on various assumptions. Depending on which assumptions you make, the long-term outlook is rosy or grim. Using more detailed assumptions, the Congressional Budget Office (CBQ) savs that date won't havven until 2052 - a decade later. Whv the difference? The CBO assumes women will be working longer, in effect paying their own way in terms of Social Security benefits, rather than relying on their husbands' benefits. Other revenues factors play an even bigger role in the outlook. Will the economv and vroductivitv - factors crucial to the level of ~avroll-tax behave better or worse than assumed? Will immigration decline. as assumed. or increase? Trving to predict that far out is like the Eisenhower administration imagining 2005 - without a clue about the Vietnam War. '70s-era inflation. the rise of Silicon Vallev. the fall of the Berlin Wall. or the Internet. In March, the trustees will issue a new annual report containing their latest projection for Social Security's crunch time. And who are these trustees? The majority are cabinet secretaries - political appointees - who select among a range of assumptions provided by civil servants.>
Social security is doing fine and immigration isn't the solution Grant, 2004 (Lindsey, Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population, "Social Security And The Fear of Aging", NGP,http://www.npg.org/for~m~series/ssfearofaging.html) <For a decade or so. we have been besieged bv stories about impending population decline in Europe and Japan, t worsening de~endencv ratio and too few workers to suuvort the aped. To this chorus there have now been added urgent ~rovosals to "reform" U.S. Social Securitv because it is suv~osedlv running.out of monev -- although our Social Securitv svstem is ~resentlv working well and eeneratin~ larne surulus to help reduce our unconscionable national budget deficit. Those fears have silenced concerns about a population growth because of the widespread belief that industrial countries need more immigration or higher fertility to support the old. Europe and Japan need to return soon to replacement level fertility, but the United States' fertilitv is. if anvthine. too high. and more immigration is a solution for none of us. I have dealt earlier with the question of aging in Europe.>

SOCIAL SECURITY COLLAPSE INEVITABLE
I -Immigration Neg I1
Social security will run of out money and start going into billions of dollars by 2042 John, 2004 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "How to Fix Social Security", Heritage Foundation , Backgrounder #I81 1, November 17, http:l/www.heritage.orpiResearch/SocialSecurity/bl811 .cfm)
<Massive future deficits. Inless than 15 years (awnroximatelv 201 8), 9 year in benefits than it receives in taxes. Within a few vears. these deficits will exceed $100 billion annuallv and will continue to grow from there. Social Securitv has a "trust fund" drawer full of government bonds. which are nothing more than wledges to use ever-larger amounts of eeneral revenue taxes to wav benefits. When it comes time to revav those bonds. the federal government will have to reduce spending on other government programs. increase taxes. andlor increase government borrowing. Bv about 2042. the drawer of paper promises will be emntv. From that eoint forward. the benefits oaid to retirees will be cut-first bv 27 percent and then bv ever-greater amounts-as Social Securitv's deficits grow laver.>
Social security collapse is inevitable John, 2005 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financia1 Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "Social Security's Inevitable Future", WebMemo #696, March 21, http:liwww. heritage.orgiResearch/SocialSecuri~/wm696.cfm?rende~orurin~ I) <Like a Roman Legion advancing against its enemy, Social Securitv's future ~roblems apnroach sIowlv. but their arrival is inevitable. Rome's legions lined up behind a wall of shields that moved slowly across battlefields with a discipline that few others possessed. Enemies did not know the exact moment when the legions would reach them, and the slaughter would begin, but once the process started, its outcome was seldom in doubt. Social Security's future problems are equally predictable, even if their exact timing is uncertain. millions of babv boomers anoroach retirement. the wroeram's annual cash sumlus will shrink and then disa~vear. Then. Social Securitv will not be able to nav full benefits from its payroll and other tax revenues. It will need to consume ever-growing amounts of eeneral construction to revenue dollars to meet its obligations-monev that now uavs for everything from environmental programs to hi~hwav defense. Eventuallv. either benefits will have to be slashed or the rest of the government will have to shrink to accommodate Social Securitv. The exact timing of this crunch is less important than its inevitabilitv. Whether Social Security begins to spend more on paying benefits than it receives in taxes in 2018 or 2019 or any other specific year means much less than what these deficits will mean to our economy. Our children may be faced with the choice of paying retirement benefits to their parents or paying for programs that help their own children. That future is coming, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. The reason that Social Securitv's deficits are inevitable is fairlv simnle. Demographics are more predictable than most events. Millions of baby boomers will begin to retire in 2008, when those born in 1946 reach Social Security's early retirement age of 62. From then until 2025, every year will see another crop of baby boomers reach the 62 year-old threshold. Because the babv boomers have not oroduced enough children to replace themselves. the number of tax~avine: workers will shrink.> Starting in 2008 social security wilI start killing the federal deficit and within 10 years it will be accounting for over 300 billion dollars annually John, 2005 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "Social Security's Inevitable Future", WebMemo #696, March 21, http://www.herita~e.ora/ResearchiSocialSecuritylwm696.cfm?renderfornt= I) <This future is corning with steady weed. Social Securitv's annual cash surpluses wilI begin to fall in 2008. the same year that the first babv boomers reach early retirement age. Over rouehlv the next 10 vears. those Social Securitv sumluses, about $100 billion a year at their peak, will continue to shrink and then disapaear comvletelv. Without those surwluses to reduce the size of the federal deficit, Congress will have to raise taxes to bring in billions of dollars of new revenues. cut Drograms. or let annual deficits climb. And then thg real nroblems hit. Somewhere around 2018. on top of renlacing Social Securitv's $100 billion annual surulus. Congress will have to find billions more so that Social Securitv can pay all of the benefits that it has wromised. Within about five vears. that additional monev will reach $100 billion a vear (not counting inflation). From there. the annual demands will reach first $200 billion a vear. and soon $300 billion a vear.>

SOCIAL SECURITY COLLAPSE INEVITABLE
Immigration Neg I1
I --
The collapse has already started Tanner, 1997 (Michael, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, "Social Security Reform: The Clock is Ticking", Cato Institute, August 1 3 ~htt~:/lwww.cato.or~daiIvs/X-13-97.html) ,
<In Washington, the motto often seems to be "Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?" When it comes to reforming Social Securitv, though, the president and Congress should realize that anv delav outs the securitv of everv American's retirement at risk. In 2012, just 15 years from now, f i theorv. the Social Securitv system will then begin taming the Social Securitv Trust Fund to uav benefits until 2029. when the trust fund will be exhausted. In realitv. however. the trust fund is little more than an accounting aimmick. There is no monev in the trust fund -- only government bonds. a form of IOU. redeem in^ the bonds to oav benefits after 2012 will reauire a huge tax increase on voune workers. Moreover, even this projection may easily prove unduly optimistic. A major economic downturn or a major medical breakthrough could speed Social Security's collapse. Under some projections, Social Securitv could beein running a deficit as earlv as 2006.>

IMMIGRATION HIGH
Currently there are up to 10 million illegal immigrants
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 2251
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act contained provisions to legalize the starus of existing illegal immigrants and to reduce
fumre illegal immigration through employer sanctions and other means. The former goal was achieved: some 3.1 million illegal immigrants, about 90 percent from Mexico, became legal Ygreencard" residents of the United States. The latter goal was not achieved. Estimates of the total number of illegal immigrants in the United States rose from four million in 1995 to six million in 1998 and eight to ten million by 2003. Mexicans accounted for 58 percent of the total illegal popdation in the United States in 1990; by 2000, an estimated 4.8 million illegal Mexjcans were 69 percent of that pop~lation.~ 2003 illegal Mexicans In in the United States were twenty-five times as numerous as the next largest contingent, fmm El Salvador. Illegal immigration is, overwhelmingly, Mexican immigration. 3

MEXICAN IMMIGRATION HIGH Current Mexican immigration is unprecedented
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Contemporary Mexican immigration is unprecedented in American history. The experience and lessons of past immigration have little relevance to understanding its dynamics and consequences. Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six factors.
Comtiguity. Americans have thought of immigration as symbolized by

the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and more recently perhaps Kennedy Airport. Immigrants arrived in the United States after crossing several thousand miles of ocean. American attitudes toward immigrants and American immigration policies have been and, in considerable measure, still are shaped by this image. These assumptions and policies, however, have little or no relevance for Mexican immigration. America is now confronted by a massive influx of people from a poor, contiguous country with more than one third the population of the United States, who come across a two-thousand-mile border marked historically simply by a line in the ground and a shallow river. '>

PLAN INCREASES IMMIGRATION
Citizenship encourages others to immigrate
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
In addition, birth in the United States and naturalization make it easier for people to travel back and forth across the border and thus maintain contacts with and their identity with their place of origin.% Citizenship also facilitates expansion of the immigrant community by allowing the new citizens to bring in a wider range of relatives than they could as legal permanent residents. Also, of course, citizens can vote and participate in government and thus much more effectively promote the interests of their ethnic community. >

NATURALIZATION DOWN
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Naturalization rates have declined but they would rise with government benefits
C
The erosion of the differences between citizens and aliens, the overall declining rates of naturalization, and the naturalization spike of the mid-1990s, all suggest the central importance of material government benefits for immigrant decisions. Immigrants become citizens not because they are attracted to America's culture and Creed, but because they are attracted by government social welfare and affirmative action programs. If these are available to noncitizens, the incentive for citizenship fades. Citizenship is becoming, in Peter Spiro's phrase, one more generally available "federal social benefit."83If, however, citizenship is not necessary to get benefits, it is superfluous. As Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith argue, it "is welfare state membership, not citizenship, that increasingly counts. . . . Membership in the welfare stare, in contrast [to membership in the political community], is of crucial and growing significance; for some, who are wholly dependent upon public benefits, it may literally be a matter of Iife or death."84 3

BACKLASH LOW
Racism against immigrants is declining
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 308-91
Racial perceptions and racial prejudices are and wl remain facts of il life in America. Yet the salience of race in people's perceptions and amtudes is clearly declining. Colin Powell once remarked, "In America, which I love from the depth of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black." Yes. When people look at Colin Powell, they may see a black, but they also see a secretary of state, a retired four-star general, the leader of America's military in a short, victorious war, and, if they are internationally oriented, the principal proponent in the Bush administration of multilateralism in American foreign policy. Powell's skin color fades into insignificance compared to these other components of his identity. In 1982 when Bryant Gumbel became the first black anchor on a major T V network, his skin color was important. Decades later when anchors, reporters, hosts, and commentators of all races come and go on the networks, who pays attention to their skin color? A half century after Jackie Robinson, when Americans look at a mixed group of baseball players, do they think skin colors or batting averages? If the trends toward multiracialism continue, they will at some point, as Joel Perlmann and Roger Waldinger say, make government efforts to classify people by race "quaintly p a s ~ C . " ~ ~ it happens, the removal When of race from census forms will signal a dramatic step toward the creation of a comprehensive American national identity. At present, race still matters in America, but in more and more segments of national life, it matters less and less, except for those who view its declining salience as a threat to the place of wlutes in America. 1

IMMIGRATION 3 BACKLASH
Immigration leads to crime, backlash, and polarization Beck 96 (Roy, Washington, D. C. editor of The Social Contract, The Case Against Immigration, 1996)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Immigration has not been a usehl companion to the major efforts of the last three decades to reduce the grievous ethnic tensions in our cities. Ann Scott Tyson of the Christian Science Monitor noted in 1994 that manv social scientists had anticipated that immigration would encourage greater cultural and racial mixing; instead. they discovered that the "influx of immigrants is provoking sharper racial demographer of the University of Michigan's Population Center, bleakly observed: "Rather than leading divisions." Dr. William toward a new national diversity, the new migration dynamics are contributing to a demographic Balkanization across broad regions and areas of the countrv."l9 Describing California, which is the number-one destination of immigrants, Time magazine in 1991 painted an equally dismal portrait of our efforts toward a healthy diversity: "The state is dividing and subdividing now along a thousand new fault lines of language and identitv. ... Los An~eles.for example. is one of the most segregated cities in the world-a horizontal patchwork of ethnic and racial enclaves, all almost self-sufficient. inward turning and immiscible."20 This relentless wave of high immigration is transporting ethnic conflict to communities and regions where nothing of the sort even existed in the 1960s. A sweeping Ford Foundation studv found that the most prevalent relations among natives and newcomers in communities with moderate to high immigration is competition. tension. and oavosition. Every ethnic group in America resents heavy flows of immigrants into their communities, regardless of the ethnicity of the immigrants .21 A RAND Corporation study of urban school svstems with high numbers of immimants concluded that the newcomers exacerbate already serious problems in those schools. Education failure is the norm for immigrants and natives alike. Fewer than one of two kids going into these high schools comes out employable. The "size of the wave and the chaos of the situation are too great" for schools to be able to keep poor natives in class.22 And then there is crime-the factor that may top all others in driving capital and the middle class fiom the cities and in creating inhumane conditions for those residents trapped behind. Crime historian Ted Robert Gurr of the Universitv of Marvland explains that this third great crime wave in America's history is similar to the other two in that it is linked to three factors: increased economic deprivation; the aftermath of war (this time, Vietnam); and & jump in immigration, all of which "interfere with the civilizing process...... It is not that the immimants themselves are esueciallv oriented toward crime and anarchv. but the arrival in such large numbers of people of different cuItures contributes a transience and lack of community cohesiveness that is healthy for neither the newcomers nor the citizens .23 Cities-ranging in size fiom millions to a few thousand-struggle with an immigration influx that few ever requested. And the federal government never asked the local officials if they desired or could handle the flow. Each successive Congress and president simply adopted or maintained policies that forced massive immigration upon thousands of neighborhoods across the land. Residents have not approved. A Times-Mirror Center poll in November 1994 indicated that 82 percent of Americans think the United States should restrict immigration. Opposition to immigration is not ideological. A CBS/New York Times poll two months earlier found only 6 percentage points difference among those identifying themselves as Democrats, Republicans, or independents; all overwhelmingly objected to current immigration levels. Other polls show that no matter how the populace is sliced into demographic groups-by income, ethnicity, education, region, gender, age, religion, or size of community-a majority of them dislike current immigration levels. It isn't that Americans don't like immigrants. Polls show that most citizens retain generally positive attitudes about immigrants as individuals. But the number of those individuals arriving each year has overwhelmed individual communities. There are numerical thresholds for how many additional and culturally different residents any community can or wants to handle-economicallv. socially, educationally, and environmentally.
m,
White nationalist rhetoric will increase due to immigration Gardiner 2004 (Steven L. Gardiner, Beloit College, Benjamin L. Hooks Institute for Social Change - University of Memphis, "THE MORE THINGS CHANGE: IMMIGRATION, DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE RISE OF WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS IN AMERICA") The mere existence of white nationalist rhetoric. of course. is not intrinsically of much concern. To the extent that such rhetoric is confined to a small group of professional agitators, it is not even very interesting. However, _thecoincidence of white nationalist rhetoric t with the reality of changing demographics m i ~ hconstitute the basis for a broader social movement with the potential to significantly impact the future shave of American politics. Whatever the future impact of such political tendencies, the white nationalist perspective offers us a uniquelv skewed but nonetheless revealing view of both the present and the prospective future. The particular shape of American racial politics developed in a context of both labor and regional conflict (Allen 1994, Marx 1998). The bi-racial white vs. black dynamic was by no means inevitable, however, even in the aftermath of slavery. Northern whites could conceivably have allied themselves ~oliticallv with Southern blacks to form a viable governing coalition. In fact, something of this sort did occur during the brief, radical phase of Reconstruction. As argued compellingly by Anthony Marx, however, the needs of nation building and economic unification eventually outweighed either liberal promises to enfranchise former slaves or party political efforts to woo black voters. In the culminating in the Civil War. Southern whites had to be bribed back to nationalist loyalty, The coin of this wake of the massive ru~ture bribe was white solidarity, grounded in a taken-for-granted white superiority. The consequences were the introduction of de jure segregation in the South matched by continued de facto segregation in the North (Marx 1998). Immigration will lead to a white nationalist backlash Gardiner 2004 (Steven L. Gardiner, Beloit College, Benjamin L. Hooks Institute for Social Change - University of Memphis, "THE MORE THINGS CHANGE: IMMIGRATION, DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE RISE OF WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS IN AMERICA") Unlike many of the far right white racialist movements of recent decades, white nationalism pursues a "realist" politics via alliances with "mainstream" anti-immigration groups and common cause with a white liberalism which it purports to despise. Though racist social movements of all types, contrary to their popular image, have always attracted individuals from all backgrounds, white nationalism is remarkable for the number of institutionally well-positioned scholars it has attracted. These scholars support the white nationalist agenda through racial research that lends the movement a patina of academic res~ectabilitv. Though the movement itself is small, the changing demo~raphics points to as its primary concern are a potentially explosive issue. it The potential for a further polarization of the United States, with geographic segmentation increasinglv mapping as a racial divide between multiracial, multiethnic urban centers and a white "Middle American" heartland is all too real. White nationalists are. even now, attempting to exploit the changing demographics in furtherance of their own agenda. Contemporary white nationalism, as I have pointed out, is not the first movement in American history where ostensible threats to white privilege have spawned a visible white rights reaction. The historic trend has been for the white mainstream to placate such white racialist movements by offering "concessions" that appease the white nationalists (and their historic predecessors) at the expense of blacks and other minorities, thus re-inscribing the racial order of society. The current challenge is first to understand the structural position of contemporary white nationalism in the context of the current opportunities afforded to it by demographic change. Only proceeding from such an understanding can analysts make policy recommendations grounded not in fear of a white nationalist backlash-which should on the current analvsis be antici~ated-but in accord with the principles of civic citizenship.

WHITE BACKLASH (212)
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Immigration will lead to unequal concentrations of racial minorities due to white flight and new sectionalism Gardiner 2004 (Steven L. Gardiner, Beloit College, Benjamin L. Hooks Institute for Social Change -University of Memphis, "THE MORE THINGS CHANGE: IMMIGRATION, DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE RISE OF WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS IN AMERICA") Demographer Harold Hodgkinson reminds us that the increased diversitv will not be evenly distributed. In fact, only 230 of 3.068 American counties. concentrated in the three large border states-California, Texas and Florida-will absorb more than half of the increase (Hodgkinson 2000/2001, 9). Much of the rest of the ~rowth both population and population diversity will be concentrated in in New York, New Jersey and Illinois, particularly in a relative handful of highly urban counties. With these demographic trends hrther exacerbated by the phenomenon of white flipht. the emergent and polmorphous non-white maiorih, though staticallv characteristic of the countrv as a whole. will be geoma~hicallv concentrated in a few large states, and skewed toward urban areas within those states. potential upshot of this concentration of non-white diversity is the foundation for a kind of new sectionalism. already ~resairedin the much remarked upon mapping of "red" and "blue" voting patterns in national elections. Typically cast as "middle-America" vs. the "coastal liberals," the changing demographics lend this trend a potential raciallethnic potency. The demographic trend inaugurated by the 1965 Act was largely unintended (Graham 2001), and the results are potentially explosive. The United States has undoubtedly become a much more diverse place to live. As of yet, however, the consequences of this newfound diversity, particularly in terms of the politics of race, remain largely unexplored. Some observers have suggested that the combination of increased diversity and racial mixing are leading to a decline in the importance of race per se in the United States, particularly in relation to class (Wilson 1999). This would seem to me to be a conclusion both premature and incomplete. As with the global "decline" in the importance of sovereign nation-states vis-8-vis supernational coalitions and multinational corporations (Hobsbawm 1990), the general trend is of but small consolation in those localities where the most vicious forms of nationalism are flourishing-so it is with race and racism in America.

BACKLASH IMPACT
White nativist movements could cause unprecedented racial conflict Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 315-61
c The makings of serious white nativist movements and of intensified

racial conflict exist in America. Carol Swain probably overdramatizes the possibiliry, but her eloquent warning deserves serious thought. We are witnessing, she says, "the simultaneous convergence of a host of powerful social forces." These include "changing demographics, the continued existence of racial preference policies, the rising expectations of ethnic minorities, the continued existence of liberal immigration policies, growing concerns about job losses associated with globalization, the demands for multiculturalism, and the Internet's ability to enable like-minded individuals to identify with each other and to share mutual concerns and strategies for impacting the political system." These factors can only serve "to nourish white racial consciousness and white nationalism, the next logical stage for identity politics in America." As a result, America is "increasingly at risk of large-scale racial conflict unprecedented in our nation's hstory." 33 + The most powerful stimulus to white nativism, however, is likely to
be the threat to their language, culture, and power that whites see coming from the expanding demographic, social, economic, and political roles of Hispanics in American society. >
I

B A C a A S H LINK Nativist backlash is likely and would increase racial conflict
Immigration Neg I1
Huntington ZOO4 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 201
< Third, the various forces challenging the core American culture and
Creed could generate a move by native white Americans to revive the discarded and discredited racial and ethnic concepts of American identt and to create an America that would exclude, expel, or suppress iy people of other racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Historical and contemporary experience suggest that this is a hghly probable reaction from a once dominant ethnic-racial group that feels threatened by the rise of other groups. It could produce a racially intolerant country with high levels of intergroup confict. 3

BACKLASH LINK
/ --
Immigration Neg I1
Immigration reform sparks backlash
Fuentes 2006 [Anette, Adjunct Professor @ Columbia, "Immigration backlash goes local," 7/28, USA Today] Though immigration reform is stalled in Congress, the ripple effects are being felt around the country - more backlash and knee-jerk than thoughtful and measured. These anti-immigrant measures are cropping up in small cities such as Hazleton, Pa., a community of 30,000 nestled in former coal-mining country. Just this month, the city adopted Mayor Louis Barletta's Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which Barletta has said "is intended to make Hazleton one of the most difficult places in the U.S. for illegal immigrants." Barletta, whose ancestors were Italian immigrants, is a hero to many, and his law is being copied in Escondido, Calif., and Palm Bay, Fla. Hazleton's law: Requires tenants to obtain an occupancy permit. Fines landlords $1,000 for renting to illegal immigrants, Revokes business permits of employers who hire undocumented immigrants. Denies these same businesses city contracts or grants for up to 10 years. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund will challenge the law. But whether such ordinances are voided or not, they are troubling signs of a kind of backlash politics that, sadly, is as American as immigration itself. Nativism and its anti-immigrant philosophy spawned the Know-Nothing movement in the 1850s, when Irish immigrants were blamed for taking jobs from native-born Americans and for a host of social problems. The Know Nothings, whose strength emerged at the local level, sought to end Irish immigration and stirred up vigilantism against them. Half a century later, Italian and Eastern European immigrants were targeted by a similar anti-immigrant movement. It led to a national immigration reform law in the 1920s, which would have kept Barletta's forebears in Italy had it been in effect. Gary Gerstle, a Vanderbilt University history professor, blames paralysis in Washington for the wave of local nativist activity. In the GOP, pro-business interests want cheap labor, but other members want to close the border, he says. Most Democrats are split between those concerned with civil rights and those allied with organized labor. "Immigration is an issue that splits the parties in unconventional ways," Gerstle says, "and that has opened the doors to local actions." Mayor Barletta and his acolytes in other cities are following Washington's lead and repeating unfortunate lessons of U.S. history. The anti-immigrant laws taking shape in Congress give oxygen to a latter-day Know-Nothing movement by playing on people's fears.

BACKLASH LINK All history confirms more immigration will cause racist backlash
Immigration Neg II
1 --
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 3 101
It should not be difficult to see that "rebellion" and the reasons for it. It would, indeed, be extraordinary and possibly unprecedented in human history if the profound demographic changes occurring in America did not generate reactions of various sorts. One very plausible reaction would be the emergence of excIusivist sociopolitical movements composed largely but not only of white males, primarily working-class and middle-class, protesting and attempting to stop or reverse these changes and what they believe, accurately or not, to be the diminution of their social and economic status, their loss of jobs to immigrants and foreign countries, the perversion of their culture, the displacement of their language, and the erosion or even evaporation of the historical identity of their country. Such movements would be both racially and culturally inspired and could be anti-Hispanic, anti-black, and anti-immigration. They would be the heir to the many comparable exclusivist racial and anti-foreign movements that helped define American identity in the past. Social movements, political groups, intellectual currents, dissidents of various sorts who share these characteristics differ in many ways, but still have enough in common to be brought together under the label "white nativism." A

BACKLASH LINK
/ -Immigration Neg 11
Hispanic immigration threatens Anglo-Protestant culture and will inevitably produce backlash
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 3 131
The actual and prospective continuing loss in power, status, and numbers by any social, ethnic, racial, or economic group almost always leads to efforts by that group to stop or reverse those losses. In 1961 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the population was 43 percent Serb and 26 percent Muslim. In 1991 it was 31 percent Serb and 44 percent Muslim. The Serbs reacted with e h c cleansing. In 1990 the population of California was 57 percent white and 26 percent Hispanic. In 2040 it is predicted to be 31 percent white and 48 percent Hispanic. The probability that, in this comparable situation, California whites will react Ue Bosnia Serbs is about zero. The probability that they will not react at all is also about zero. Indeed, that reaction has already b e p with the overwhelming referenda votes against benefits for illegal immigrants, affirmative action, and bilingual education, and the movement of whites out of the state. As the racial balance continues to shift and more Hispanics become citizens and politically active, white groups may look for other means of protecting their interests. r

BACKLASH TURNS CASE
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Historically, nativist backlash has choked off immigration
~iscontinuity.i~he United States, as Nathan Glazer said, has "not always been a country of immigration." In addition to being a nation of immigrants, the pro-immigration Immigration Forum notes, "the United States has also been a nation of nativi~ts."~~ During the century from the 1870s to the 1960s, legislation first limited and then prohibited immigration by Asians and for forty years effectively limited overall immigration to very small numbers. America has been a nation of restricted and interrupted immigration as much as it has been a nation of immigration. Immigration levels have varied and, as Robert Fogel points out, have tended to follow a cyclical pattern.I3The immigration wave of the 1840s and 1850s came to an end with the Civil War, and immigration did not again reach the same absolute numbers until the 1880s. The rate of immigration per 1,000 population was 8.4 and 9.3 in the 1840s and 1850s, dropped to 6.4 and 6.2 in the 1860s and 1870s,and rose to 9.2 in the 1880s. Irish immigration, which was 780,000 and 914,000 in the 1840s and 1850s, averaged less than 500,000 in the subsequent decades. German immigration, 951,000 in the 1850s, dropped to 767,468 and 718,182 in the following two decades, reviving in the 1880s but then dropping precipitously to 500,000 and less per decade. Overall, the turn-of-the-century immigration wave hit one peak in the 1880s, dropped in the 1890s, in part due to the recession in the United States, then hit new heights until interrupted by World War I, briefly peaked again immediately after the war, but dropped dramatically as a result of the 1924 immigration law. 1

AT: N O BACKLASH
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Backlash is possible and powerful - Europe and America prove
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 313- 141
In the 1990s, anti-immigrant nativist ~olitical parties emerged in several western European countries, often polled 20 percent of the vote, and in Austria and the Netherlands participated in governing coalitions. In America white nativism is likely to materialize not in a new political party but in a new poiitical movement that will aim to influence the choice of candidates and policies by the two dominant parties. Industrialization in
the late nineteenth century produced losses for American farmers and led to the formation of numerous agrarian protest groups, including the Populist movement, the Grange, the Non-Partisan League, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. Comparable organizations promoting white interests could emerge in the coming years. In 2000 in California, the Economist reported, "whites, who were once so generous to newcomers, are beginning to behave like a minority under pressure."30 Whites nationallyare likely to react in similar fashion. 3

AT: PUBLIC WON'T BACKLASH
The gap between the general public and elites alienates the public from patriotic politics Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 3251
Immigration Neg I1
I --
< The differences between a "patriotic public" and "denationalized

elites" parallel other differences in values and philosophy. Growing differences between the leaders of major institutions and the public on domestic and foreign policy issues affecting national identiry form a major cultural fault line cumng across class, denominational, racial, regional, and ethnic distinctions. In a variety of ways, the American establishment, governmental and private, has become increasingly divorced from the American people. Politically America remains a democracy because key public officials are selected through free and fair elections. In many respects, however, it has become an unrepresentative democracy because on cruciaI issues, especially involving national identity, its leaders pass laws and implement policies contrary to the views of the American people. Concomitantly, the American people have become A increasingly alienated from politics and government.

AT: ONLY ELITES BACKLASH
Non-elite whites are prone to backlash over immigration Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 314-151
Immigration Neg I1
White elites dominate all major American institutions, yet millions of nonelite whites have very different attitudes from those of the elites, lack their assurance and security, and think of themseIves as losing out in the racial competition to other groups favored by the elites and supported by government policy. Their losses do not have to exist in reality; they only have to exist in their minds to generate fear and hatred of the rising groups. L 1997, for instance, in a national survey of whites, IS n percent estimated that blacks were more than 40 percent of Americans, 20 percent estimated blacks as between 3 1 percent and 40 percent, 25 percent said between 21 percent: and 30 percent. Sixty percent of whites thus saw blacks as more than 20 percent of the American people, although at that time, they actually constituted 12.8 percent. In similar fashion, 43 percent of whites estimated Latinos as more than 15 percent, aIthough they actually were 10.5 percent. A majority of white Americans also see themselves as relatively poorer and blacks as relatively richer than is the case. As the sociologist Professor Charles Gallagher of Georgia State University explains: Like it or not, middle-class and lower middle-class whites see rhemselves as a minority and have adopted a posture of being the victims. Most of them feel they have no real culture. They might have a grandmother who was Italian and a grandfather who was French, but by now they are so hybridized that they have no ethnic identity. Ethnicity used to fill a vacuum as people assimilated. The only thing that is filling the void now is ~ictimization.~'

IMMIGRATION DOESN'T SOLVE SOCSEC CRISIS
Increased immigration would have little effect on the social security crisis
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Camarota 2006 [Steven A., Director of the Research Center for Immigration Studies, Testimony to the Committee on House Ways and Means, June 26,l-n]
Many advocates argue for high levels of immigration on the grounds that it can solve the problem of our aging population. Those that make this argument worry that there will not be enough working-age people to support the economy or pay for government, particularly retirement programs. Immigration, it is argued, will make the country more youthful. Almost all of those making this argument, however, are not demographers. Actual demographic analysis shows immigration can have only a very tiny effect on the nation's age structure. Basic Demographics. We can measure the impact of current immigration on the aging of the United States very precisely. The Census asks immigrants when they arrived. (Some 90 percent of illegal immigrants are thought to have responded to the 2000 Census.) If we excluded all immigrants, including illegals, who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census, the average age in the United States would have only been four months older. Another way to look at the aging of society is to examine the working-age (15 to 64) share of the population. Looking at the full impact of post-1980 immigrants reveals that if they and all their U.S.-born children are not counted, the working-age share would have been 65.9 percent in 2000, almost exactly the same as the 66.2 percent when they are all included. We can also look at fertility rates. In 2000 the average woman living in America had 2.1 children in her life time, compared to 1.4 for Europe. But if all immigrants are excluded the rate would still have been 2.0. The key to understanding why America has higher fertility than other industrialized democracies is not immigration. The relatively high US fertility is one of the key reasons immigration has such a small impact on the aging of American society. Immigration's Projected Impact on Aging. Looking to the future, Census Bureau projections indicate that if net immigration averaged 100,000 to 200,000 annually, the working- age share would be 58.7 percent in 2060, while if net immigration averaged 900,000 to one million, it would be 59.5 percent A 2000 report by Census Bureau states that immigration is a "highly inefficient" means for addressing the ratio of working-age people to the rest of the population in the long run. The argument that immigration can have a significant impact on the aging of our society may seem plausible. Immigrants tend to arrive in America relatively young and they also tend to have more children than natives. But an evaluation of the actual data shows that the difference between immigrants and natives is not sufficiently large, nor are immigrants sufficiently numerous to be of any real help in changing the nation's age structure. Moreover immigrants age just like everyone else. Americans will simply have to look elsewhere to deal with this problem,[8] Impact on Retirement Programs. Because, as pointed out above, immigration has little impact on the working-age share of the population, it follows that it will have only a very small impact on federally funded retirement programs. One can see this by looking at Social Security Administration (SSA) projections. The 2004 trustee's report, along with other information provided to Senator Hagel, indicate that net annual legal immigration of 800,000 a year versus 350,000 a year would create a benefit equal to only 0.77 percent of the program's projected total expenditures. As for the program's deficit, annual legal immigration of 350,000 versus 800,000, would increase the dollar value of the actuarial deficit by just 6.6 percent of the projected deficit over the next 75 years. The bottom line is that even very large shifts in the number of people allowed into the country have only a minor impact on the program.

SPENDING LINK
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Plan costs about $30,000 per volunteer. You do the math, 11 million immigrants: that's 300 billion dollars. Grassley 94 [Grassley, Chuck. "The $30,000 Volunteer." National Minority Politics 6.12 (1994): 22. Proquest. UMich Library. 4 Aug. 2006 ~http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=4959 &sid=8&Fmt=3&clientId=l7822&RQT=3O9&VName=PQD~.] 16701 Taxpayers across the country were rightfully outraged I0 years ago with the Reagan Pentagon's $7,600 coffee pot. Today, the Clinton administration b r i n ~ taxpayers the $30.000 "volunteer." s That was the price for a single participant in a 1992 demonstration of President Clinton's new "AmeriCorps" program, billed as a domestic version of the Peace Corps designed to get more young people to volunteer for community service. AmeriCorps is one of the few initiatives the Clinton administration proudly points to as a success. After all, who can criticize a program that not only encourages America's youth to help their neighbors, but helps them pay for college at the same time? Nevertheless, after two years in operation AmeriCorps stands in danger of joining a long list of unsuccessfi~l Great Society programs. Costly, inefficient and bureaucratic, AmeriCorps is neither the best way to help working families with education costs nor a true embodiment of America's tradition of voluntarism. The way AmeriCorps is set up, it takes $30.000 for each "volunteer" to complete his or her term of service. Roughly half goes toward salary and benefits for the participant; the rest is overhead and administration. Given directly to families, the money spent on one AmeriCorps volunteer would be enough to cover four years of tuition and fees for three full-time students at the University of Iowa. & least five Pel1 Grants could be awarded to needy students for the cost of-just one Americorps participant.

UNSKILLED IMMIGRANTS KEY T O ECON
Unskilled immigrants preserve the economy Cowen and Rothschild 2006 [Tyler and Daniel M., Professor of Economics @ George Mason and Associate Director of the Global Prosperity Initiative at the Mercatus Center, "Don't Bad-Mouth Unskilled Immigrants," August, http://www.reason.com/0608/fe.ng.immigration.shtmI] But what about the millions of unskilled laborers who arrive in this country every year? Recent public discourse would have us believe they poach American jobs, lower wages, and sponge off welfare, Yet economic research suggests a different picture: Unskilled and immigrants are good for the U.S., the U.S. is good for them. Until the late 1990s, when a boom in native-born self-employment occurred, immigrants were more likely than natives to work for themselves. Immigrant small businesses, from the Korean corner market to the Mexican landscaping service, are as American as apple pie. The labor market is not a zero-sum game with a finite number of jobs; immigrants create their own work. A key question for economists has been whether the influx raises or lowers "native" American wages. U.C.-Berkeley's David Card, who studied patterns in different U.S. cities, concludes that immigration has not lowered wages for American workers. George Borjas of Harvard counters that immigration reduced the wages of high school dropouts by 7.4 percent between 1980 and 2000. Most economists have sided with Card. For one thing, his studies better capture the notion that immigrant labor makes work easier for all of us and brings new skills to the table. Additionally, as Card points out, the percentage of native-born high school dropouts has fallen sharply during the last few decades, creating a shortage of unskilled laborers that immigrants fill. In 1980 one out of three American adults had less than a high school education; by 2000 this figure had fallen to less than one in five. Gianmarco Ottaviano of the University of Bologna and Giovanni Peri of the National Bureau of Economic Research have shown that immigrants and low-skilled American workers fill very different roles in the economy. For instance, 54 percent of tailors in the U.S. are foreign-born, compared with less than 1 percent of crane operators. A similar discrepancy exists between plaster-stucco masons (44 percent immigrant) and sewer-pipe cleaners (less than 1 percent foreign-born). Immigrants come to the United States with different skills, inclinations, and ideas; they are not looking to simply copy the behavior of American workers. New arrivals, by producing more goods and services, also keep prices down across the economy. Even Borjas, the favorite economist of immigration restrictionists, admits the net gain to the U.S. from immigration is about $7 billion annually. During the coming decades, the need for immigrant labor will increase, according to demographers. The baby boom generation will need more health care and more nursing homes. The upcoming Medicare fiscal crunch will require more and younger laborers to finance the program. Some argue that we should employ a more restrictive policy that allows in only immigrants with "needed" skills. But this assumes the government can read the economic tea leaves. Most bureaucrats in 1980 did not foresee the building or biomedical booms of the 1990s, or the decline of auto manufacturing. We should not trust government to know what kind of laborers we will need 20 years from now. The ready presence of immigrant workers, including the unskilled, makes all businesses easier to start and thus spurs American creativity. We should not forget that immigration is good for the immigrants themselves. It often means the difference between extreme poverty and the good life. The plan would take critical immigrant workers out of the workforce, collapsing the economy LA Times 05 111-21-2005, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/112limmig2l.html] With an estimated I 1 million undocumented immigrants comprising rounhlv 5 percent of the U.S. workforce, many businesses believe that attempting to make them move back to their home countries would disrupt the U.S. economv. devastate some agricultural sectors and labor-intensive industries, drain government resources and require one of the biggest mass migrations in history.

UNSKILLED IMMIGRANTS KEY TO ECON Immigrant workers are the lifeblood of the U.S.economy Kerpen 05 [Phil, Policy Analyst, Nativism and the Immigration Issue, San Diego Union Tribune, 10-17, http:l/www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/2OO5101 7/news_lzl el 7kerpen.htmll
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Anti-immigration sentiment is one symptom of a larger neo-Mercantilist disease that is also threatening the alobalization of trade and capital flows. Unless true free-market conservatives tame these emotional arguments with the force of logic, much of the economic progress of the past century could be reversed. America enjoys unprecedented diversity. After decades of increasing prosperity, most Americans feel comfortable with this diversity, but some, reacting to immigrants who are increasingly bypassing traditional immigrantfriendly coastal cities to settle in traditionally white rural and suburban communities, are uncomfortable with demographic change. immigrant groups and demagogues like Gilchrist and Tancredo have capitalized on this discomfort in newly emerging immigrant communities. They have falsely attempted to blame immigrants for everythin&from suburban sprawl to environmental degradation and most recently have taken advantage of the fears of the American public to blame immigrants for terrorism. Immigration is a moral imperative and an economic necessity. Geographic location of birth is a morally arbitrary fact, and it is wrong to limit an individual's freedom to pursue his or her interests based on it, particularly in a country whose civic identity is based on providing opportunities to people from around the world. The economic benefits of free movement of people. like the benefits of fiee trade and capital flows, are consumes. which benefits clear. Each immigrant who comes to the United States expands national output more than he or she ~ersonally everyone. A landmark National Academy of Sciences report found that immigrants contribute more than $10 billion annually to the economy. Other estimates range as high as $80 billion. The NAS study examined every aspect of the issue, from job displacement, to wages, to entrepreneurship, to taxes and consumption of social services. The economic contributions of immigrants have been particularly notable in midsize to large cities, whose populations and economies have been buoyed by immigration. Immigrants have revitalized urban economies throughout the b i t e d b t e s and particularly improved important sectors such as small business. importlexport. finance, construction and manufacturing. Immigrants also have founded manv of the largest and most successfbl technology companies, the lifeblood of our 21st century economy.
U S economy is addicted to immigrants - withdrawal would collapse the economy .. NumbersUSA 05 (2-19-2005, http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/CPAC2005speech.html)
The reality, though, is that -- although our free-market economy did not need them before they came -- our fiee market economy adjusted as the millions of illegal aliens were allowed by the federal government to illegally take jobs. Now, our economy is a bit addicted to all those illegal workers. The cheap-labor lobbies are always saying that if all the illegal workers suddenly went home tomorrow that our economy would collawse. Well, that is an overstatement, but it would cause a great deal of disruption and dislocation for American citizens. Since the principle is that immigration policy should serve the interests of citizens, I do not believe we should have mass deportations that would seek out and expel 10 million people a year -- because that would be too disruptive to U.S. citizens. Please don't misunderstand. I am not opposed to deportations. And I think that everv illegal alien who comes in contact with law enforcement should be deported. But our economy IS like a drug addict who didn't need the drug in the first place and definitely has to be rid of the drug eventually for a healthy future. But going cold turkey and withdrawing too fast from the drug may be vew harmful to the addict. A slower withdrawal is required. Immigrant labour is key to the U.S. agriculturaf economy. U.S. Fed News 05 [4-16-2005, "Sen. Kennedy Issues Statement on AGJOBS," lexis] America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, but our current immigration laws have failed us. Much of the nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the manv contributions of immigrants. The agricultural industry would grind to a halt without immigrant farm workers. Yet, the ovenvhelmine; ma-iority of these workers are undocumented - and are therefore easily exploited by unscrupulous employers who can get away with paying shamehlly low wages and forcing them to work in unacceptably dangerous conditions.

UNSKILLED IMMIGRANTS KEY TO ECON
Immigration Neg I1
I --
Collapse of U.S. agriculture would lead to U.S. economic collapse. Journal of Commerce 98 (12-31, Lexis) U.S. anriculture prices have reached lows not seen in 10,20 or even 30 years, while the costs of living;. labor and machinew are at record highs. The only thing; missing that was present 70 vears ago is a stock-market plunge and massive unemplovment. If this countrv continues to aIlow its agriculture to sink to De~ression-era levels. how can it keep the stock market from tumbling, too? Think about the stock market's falling to levels of 30 years ago, say around 700, instead of flirting with 9,000. Impossible? U u s t over two years. cash grain prices have dropped over 70 percent from the high posted in July 1996. Hog prices also reflect a near-70 percent decline since 1990. Many things have contributed to this dramatic decline of commodity prices. Some have directlv benefited the consumer. like lower petroleum prices that were passed on at the gas pump. However, this has not been the case with meats and other commodities in 1997 and 1998. Processors and retailers decided they could increase their margins rather than passing on the savings to the consumer (which would have cleaned up the oversupply). Supplies continue to build, benefiting only processors and retailers, not consumers. Free markets have been stymied. I am not trying to tell you we are heading for a sequeI of the Great Depression. But why is the greatest production machine in the world, American agriculture, going through such difficult times? Why should a minority, those who produce the majority of our food, be subjected to cost inflation and price deflation at the same time? U. S. taxpayers coughed up $6 billion dollars this year to help the farmer. Along with next year's Freedom to Farm payments, the extra cash is helping us through the crisis. Thank you, it is just what we needed: another Band-Aid. Government policy for the past 60 years has been to intravenously feed farmers the ""antibiotic" of farm subsidies and price supports. But the wound has never healed. The Freedom to Farm Act attempts to wean agriculture from subsidies and supports by initiating a "ttwithdrawal"process. The problem is, other grain-producing countries around the world don't see it that way. They continue to subsidize their producers. The livestock producer gets no help from taxpayers. But if these prices continue, it is a pretty sure bet the banks holding his notes will get bailed out. We can make our products much more affordable to foreign buyers by devaluing the dollar. But, you say, that will cause inflation. Maybe investors should rethink inflation. Maybe a little inflation is much better than another Depression. If you look at government money-supply figures, it would appear that Washington may have started to print money (which, in hindsight, could have prevented the Great Depression). I hope this is the case. The enormous power of the hedge funds that continuously short commodity fbtures - the pricing mechanism of the world these days - is staggering. If agriculture dies an economic death. the rest of the economy is sure to follow. It is not too late. but we must act now. Please. help America's farmers sell our products outside our borders. We are dying out here. Getting rid of the immigrants would kill the economy Newsday 06 [Brune, Tom. "Mayor's stand on immigration; Economy of NYC, U.S. would fa11 without illegal immigrants, Bloomberg tells congressional panel." Newsdav 6 July 2006 Mew Yorkl : ,424. Lexis.] House, saying PHILADELPHIA - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday took aim at hard-line GOP members of the U.S. their belief that border patrols alone can stop undocumented immigrants "is either naive and shortsighted, or cynical and duplicitous." Bloomberg also attacked the House hardliners for insisting on the expulsion of undocumented immigrants for breaking the immigration law, and for failing to understand just how important the estimated 11 million undocumented workers are to the well-being of this country. "Although they broke the law by illegallv crossing our borders," Bloombere said. "our city's economy would be a shell of itself had thev not. and it would collapse if thev were deported. The same holds true for the nation.''

UNSKILLED IMMIGRANTS KEY TO ECON
Illegal immigrants give more income to the system than they take out
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Dalmia 2006 [Shikha, Senior Analyst @ The Reason Foundation, "Who's milking who?" August, http://www.reason.com/0608/fe.ng.immigration.shtml]
The fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes at all will come as news to many Americans. A stunning two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security, and personal income taxes. Yet nativists such as Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) have popularized the notion that illegal aliens are a colossal drain on the nation's hospitals, schools, and welfare programs, consuming services they don't pay for. In reality, the 1996 welfare reform bill disqualified illegal immigrants from nearly all means-tested government programs, including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, and Medicare-funded hospitalization. The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education. Last year, Tancredo and his allies nevertheless pushed a bill through the House that would criminalize all aid to illegal aliens--even private acts of charity by priests, nurses, and social workers. Under this bill, someone running a soup kitchen that offers so much as a free lunch to an illegal could face up to five years in prison and asset forfeiture. The Senate immigration bill that collapsed earlier this year would have tempered these draconian penalties for private aid. But no one, Democrat or Republican, seems to oppose the idea of withholding public services from illegal immigrants. Indeed, Congress has already passed a law that requires everyone who gets Medicaid, the government-funded health care program for the poor, to offer proof of U.S. citizenship so we can avoid "theft of these benefits by illegal aliens," as Rep. Charlie Nonvood (R-Ga.) puts it. But immigrants aren't flocking to the United States to mooch off the government. According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. Another important development happened in 1996: The Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file tax returns. One might have imagined that people earning meager wages and fearing deportation would take a pass on the IRS's scheme. Not so. Each year close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country file personal income tax returns using the alternative numbers, contributing billions of dollars to federal coffers. They probably hope paying taxes will one day help them acquire legal status-a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows. What's more, aliens who are not selfemployed (and aren't paid in cash) have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake Social Security numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers, which the Social Security Administration stashes in its "earnings suspense file," added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year. Beyond federal taxes, all illegals autornaticalIy pay state sales taxes that contribute to the upkeep of public facilities they use (such as roads) and pay property taxes through their rent that contribute to the schooling of their children. The nonpartisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families (most of whom are illegal) are factored in, parents and children combined contribute an average of $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume over their lifetimes. It's true that many illegal migrants impose a strain on border communities on whose doorstep they first arrive, broke and unemployed. To solve this problem equitably, these communities might receive the surplus taxes the federal government collects from immigrants. Immigrant bashers are using the "costs" of undocumented aliens to whip up indignation against people they don't want here in the first place. In the real world, illegals are not milking the government, If anything, it's the other way around.

UNSKILLED IMMIGRANTS KEY TO ECON Illegal immigrants are essential to the economy
Snow 2006 [Tony, President Bush's Secretary, "Where's the Mayem?" August, http://www.reason.com/06O8/fe.ng.immigrationshtmlj
Illegal immigration seems to have spawned a dreary debate about the merits of Mexicans, when it should be drawing attention instead to a very different matter: how to build on the luster and wonder of the American dream. Immigration is not the pox neo-Know Nothings make it out to be. Begin with the astounding influx of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of whom hail from Mexico. While the population includes an eye-popping number of crooks, drug dealers, and would-be welfare sponges, it also provides a helpful prop for sustaining American economic growth and cultural dynamism. Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey reports that 62 percent of illegal immigrants pay income taxes (via withholding) and 66 percent contribute to Social Security. Forbes magazine notes that Mexican illegals aren't clogging up the social-services system: Only 5 percent receive food stamps or unemployment assistance; 10 percent send kids to public schools. Skeptics counter that immigrants have clogged our hospitals, which is true-but primarily in places that offer lavish benefits to illegal immigrants. On the work front, Hispanic unemployment has tumbled to 5.5 percent, only slightly above the national average of 4.7 percent and considerably lower than the black unemployment rate of 9.3 percent. Economist Larry Kudlow praises Hispanic entrepreneurship: "According to 2002 Census Bureau data, Hispanics are opening businesses at a rate three times faster than the national average. In addition, there were almost 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generating $222 billion in revenue in 2002." As for crime, the picture doesn't quite conform to conventional wisdom. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute discovered that illegal immigrants in 2004 accounted for 95 percent of all outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles and two-thirds of unserved felony warrants. (Gangs, aided and abetted by laws that prevent local officials from handing illegalimmigrant criminals over to federal authorities, account for much of the mayhem.) Yet the most comprehensive survey to date of national crime data concludes, "In the small number of studies providing empirical evidence, immigrants are generally less involved in crime than similarly situated groups, despite the wealth of prominent criminological theories that provide good reasons why this should not be the case." Authors Ramiro Martinez Jr. and Matthew T. Lee note that the Latino homicide rate in Miami is three times that of El Paso, Texas, which has one of the nation's largest immigrant populations. That's not just an anomaly. Another major study, "U.S. Impacts of Mexican Immigration," by Michael J. Greenwood and Marta Tienda, reports that "crime rates along the border are lower than those of comparable non-border cities." This doesn't mean immigrants from Mexico are saints; it just means they may not be the marauding horde some make them out to be. As it turns out, crime rates in the highest-immigration states have been trending significantly downward. Total crime and property crime in California are half what they were in 1980; violent crime has fallen more than a third. The state's Hispanic population during that time increased 120 percent. Similar trends apply in other high-traffic states, with the exception of Colorado. While Arizona's population grew 41.8 percent between 1993 and 2003, for instance, the rates for every major category of crime fell.

AMNESTY DOESN'T SOLVE ECON
Amnesty doesn't solve the economy
Carnaroto 2006 [Steven A., Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Testimony to Immigration Subcommittee, July 18,l-n]
Amnesty Does Not Solve Problem of Job Competition. If illegals are legalized and are allowed to remain in the country, the poorest and least educated American workers would still face job competition from millions of former illegal aliens. The primary reason illegal immigrants reduce wages or job opportunities for less-educated native-born Americans or legal immigrants already here is not that they work for less, thought that certainly happens. The primary reason they create a problem for such Americans is simply their presence in the United States. It is basic economics: increase the supply of something, in this case less-educated workers, and you reduce its price. The price of less-skilled labor is the wages and benefit paid to such workers. Letting illegals stay only makes sense if you think the poor are overpaid. Yet wages have stagnated or declined for such workers, and the share holding a job has deteriorated significantly in recent years. There is some evidence that illegal did do better after being legalized, but there is no evidence that after the last amnesty nativeborn American with little education saw an increase in their wages and benefit. In fact, the general trends has been for less-educated Americans to do worse in the US labor market. By letting the illegals stay the oversupply of less- educated workers remain, so naturally less-educated natives continue to do poorly in the labor market. The trend of less educated Americans doing poorly in the labor market has accelerated in recent years. Between 2000 and 2005 the share of natives (18 to 64) with only high school degree holding a job declined from 53 to 48 percent, and the share with only a high school degree and no additional schooling declined from 75 to 70 percent. How does letting in even more less-educated workers through the new H2C program in S2611 help this problem? There are 65 million nativeborn Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 who have no education beyond high school, 23 million of whom are either unemployed or not even in the labor market, which means they are not even looking for a job. These are precisely the kind of individuals who work in construction, food 5For a detailed discussion of labor market problems of less-educated Americans see Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit From the Labor Market, 2000-2005 at http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back206.pdf. service and building cleaning and grounds maintenance occupations, which is where illegal are overwhelmingly concentrated. The vast majority of workers who do this kind of work are natives. Thus to suggest that Americans are not interested in such jobs is ridiculous. Allowing illegals as guest workers, green card holders or illegal aliens means lower wages and job opportunities for less-educated Americans. And as in 1986, unemployment, non-work, and wages of workers at the bottom of the job market show there is no shortage of less-educated workers. If there were, wages and employment should be rising fast, but that simply is not happening. Amnesty Does Not Solve Costs to Taxpayers. The Senate plan also does not solve one the other big problems associated with illegal immigrants --- the cost to tax payers. Illegal aliens create significant costs for taxpayers mainly because they are unskilled, not because they are illegal. At least 60 percent lack a high school degree and another 20 percent have only a high education with no additional schooling. Such persons pay relatively little in taxes regardless of legal status because they earn so little in the modern American economy. Letting them stay means the costs stay. A Center for Immigration Studies report found that in just the first ten years after IRCA passed, the difference between the taxes the legalized illegals paid and the costs they created was a negative $79 billion borne by American taxpayers. The National Research Council in 1997 report entitled, The New Americans, estimated that the average immigrant without a high school diploma will use $89,000 more in services than he pays in taxes during his lifetime and an immigrant with only a high school degree will create a net fiscal drain of $3 1,000. My research indicates that if we legalized illegals and they began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same level of education, the fiscal costs at just the federal level would triple from about $10 billion a year to nearly $30 billion.6 Unskilled illegal aliens are costly, but unskilled legal immigrants, which is what the illegals would become, cost even more because they can more easily access social programs. If we legalize illegal aliens, the fiscal costs are guaranteed to explode. This is what happened with IRCA and it would surely happen again.

AT: ILLEGALS = UNEMPLOYMENT
Unemployment rates are at record lows - illegal immigrants don't steal jobs
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Snow 2006 [Tony, President Bush's Secretary, "Where's the Mayem?" August, http://www.reason.com/O608/fe.ng.immigration.shtml]
Why, then, the fuss? In America today, unemployment remains low, employment is booming, wages have begun to grow in tandem with the economy, tax receipts are exploding at the federal and state levels, and the United States continues to run laps around its European and Asian economic rivals. The United States somehow has managed to absorb 10 million to 20 million illegal immigrants not only without turning into Animal Fawn, but while cranking up the most impressive economic recovery in two decades and the most prolonged period of declining crime in a century-all in the teeth of the post-9111 recession, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the double-whammy hurricane season of 2005. Rather than panicking, the political class might want to take a deep breath and attempt a little common sense. Virtually everyone agrees that we need to secure our borders, deport lawbreakers and slackers among the illegal-immigrant population, and revitalize the notion of citizenship by insisting that prospective citizens master the English language and the fundaments of American history and culture. The Statue of Liberty symbolizes America's affection for the world's tired and poor, the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Before someone razes Lady Liberty and decides to erect a wall to "protect" America from the world, shouldn't we at least spend a little time trying to get our facts straight?
Michigan 7 W.k. Seniors 2006-2007

PUBLIC HATES PLAN
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Public doesn't like unchecked immigration Beck 96 (Roy, Washington, D. C. editor of The Social Contract, The Case Against Immigration, 1996)
A RAND Corporation study of urban school systems with high numbers of immigrants concluded that the newcomers exacerbate already serious problems in those schools. Education faiIure is the norm for immigrants and natives alike. Fewer than one of two kids going into these high schools comes out employable. The "size of the wave and the chaos of the situation are too great" for schools to be able to keep poor natives in class.22 And then there is crime-the factor that may top all others in driving capital and the middle class from the cities and in creating inhumane conditions for those residents trapped behind. Crime historian Ted Robert Gurr of the University of Maryland explains that this third great crime wave in America's history is similar to the other two in that it is linked to three factors: increased economic deprivation; the aftermath of war (this time, Vietnam); and a big jump in immigration, all of which "interfere with the civilizing process...... It is not that the immigrants themselves are es~eciallv oriented toward crime and anarchy, but the arrival in such large numbers of people of different cultures contributes a transience and lack of community cohesiveness that is healthv for neither the newcomers nor the citizens .23 Cities-ranging in size from millions to a few thousand-struggle with an immigration influx that few ever requested. And the federal government never asked the local officials if they desired or could handle the flow. Each successive Congress and president simply adopted or maintained policies that forced massive immigration upon thousands of neighborhoods across the land. Residents have not approved. A Times-Mirror Center voll in November 1994 indicated that 82 percent of Americans think the United States should restrict immimation. Opposition to immigration is not ideolo~ical.A CBS/New York Times poll two months earlier found onlv 6 vercentage points difference among those identifvinq themselves as Democrats, Republicans. or independents; all overwhelmingly obiected to current immigration levels. Other polls show that no matter how the aopulace is sliced into demomaphic groups-bv income, ethnicitv. education. region. gender. age, religion, or size of community-a ma-iority of them dislike current immigration levels. It isn't that Americans don't like immigrants. Polls show that most citizens retain ~enerallv positive attitudes about immigrants as individuals. But the number of those individuals arriving each vear has overwhelmed individual communities. There are numerical thresholds for how many additional and culturally different residents any community can or wants to handle-economically, sociallv. educationally. and environmentallv.

PUBLIC HATES PLAN
The public finds amnesty policies that encourage more immigration unpopular Camaroto 2006 [Steven A., Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Testimony to Immigration Subcommittee, July 18, I-n] S2611 Defies Public Opinion. In a democratic republic, public policy should in general reflect the views of the people. But, S2611 clearly does not do that. Using neutral language a Zogby poll of likely voters conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies found that in general Americans want less not more immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.7 But the Senate bill does precisely the opposite of what most Americans want. The Senate's plan would increase legal immigration from roughly 1 million a year to perhaps 2 million or even more. Yet only 2 percent of Americans in the same Zogby poll respond that they believe that current immigration is too low. This is very similar to what happened in the late 1980s with the IRCA amnesty and the large increases in legal immigration passed by Congress in 1990. The public wanted the law enforced and less legal immigration. At the behest of interest groups, Congress responded by legalizing illegal aliens and increasing legal immigration. While the public ,may not keep track of the details of immigration policy, Americans generally know we have already tried amnesty and it has not worked. This is one reason the public is so cynical about immigration. Defenders of S2611 often argue that we have tried to enforce the law but we simply can not do it because we are not letting enough people legally. But when asked this very question by Zogby, 71 percent of Americans felt that enforcement had failed because our efforts had been "grossly inadequate," while only 19 percent felt we had made a "real effort" to enforce our laws and the reason we failed was because we are not letting in enough people legally. Most Americans also don't buy the argument that we are desperately short of less- skilled workers. When asked, 77 percent said there are plenty of Americans to fill lowwage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers better; just 15 percent said there are not enough Americans for such jobs. Finally, 73 percent of the public said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals that would result if 52611 became law. Given deep public opposite to S2611, if it does become law, it can only make the American people more cynical and dissatisfied with our immigration system. Unfortunately, US immigration policy for many years now has been out of step with the desire of most Americans for less legal immigration and greater efforts to enforce immigration laws. The Senate's plan, like most changes in immigration law in the last four decades, would continue that trend with the same result growing public anger.

PUBLIC HATES PLAN
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
The public consistently opposes increased immigration
Although Americans like to think of their country as a nation of immigrants, it seems probable that at no time in American history has a majority of Americans favored the expansion of immigration. This is clearly the case since the 1930s when survey evidence became available. In three 1938 and 1939 polls, 68 percent, 71 percent, and 83 percent of Americans opposed altering existing law to allow more European rehgees into America. In subsequent years, the extent and intensity of public opposition to immigration varied with the state of the economy and the sources of immigrants, but high immigration has never been popu-
lar overalI. Ln nineteen polls from 1945 to 2002, the proportion of the public favoring increased immigration never rose above 14 percent and was less than 10 percent in fourteen polls. The proportion wanting less immigration was never less than 3 3 percent, rose to 65 percent to 66 percent in the 1980s and early 1990s, and dropped to 49 percent in 2002. In the 1990s, large majorities of the public ranked large numbers of immigrants and nuclear proliferation as "critical threats" co America, w t international terrorism coming in a close third. In the 1995-1997 ih World Values Survey, the United States ranked fifth (behind the Philippines, Taiwan, South Africa, and Poland) out of forty-four countries in the propordon, 62.3 percent, of its population that wanted to prohibit or put strict limits on immigration.jR The people of this "nation of irnmigrants" have been more hostile to immigration than those of most other countries. a

PUBLIC HATES PLAN Immigration arouses popular opinion against immigrants
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
( ~ h eimmigration issue may produce serious divisions among elite groups, arouse popular opinion against immigrants and immigration, and offer opportunities to nationalist and populist politicians and parties to exploit these sentiments. >

PUBLIC HATES PLAN
I -Immigration Neg 11
Elites favor but the masses oppose increased immigration
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 330-3 11
<
This shift in elite opinion produced a maior gap between elite and public attitudes, and meant, of course, diat government policy would continue to reflect the former rather than the tatter. In the 1994 and 1998 Chicago Council polls, 74 percent and 57 percent of the public and 31 percent and 18 percent of forr~gn leaders thought thnt large nurnhers of immigrants were a "critical threat" to the United States. In these same years, 73 percent and 5 5 percent of the public and 28 percent- and 21 percent of the leaders thought that reducing illegal immigration should be "a very important goal" for America. In a 1997 ~ o lasking to what extent the federal government had been successfuI in l achieving sixteen policy goals, "conaolling illegal immigration" came in next to the last (reducing drug abuse), with 72 percent of the public sayA ing it had been fairly or very unsuccessful^"

GOP OPPOSES PLAN
The GOP hates giving amnesty to illegal immigrants Mercury News 8-2 [Allison Hoffman, AP Writer, "House panel hosts illegal immigration hearing in San Diego," http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breingnews/l5 183586.html
House Republicans, speaking Wednesday at a field hearing aimed at exposing flaws in rival Senate legislation, said illegal immigrants cost taxpayers by straining government services. Democrats said GOP leaders were stalling to avoid a bruising fight within their party over a sweeping immigration overhaul before November midterm elections. The House Judiciary Committee met at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in what Republicans. billed as a hearing to examine "the tremendous burden" that Senate legislation would impose on taxpayers to pay for health care, education and other services. About 100 people attended the 90-minute hearing."If we do not control the costs of illegal immigration we will be shutting the door to legal immigration," said House Judiciary Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who authored legislation approved by the House in December that focuses on tougher enforcement. Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich said illegal immigration was a "catastrophic" drain on public schools, hospitals and the criminal justice system, costing the county more than $1 billion a year. But Wayne Cornelius, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, testified that a guest worker program would allow illegaI immigrants to freely go back and forth to their home countries rather than staying in the U.S. permanently, reducing the burden on public coffers. Democrats asked why hearings were being held after bills have already passed. "These hearings are a con job on the American people," said Rep. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood, who accused Republicans of avoiding a fight within the party ahead of elections. President Bush supports a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, provisions that were included in Senate legislation passed in May. U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, defended the timing. "The reason it's a good idea to have them now is that we're at an impasse," Gohmert said." In July, House Republicans launched the unusual series of summer field hearings, including seven this week. They meet Thursday in Phoenix and Las Cruces, N.M. Sensenbrenner has repeatedly said that he would reject a compromise that includes what he describes as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
Conservative Republicans hate anything that smacks of amnesty for illegal immigrants The Ledger 05 ["Lawmakers Unsure how to Tackle Illegal Workers," May 27&, 2005. Lexis] McCain and Kennedy propose allowing illegal immigrants to identifv themselves, obtain status as guest workers. and then get in line for residency and citizenship. Opponents call such programs "amnestv" for people who broke U.S. laws to get here, although Republicans such as Bush and McCain say they don't support "amnesty." _Whatever it's called, it would be a tough fight in Congress. "If it walks. talks or smells like amnesty, I could never vote for it," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Crystal River Republican representing a 1are;e agriculture sector and who is also a member of the conaressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

PUBLIC WANTS WALL
The public is in favor of building a militarized border zone
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Gillespie 2006 [Nick, Editor of Choice, "Bush's Border Bravado," August, http://www.reason.com/0608/fe.ng.immigration.shtrnl]
How will immigration play out politically over the next few months, especially since the dead heat that American politics has become is more dead than ever? The vast majority of the American people is staunchly in favor of militarizing the Southern border or doing whatever it may take to stop the flow of illegal immigrants f o that part rm of the world. In fact, a plurality of the American people is in favor of reducing the flow of legal immigrants, too. At least for a while. So are the House Republicans, who passed legislation that is long on enforcement and "cutting off the flow" stuff and extremely short on amnesty, guest workers, and the like. A good chunk of Senate Republicans-along with a handful of Democrats-is in favor of less-draconian legislation than House Republicans, including a guest-worker program and, in theory at least, some way of legalizing many, if not most, current illegals. At press time, the Senate had signed on to building some sort of wall. Where any of this might end up is anybody's guess. Especially with mid-term elections coming up, both the Dems and the Reps may want to play to their bases by refusing to "compromise" on their core "principles." There could be worse outcomes.

PUBLIC WANTS WALL Policing the border to decrease illegal immigration is popular among the public
I Immigration Neg I1
7-
Camarota 2006 [Steven A,, Director of the Research Center for Immigration Studies, Testimony to the Committee on House Ways and Means, June 26,I-n]
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals legal status, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.

PLAN FRACTURES CONSERVATIVES
The plan splits the conservative party
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Barry 2006 [Tom, Policy Director @ the International Relations Center, "Immigration Debate Splinters Conservatives,"July 3 1,1-nj
Leading conservatives recently sent an open letter to President Bush and congressional leaders stating that "enforcement first" measures should be central to any immimation policy reform. The signatories, including such right-wing luminaries as William Buckley, Phyllis Shlafly and William Bennett, called for the country's political leaders to remember that "We are in the middle of a global war on terror." The conservative manifesto comes on the heels of another statement on immigration policy by pro-immigration conservatives published in the Wall Street Journal on July 10. "The Conservative Statement for Immigration Reform," signed by 33 prominent conservatives, calls for the creation of new legal channels for immigrants "drawn to the jobs created by our economy." That same day a Journal editorial titled "Conservatives and Immigration" reiterated the paper's "longstanding position favoring open immigration." This summer, the immigration debate in the United States has heated up as conservatives of all tendencies -- social conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, freemarket conservatives, national security conservatives and Republican Party stalwarts -- seek to frame the debate in their own terms. In part, it's a battle over contending right-wing ideologies. It's also a high-stakes race to determine which approach to the immigration crisis will win the most votes for Republicans. Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, immigration restrictionists were marginalized in Congress and had little pull in the Republican Party. Immigration received little or no attention from the right's battery of think tanks and policy institutes, except for single-issue institutes such as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The breakdown this spring of bipartisan attempts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill demonstrated the newfound political strength of immigration restrictionists. Although a comprehensive bill that included legalization and guest-worker provisions did pass the Senate, it was blocked in the House, where restrictionists, led by Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, have since Sep. 11 succeeded in gaining control of the immigration agenda. Pro-immigration sentiment runs deep in the Senate, whose members have traditionally reflected the liberal immigration views of large corporations and the party leadership. But this time around, the increasing clout of the immigration restrictionists was quickly apparent as even the proponents of legalization dressed up their bills in the language of "national security" and "law and order." Seeing the antiimmigration tide sweeping the nation, Republican senators are beginning to adopt the "enforcement first" language of the anti-immigration lobby. Senate Majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee describes immigration as a "dangerous national security threat," observing that the "scariest part" of illegal immigration is that "we have absolutely no idea what they'll do tomorrow on U.S. soil." Seeking his party's presidential nomination, the majority leader has founded his own organization called SecureAmericasBorders.com to tap the anti-immigrant surge. Together with the leading conservative figures, conservative and neoconservative think tanks and policy institutes have jumped into the immigration fray, creating new ideological divides throughout the center-right. Leading conservative think tanks, including the Hudson Institute, Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute and American Enterprise Institute, that previously never addressed immigration issues now have scholars articulating sharply different positions on immigration policy.

IMMIGRANT BASE OPPOSES
Even recent immigrants don't favor more immigration
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg, 33 11
Q
711e persistent and pervasive and-immigration attitudes often reflect a door-closing approach: "It's great we got in, but any more will be disastrous." A 1993 Newmeek poll asked people whether immigration had been "a good thing or a bad thing for this country in the past." Fiftynine percent said a good thing and 31 percent a bad thing. Asked whether im~nigration "a good thing or a bad thing for this country was today," the proportions were exactly reversed: 29 percent good, 60 percent bad. T h e American public was thus divided aln~ost equally: one third for past and present immigration, one third against past and present immigration, and one third door-closers approving past immigration and against it now. Lnrnigrants often are door-closers too. A Latino National Political Survey in 1992 found that 65 percent of American citizens or le.ga1 residents of hlexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban descent thought there were "too mmy immigrants in this country," a skepticism also manifested in answers to a 1984 survey of Texas MexicanAmericans by Rodolfo de la G a r ~ a . ~ '
'

TERRORISM LINK
Strengthening immigration law is critical to terrorism prevention
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Federal News Service 2006 [Hearing of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation of the House International Relations Committee, April 6,l-n]
Terrorists conspiring to attack the United States often defraud and manipulate our immigration system. And the 9111 commission found that 15 of the hijackers that attacked the United States could have been stopped had we more diligently enforced our immigration laws. As one of today's witnesses will testify, there are dozens of terrorists who have defrauded our immigration system, including many since 9111, to remain in this country. This includes individuals affiliated with a1 Qaeda and affiliated with Hezbollah. And last week this subcommittee held a hearing on the attempts by terrorists to acquire shoulder-launched missiles that can down an airliner, So ow homeland faces a very determined terrorist enemy. And our immigration policies and practices, I'm afraid, remain a very porous defense. Indeed, one of our witnesses, an individual experienced as a top security official in the immigration field, will tell us in fi-ank terms that our immigration officials aren't taking seriously their responsibility to counter terrorism. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that establishes the immigration status of millions of applicants every year, remains deeply flawed, which a Government Accountability Office report highlighted just last month. USCIS is riddled with fraud and corruption, we will hear from one witness, and the critical information needed to protect national security remains stovepiped, with information-sharing being frustrated. This puts those deciding immigration applications in the very difficult position of not having access to key records held by other U.S. government agencies, including the FBI and the CIA. And frankly, when you can't check the terrorist watch list, that creates an opening for terrorists. Moreover, there are too many uninvestigated complaints against USCIS personnel who issue green cards or work visas or asylum and other immigration standings, representing grave vulnerabilities. Some of these personnel themselves have not been adequately investigated before being given the responsibility of frustrating attempts by terrorists and criminals to acquire the documentation needed to operate fteely in the United States. One of today's witnesses will tell of U.S. immigration documents being issued by foreign intelligence operatives. That is why I offered a successful amendment to the House immigration enforcement bill to ensure that law enforcement is a top USCIS priority. A big part of the problem is that those deciding applications are under enormous pressure to reduce the backlog. The Department of Homeland Security inspector general, in November, in documenting the agency's poor management controls, found that it continues to operate under production pressures. Now, that's the jargon for "Move the applications as fast as you can." The March GAO report seconded that finding, noting that production goals are put over rooting out the type of fiaud that terrorists commit in their planning. The system, it's clear, is rigged to approve immigration applications, and the system is rigged to shortchange security. This report also found that a number of individuals linked to a hostile foreign powers intelligence service were found to have been employed as temporary alien workers on military research. USCIS says it supports the ideal of keeping America's doors open but well- guarded. The doors are open for sure, but I don't see the security counterbalanced despite the lessons of 9111. It is timely to examine these issues now, as Congress debates immigration policy. The Senate may soon pass guest-worker legislation, This policy, in which illegal immigrants are given legal status, will place tremendous new burdens on a deeply flawed USCIS.

TERRORISM LINK
Immigration Neg I1
Strict immigration law is critical t o terrorism prevention K e p h a r t 2006 [Janice L., Principal of 9/11 Security Solutions, Testimony to House International Relations Subcommittee, April 6,l-n] There is nothing more important to a terrorist than getting where he needs to go and being able to stay there long enough to carry out his or her instructions. We call this "embedding." As I wrote in 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, "while the rhetoric continues to focus on the critical mission of terrorist entry, virtually no attention is being given to the most recent information about terrorist travel and to the mission. . . of preventing terrorists who get in from staying in." The inadequacies of our Citizenship and Immigration Services agency continue to make embedding relatively easy. Religious worker visas are known to carry a 33 percent fraud rate. Political asylum and naturalization are two of the benefits most rampantly abused by terrorists. And even when naturalization is acquired, we do not require the new U.S. citizen to renounce his or her country of origin, or hand in old passports. One wellknown terrorist and naturalized U.S. citizen, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, now spending 23 years in prison for illegal financial dealings with the Libyan government (which included a plot to assassinate a Saudi prince), was able to hide much of his travel abroad from U.S. immigration inspectors for years by using his old passports for travel while he was visiting countries outside the United States. My September 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report, Immigration and Terrorism: Moving Beyond the 9111 Staff Report, covers the immigration histories of 94 terrorists who operated in the United States between the early 1990s and 2004, including six of the September 11th hijackers discussed above. The report included persons with a clear nexus to terrorist activity, with nearly all of these individuals indicted or convicted for their crimes. The report was built on prior work done by the 911 1 Commission and the Center for Immigration Studies, providing more information than has been previously been made public. The findings show widespread terrorist violations of immigration laws and abuse of the U.S. immigration benefits system. In fact, 11 of the violations noted in the report were persons who had acquired immigration benefits before or around 9111, but whose terrorist plots within the United States occurred after 911 1. Violations were rampant with plots to blow up a shopping mall in Ohio, for example, along with surveillance of financial buildings in northern New Jerseymew York and North Carolina. The findings also show that not just Al Qaeda violates our immigration laws the study cuts across a variety of terrorist organizations. Many of these terrorists may have been affiliated with one or more terrorist organizations, but 40 individuals are associated with al Qaeda, 16 with Hamas, 16 with either the Palestinian or Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and six with Hizballah are specifically identified. Three are unaffiliated but of a radical Islamist background; one each is affiliated with the Iranian, Libyan or former Iraqi governments; one each is associated with the Pakistani terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad; and the affiliations of eight others indicted or detained on terrorismrelated charges are unknown. The report highlights the danger of our lax immigration system, not just in terms of whom is allowed in, but also how terrorists, once in the country, used weaknesses in the system to remain here. The report makes clear that USCIS must be an integral player in border security, raising the bar on its usual persona as merely a customer service agency to one of having a critical role in national security the last chance to say no to a terrorist who seeks to stay here longer under U.S. immigration laws. The summary of findings in the report is as follows (these are lifted verbatim fiom the report): --Of the 94 foreign-born terrorists who operated in the United States, the study found that about two-thirds (59) committed immigration fraud prior to or in conjunction with taking part in terrorist activity. --Of the 59 terrorists who violated the law, many committed multiple immigration violations 79 instances in all. --In 47 instances, immigration benefits sought or acquired prior to 9/11 enabled the terrorists to stay in the United States after 9/11 and continue their terrorist activities. In at least two instances, terrorists were still able to acquire immigration benefits after 9111. --Temporary visas were a common means of entering; 18 terrorists had student visas and another four had applications approved to study in the United States. At least 17 terrorists used a visitor visa either tourist (B2) or business (Bl).--There were 11 instances of passport fraud and 10 instances of visa fraud; in total 34 individuals were charged with making false statements to an immigration official. --In at least 13 instances, terrorists overstayed their temporary visas. In 17 instances, terrorists claimed to lack proper travel documents and applied for asylum, often at a port of entry.--Fraud was used not only to gain entry into the United States, but also to remain, or "embed," in the country. --Seven terrorists were indicted for acquiring or using various forms of fake identification, including driver's licenses, birth certificates, Social Security cards, and immigration arrival records.--Once in the United States, 16 of 23 terrorists became legal permanent residents, often by marrying an American. There were at least nine sham marriages. --In total, 20 of 21 foreign terrorists became naturalized U.S. citizens.
--

ASSIMILATION FAILS
Assimilation will fail and doesn't work well with current immigrants
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
< In the past many factors facilitated the assimilation of immigrants into
American society: Most immigrants came from European societies with cultures similar to or compatible with American culture. h g r a t i o n involved self-selection; immigrants had to be willing to confront its substantial costs, risks, and uncertainties. Immigrants, generally, wanted to be Americans. Immigrants who did not convert to American values, culture, and way of life returned to their home countries. Immigrants came from many countries, w t no single country or ih language predominant at any one time. Immigrantsdispersed to ethnic neighborhoods throughout the United States, with no single group of immigrants forming a majorityof the population in any region or major city. Immigration was discontinuous, interrupted by pauses and reductions, both overall and for individual countries. Immigrants fought and died in America's wars. Americans shared a common, reasonably clear, and highly positive concept of American identity and created activities, institutions, and policies to promote the Americanization of immigrants. After 1965, all of these factors are either absent or much more diluted than they were previously. Assimilation of current immigrants is thus likely to be slower, less complete, and different from the assimilation of earlier immigrants. Assimilation no longer necessarily means Americanization. Assimilation is particularly problematic for Mexicans and other Hispanics. Their immigration poses problems unprecedented in America and will be dealt with in detail in the following chapter, This chapter more generally compares pre- and post-1965 immigrants, immigration processes, the responses of American society, and the implications of any differences for assimilation now.
>

ASSIMILATION FAILS
Many factors make Mexican immigrants especially hard to assimilate
$ Will the assimilation of post-1965 Latin American and Asian immigrants proceed more or less as it did for the earlier Europeans? Social science and psychoanalyucal analyses have shown major and lasting cultural differences among peoples, with societies clustering together in religious-geographical groupings. The limited evidence available on relative assimilation of post-1965 groups indicates that substantial differences may exist, but that these are probably more related to education and occupation before coming to the United States than to other factors. Overall, immigrants fiom India, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, whose educational profiles more closely approximate those of native Americans, have generally assimilated rapidly in terms of culture, structural incorporation, and intermarriage. Indians and Filipinos, of course, have also been helped by their knowledge of English. Latin American immigrants, particularly those horn Mexico, and their descendants have been slower in approximating American norms. In part this is the result of the large numbers and geographical concentration of Mexicans. The educational levels of Mexican immigrants and of their descendants also have been below that of almost all other immigrant groups, as well as that of native non-Hispanic Americans (see Chapter 9). In addition, Mexican, American, and Mexican-American writers have argued that a major gap exists between American and Mexican cultures, and this may also retard assimilation. 3

ASSIMILATION FAILS Hispanic advocates resist assimilation Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 3161
1 --
Immigration Neg I1
When Americans talk about immigration and assimilation, they have

tended to generalize about immigrants without discriminating among them. They have thus hidden from themselves the peculiar characteristics, challenge, and problems posed by Hispanic, primarily Mexican, immigration. By avoiding, at least until 2004, the issue of Mexican immigration and treating the overall relationship with their neighbor as if it did not differfrom that with other countries, they also avoided the issue of whether America wiIl continue to be a country with a single national language and a common Anglo-Protestant mainstream culture. To ignore that question, however, is also to answer it and acquiesce in the eventual transformation of Americans into two peoples with two languages and two cultures. s
--

IMMIGRATION THREATENS CULTURE
Immigration Neg I1
I --
Mexican immigration threatens Anglo-Protestant culture Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 31 81
<
Tlie continuing growth of Hispanic numbers and influence has led some Hispanic advocates to set forth two goals. The first is to prevent the assimilation of Hispanics into America's Anglo-Protestant society and culture, and instead create a large, autonomous, permanent, Spanishspeaking, social and cultural Hispanic community on American soil. Advocates, such as William Flores and Rina Benmayor, reject the idea of a "single national community," attack "cultural homogenization," and castigate the effort to promote the use of English as a manifestation of "xenophobia and cultural arrogance." They also attack multiculturalism and pluralism because these concepts relegate "different cultural identities" to "private lives" and assume that "in h e public sphere, except in those sanctioned displays of ethnicity, we must put aside those identities and interact- instead in a culturally neutral space as 'Americans.' " Hispanics, they argue, should not espouse an American identity but embrace an "emerging Latino identity and political and social consciousness." They should claim and are claiming a separate "cultural citizenship" involving "a distinct social space for Latinos in this counq."34
.3

2006-2007
NATURALIZATION KEY TO IDENTITY
Present naturalization practices maintain national identity
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
<
Contemporary criteria for naturalization in America are limited and specific. Somewhat simplified they are:
(1) Five years legal permanent residence in the United States; (2) "Good moral character," meaning absence of a criminal record; (3) The ability to speak, read, and write ordinary (eighth-grade) English; and (4) A general understanding of American government and history, demonstrated by passing the "civics test."
As one critic of these criteria as too restrictive admits, "In comparative
perspective, the American requirements for naturalization are relatively rn~dest."'~ The two key requirements are those for an elementary knowledge of English and of American history and politics. These criteria embody and symbolize the two remaining components of American national identity: the English cultural heritage and the liberal democratic principles of their Creed. )

AMERICAN CULTURE KEY TO HEG Maintaining the Anglo-Protestant culture is key to hegemony
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. xvii]
<
All societies face recurring threats to their existence, to which they eventually succumb. Yet some societies, even when so threatened, are also capable of postponing their demise by halting and reversing the processes of decline and renewing their vitality and identity. I believe that America can do that and that Americans should recommit themselves to the Anglo-Protestant culture, traditions, and values that for three and a half centuries have been embraced by Americans of all races, ethnicities, and religions and that have been the source of their liberty, unity, power, prosperity, and moral Ieadership as a force for good in the world. >
/ --

PROTESTANT HEG SOLVES ETHNIC VIOLENCE
Anglo-protestant cultural hegemony has limited ethnic conflict
Immigration Neg II
Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard Who Are We? pg. 61 -21
These critics are right. Throughout American history, people who were not whte Anglo-Saxon Protestants have become Americans by adopting America's Anglo-Protestant culture and political values. This benefited them and the country. American national identity and unity, as Benjamin C . Schwarz has said, derived "from the ability and willingness of an Anglo elite to stamp its image on other peoples coming to this country. That elite's reIigious and political principles, its customs and social relations, its standards of taste and morality, were for 300 years, America's, and in basic ways they still, are-despite our celebration of 'diversity.' Whatever freedom from ethnic and nationalist conflict this country has enjoyed (and it has been considerably less than our national mythology would have us believe) has existed thanks to a cultural and ethnic predominance that would not tolerate conflict or confusion regarding the national i~tentity."~ MiIlions of immigrants and their children achieved wealth, power, and status in American society precisely because they assimilated themselves into the prevailing American culture. Hence there is no validity to the cIairn that Americans have to choose between a white, WASPish ethnic identity, on the one hand, and an abstract, shallow civic identity dependent on commitment to certain political principles, on the other. The core of their identity is the culture that the setders created, which generations of immigrants have absorbed, and whch gave birth to the American Creed. At the heart of that culture has been Protestantism. 7
<

NATIONAL MEMORY GOOD
No nation can exist without a national memory Huntington 2004 [Samuel, Political Scientist @ Harvard, Who Are We? pg. 115- 161
A nation, as Benedict Anderson said, is a imagined community, but n it is more specifically a remembered communiv, a c o m u i t y with an
imagined history, and it is defined by its historical memory of itself. No nation exists in the absence of a national history, enshrining in the minds of its people common memories of their travails and triumphs, heroes and villains, enemies and wars, defeats and victories. By this criterion, for much of the early nineteenth century the United States was not a nation because it did not have a national history. "For at least a haIf-century after the Declaration of Independence," Daniel Boorstin observes, "it was generally assumed that a history of the United States would consist of a history in turn of each of the states. The history of states and regions seemed primary; the history of the United States seemed contrived and derivative." State and local historical societies were created to perpetuate, to gIorify, and to promore the importance of their respective states and localities, while efforts to create a national historical society came to naught.'l Scholars who wished to turn to the national past wrote biographies of local heroes promoting them as aational heroes. 1

AT: NATIONAL IDEOLOGY RISILIENT
Immigration Neg I1
Ideology is inadequate for national unity
People can with relative ease change their political ideologies. Comrnunists have become fervent anti-com~mnists;democratic liberals have embraced Maixism; socialists have adopted capitalism. In 2000, there could well haw been i Dresden people in their eighties who in n their youth were sincere Nazis, then became sincere communists, and after 1989 were sincere democrats. Throughout the former conmunist world in the 1990s, former communist elites regularly redefined themselves as liberal democrat.., kee marketers, or fervent nationalists. They did not abandon their identity as Hungarians, Poles, or Wkraillians. A nation defined only by political ideology is a fragile nation. 3
Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Sirni, WilI

BRAIN DRAIN DIA 1NC (112)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
A. Uniqueness: Current levels of Hispanic Immigrants are not the highly educated - there is little Mexican Brain Drain now. Carrington and Detragiache 99 [ William J. and Enrica, How Extensive is the Brian Drain?, Finance and Development, June 1999, Volume 36, Number 21
The first striking feature of the U.S. migration data is that immigration flows of individuals with no more than a primary education are quite small, both in absolute terms and relative to other educational groupings (about 500,000 individuals out of a total of 7 million immigrants). Foreign-born individuals with little or no education, however, may be undercounted by the census if they are in the country illegally or do not speak English. The largest group of immi~rants the United States (about 3.7 million) consists of individuals with into secondary education from other North American countries (understood here to include Central American and Caribbean countries), primarily Mexico. Perhaps surprisingly, the second largest group (almost I .5 million individuals) consists of highly educated migrants from Asia and the Pacific. Total immigration from South America and, especially, Africa is quite small. It is noteworthy, however, that immigrants from Africa consist primarily of highly educated individuals (about 95,000 of the 128,000 African migrants).
B. Links:
1. Change in Immigration policies will lead to Brain Drain The Economist 2005 [Fruit that falls far from the tree print edition, Nov 3rd 2005
Emigration, as Mr Stark suggests, might be a spur to greater accomplishment, and the poor world's talent, like Senegal's footballers, deserves a chance to compete on a global stage. But it is not easy to run a managed "emigration" policy. The drain of educated minds from poor countries is mostly determined bv host countries' rules. not home countries' interests. There will be tremendous pressure to loosen those rules in the future, not least because, as the baby-boom generation retires, it will seek to "backfill the taxpaying workforce behind it", as Messrs Kapur and McHale put it. The rich world no longer welcomes the tired and the huddled: it looks set to compete ever more fiercely for the bright and the qualified.
2. Citizenship offers lure students and professionals from the poorest countries to the richest countries - this causes brain drain. Durbin 2006 [Dick, US Senator, Democrat Illinois, Chicago Tribune, July 30,2006 http:llnewsblo~s.chicagotribune.com/news opinion letters/2006/07/illerral student.html1
The cover story in the July 23 Tribune Magazine highlighted a situation that is both tragic and avoidable. Due to their undocumented status, tens of thousands of immigrant students with good grades like the girls in your story, Angie and Maria, are denied a chance at the American dream. Many had no choice in the matter, coming to the U.S. with their parents at a young age and living in America all of their lives. It's in our nation's best interest to provide these talented students the opportunitv to earn their wav to legal status by attending college or joining the military. It is ironic that we tell these talented young people to leave and then search the world over for nurses, doctors, scientists and engineers to boost our economy. In 2005, the U.S. issued nearly 266,000 H-IS visas. These visas allow American companies and universities to bring foreign scientists, health-care workers and other professionals into the United States. And our brain report identifies increasing mimation of health workers gain is often another countrv's brain drain. A new World Health Or~anization from the poorest countries to the richest as representing a "loss of hope and years of investment." Africa loses 20,000 health professionals each year. Ethiopia has only three doctors per 100,000 people. And yet there are more Ethiopian-trained doctors in Chicago than there are in Ethiopia. While it may be convenient to fill the U.S. shortage of health professionals by looking overseas, I believe we need a more balanced approach-one that will utilize the talents of the bright young people who are already here. People like Angie and Maria. America is a land of opportunity and compassion. Any real solution to this problem must reflect both.

BRAIN DRAIN D/A 1NC (212)
Immigration Neg I I
/ --
C. Impacts: 1. Brain Drain leads to economic depression and poverty in developing countries Adams Jr. 2003, pichard H. Adams, Jr., International Migration, Remittances, and the Brain Drain, A Study of 24 Labor-Exporting Countries, The World Bank, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, Poverty Reduction Group, June 20031
Within the last decade an increasing amount of attention has focused on the relationship between international migration. brain drain, and economic yrowth. Since education has often been cited as a maior determinant of long-term economic aowth, conventional wisdom has tvpicallv argued that the international migration of people endowed with a high level of human capital - the so-called "brain draint1 - is detrimental for the countw of emigration.' According to this argument, the large-scale departure of highly-educated workers fiom developing countries tends to depress income levels and long-run economic growth rates in the developing world.
2. Global Poverty triggers ethnic conflict Amy Chua, Law professor, Harvard, World on Fire, 2003, p 195
Is this wise? Almost by definition, in the developing world todav the poor are far more numerous, poverty is far more extreme, and inequality far more glaring than in the Western countries, either today or at analogous historical periods. The ongoing population explosion outside the West only makes things worse. If current World Bank projections are correct, the population in countries now classified as developing is expected to increase from roughly a billion today to roughly eight billion by the year 2050. Meanwhile, the poor countries of the world lack the West's well-established rule of law traditions. As a result, political transitions in the developing world tend to be marked not by continuity and compromise, but rather by abrupt uvheavaIs. military intervention, violence, and bloodshed. In other words, today's universal policy prescription for "underdevelopment," shaped and promulgated to a large extent by the United States, essentially amounts to this. Take the rawest from of capitalism, slap it together with the rawest form of democracy, and export the two as a package deal to the poorest, most frustrated. most unstable, and most desperate countries of the world. Add market dominant minorities to the picture, and the instabilitv inherent in this barenuckle version of free market democracy is comnounded a thousand fold by the manipulated forces of ethnic hatred. 3. Modern Ethnic Conflicts risk Nuke War Crocker '99 (Chester, chairman of the Board of the US institute for Peace. FPRI Wire, How to think About Ethnic Conflict" September) Weather their challenges come through information technology, the erection of new standards of governance, or new demands fiom donor clubs, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, a fundamental shift in the balance of power ont eh ground has occurred. The disappearance of the old structures has. in short. created strateyic vacuums that will be filled, in one fashion or another, by a new set of actors or by older actors marching under new flags. That is really what much ethinic conflict is all about. Secondly, we need to reflect on the stakes. As a superpower which supposedly "doesn't do windows," we may be tempted to think that the stakes are now low for the United States. But what is at stake in Kosovo is not just the Albanians or Serbs, but (now that we have bucked into this forest without a compass) what is at stake is American leadership, the survival of NATO, and the danger that members of the UN Security Council, including; Russia and China, will acquire something or a veto over American Policv - including how we get out of the woods we have wandered into. Think, too, about the stakes involved for the people who become victims of these conflicts. Waiting for a conflict to "ripen" will achieve nothing if the contesting, leadership elites are living off the conflict. When both sides in a conflict find the Status Qou preferable to any settlement, the situation will never "ripen" and the humanitarian toll will mount. And the numbers of victims of these conflicts is huge: up to four million in Sudan alone over the past fortv years, and countless others in Sierra Leone. Liberia. Indonesia. and the Balkans. Similar conflicts have raged in the South Asian subcontinent since the massive postcolonial population transfers of the late 1940's and now that nuclear weapons have been openly thrown into the mix, the Indo-Pakistani worst case scenario has gotten a lot worse. So the stakes are huge in moral as well as strategic terms.

OPEN BORDERS CP SOLVENCY
Open borders solve the immigration crisis
Immigration Neg 11
1 --
Cavanaugh 2006 [Tim, Editor of Reason, "Open the Borders," August, http://www.reason.com/O608/fe.ng.immigration.shtml]
The solution to the immigration crisis, if there is such a crisis, does not rest in guest worker programs or higher visa quotas, but in the one possibility nobody is mentioning: eliminating visas altogether within the NAFTA countries, and allowing Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans with legitimate passports to travel freely among our three countries for any reason or for no reason. This was the early vision of Ronald Reagan, and it was certainly an implied outcome of NAFTA. "NAFTA had an effect on the Mexican economy, in terms of encouraging campesinos to leave the farm and seek better opportunities," says Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant Rights, "but we've shut off the legal opportunities for people to do that." The pathetic aspect of this debate is that visaless NAFTA borders would not even be a novel step. They would be a partial return to the way things were in the golden age, when the Tancredos, the Sensenbrenners, and the Cavanaughs first fouled these shores. Anti-illegal-immigrant types who never tire of pointing out that their ancestors came here legally are making a hollow argument: Until fairly recently in American history, there was no motive for illegal immigration; all a prospective American had to do was show up. It's a sign of a timid and tired nation that, in a period of economic expansion, we're not even willing to allow such an open system for our immediate neighbors and closest trading partners. "Guest worker provisions are an attempt to recapture some of the circularity that happened in the past, when people moved more freely between countries," says Tsao. "Whether that's going to work, I don't know,'When asked about visaless borders, every person I interviewed for this article gave two replies: that we need to be realistic about our options, and that the guest worker compromise will be more fair than what we have now. The first of these answers is half-right: In the current political climate, the idea of eliminating visa requirements with Canada and Mexico seems as heretical as the notion of pasteurization or a sun-centered solar system. Beyond that, the arguments of realism and fairness are entirely wrong. The guest worker compromise is unrealistic because it has nothing to do with economic reality on this continent. Nor is it especially fair: At best it will grandfather in some portion of the existing undocumented work force (and probably not a very large portion). For anybody who dreams of coming to the United States for a better job, or to start his or her own taqueria or a retail toque outlet, the various Senate proposals will not increase, and may even reduce, the legal opportunities to pursue the American dream. Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter. Is that a problem? I don't think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be.

IRCA CP 1 NC A. Text: The United States Congress should overturn The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
B. Solvency:
The Immigration Reform and Control Act is a nativist and anti immigrant policy. Wells 02 [Miriam J. Professor, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, from a Paper prepared for presentation at the AFL-CIOI Michigan State University Workers' Rights Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, October, 20021 In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) gave policy expression to the most recent of the surges of nativism that have seized the U S , citizenry since the 19th century. Generally attributed to the increasing number, impoverishment, Third World origins, and illegality of immigrants into the country after the 1965 Immigration Act, in light of the declining and increasingly uncertain economic circumstances of the majority of the U.S. populace (Bean and Fix 1992; Calavita 1996; Cornelius 1982; Levy 1987), the IRCA aimed to reduce the flow of aliens illegally entering the United States to find work by prohibiting employers from hiring them. The Act assigned the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to levy civil and criminal sanctions against employers who knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. It virtually doubled the overall budget and staff of the INS between 1986 and 1990 (Jufias 1991 : 77, 87), assigning and finding the Department of Labour (DOL) to aid in the law's enforcement, and urging the Social Security Administration (SSA) to assist as well. IRCA does not deter illegal immigration Durand, Massey, Parrado '99 [Jorge, Douglas S. and Emilio A, The Journal of American History, Vol. 86, No 2, Rethinking History and the Nation-State: Mexico and the United States as a Case Study: A Special Issue. (Sep, 1999), pp. 518-536. http;//links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723%28199909%2986%3A2%3C5 18%3ATNEOMN%3E2.O.CO%3B2-H]
As a program of legalization, therefore, IRCA was a great success: more than two million Mexicans-including many women and children-achieved l& status under the legislation. As an enforcement policy intended to control undocumented migration, however, IRCA was an unequivocal failure. Not only did it fail to deter undocumented migrants from leaving Mexico but it actually encouraged additional undocumented migration by family and friends who had remained behind, and it was instrumental in transforming a predominantly rural, male, and temporary flow of migrant workers into a feminized, urbanized, and permanent population of settled immigrants.

IRCA CP SOLVENCY (113)
The IRCA is a racist and ideoiogically flawed policy rooted in Nativist theology and remnicent of 1920's hypocritical and racist immigration policies Flores 1997 [Estevan T. Flores, Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants and the Politics of Ethnicity, International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, Special Issue: Immigrant Adaptation and Native-Born Responses in the Making of Americans. (Winter, 1997), pp. 1131-1132. http:lllinks.~istor.ora/sici?sici=019791 83%28199724%293 1%3A4%3C113 1%3AWAMMAM%3E2.O.CO%3B2-J]
In all this history, Gutierrez highlights the racism prevalent towards Mexicans whether documented, citizen, or undocumented. Instructive are the references to the historical congressional debates in the 1920s and beyond when arguments were made about the "mongrel" Mexican race and their unworthiness as permanent settlers or citizens of the United States. Yet this labor was desired and demanded by agribusiness interests who ofien prevailed in securing their supply of labor. It is precisely this logic of agribusiness which Gutierrez turns to in showing the hypocritical nature of the nativist and racist which at once demands the exclusion O 1undocumented to this country while ide o o~ at the same time providing le a1 mechanisms for both the importation o contract labor (i.e., the bracero program) or tacit acceptance of undocumented labor through failure to accept "employer sanctions." Gutierrez rightly points to one of the great turning points in Mexican-American politics in 1977 when Chicano Movement activists generated a drive to defend the undocumented. In reviewing the work of Bert Corona and the organizing of undocumented Mexicanos in the late 1960s and 1970s, Gutierrez shows how activists, in concert with both radical left groups like CASA-HGT and more mainstream organi-
zations such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and LULAC, joined forces in San Antonio, with over 2,000 in attendance, to resoundingly reject Jimmy Carter's 1977 immigration roposals. Gutierrez's text develops well tle histori! cal links between nativists in the 1920s who argued for exclusionary immigration laws and contemporary restrictionists such as Alan Simpson who championed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). That such an immigration bill took nine years to pass after it's introduction is a testament to the growing political strength of ChicanolLatino and Hispanic organizations. The author concludes with the contemporary period on immigration politics and sheds some light on the current hysteria of those who fear both the multicultural society that we already are and the newcomers who are racially, ethnically and linguistically different from what has been dominant in W.S. society. The current nativists, Gutierrez argues, both misapprehend or intentionally misrepresent the contemporary reality of political and cultural change.
Immigration Neg I1
I --
IRCA CP SOLVENCY (213) The IRCA has only led to deterioration in wages and working conditions for undocumented workers Philips and Massey 1999 [Julia A. and Douglas S. The New Labour Market: Immigrants and Wages after IRCA, Demography, Vol. 36, No. 2 (May, 1999), pp. 233-246. http://links.istor.or~/sici?sici=00703370%28 199905%2936%3A2%3C233%3ATNLMIA?403E2.0.~0%3B2-G]
Since 1986, many studies have examined IRCA's effects on economic outcomes among Mexican immigrants. Research generally suggests that IRCA led to a deterioration in the wages and working conditions of undocumented migrants, but studies have not yet identified the reasons for this change. Possible explanations include intentional discrimination by employers on the basis of legal status; a shift in employer hiring practices in sectors that employ undocumented workers; increased competition from newIy legalized workers; and a general decay of economic conditions after 1986.
The IRCA has only led to increased racism and discrimination because of predicaments it makes for employers. Philips and Massey 1999 [Julia A. and Douglas S. The New Labour Market: Immigrants and Wages after IRCA, Demography, Vol. 36, No, 2 (May, 1999), pp. 233-246. http://links.istor.or.glsici?sici=00703370%28 199905%2936%3A2%3C233%3ATNLMIA%3E2.0.~0%3 B2-GJ
A prominent criticism of IRCA at its inception was that employer sanctions would lead to increased discrimination by employers against all workers of foreign demeanor, most notably Hispanics, regardless of legal status (Bean et al. 1989; Perotti 1992). Civil libertarians feared that employers would use physical appearance or accent as a proxy for legal status in order to bypass IRCA's burdensome paperwork requirements or to avoid the possibility of prosecution. Several studies provide evidence that discrimination grew in response to IRCA's employer sanctions. Despite precautions included in the legislation to reduce potential discrimination, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO; 1990:3) concluded that a "widespread pattern of discrimination" emerged after the implementation of employer sanctions. In a survey of U.S.employers, the GAO found that 19% of employers admitted to some form of discriminatory treatment on the basis of national origin or citizenship after the passage of IRCA (Perotti 1992; U.S. General Accounting Office 1990). Independent studies confirm a widespread pattern of discrimination by employers toward foreign-looking individuals. Lowell, Teachman, and Jing (1995) showed that employers who reported discriminatory practices hired fewer Hispanic workers than did other employers, although the reduction in Hispanic employment was relatively small (an average of 0.15% fewer Hispanic workers for employers who reported discrimination compared with employers who did not). Another study by the U.S. Department of Labor (1991) suggested that employers who have trouble finding authorized workers are more likely to discriminate by verifying the documentation of only foreign-appearing individuals. Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

IRCA CP SOLVENCY (313)
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
IRCA increases wage discrimination and has decreased the minimum wage many immigrants receive, profoundly effecting the US labour market. Durand, Massey, Parrado '99 [Jorge, Douglas S. and Emilio A, The Journal of American History, Vol. 86, No 2, Rethinking History and the Nation-State: Mexico and the United States as a Case Study: A Special Issue. (Sep, 1999), pp. 518-536. http;//links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002-8723%28 199909%2986%3A2%3C518%3ATNEOMN%3E2.O.C0%3B2-H] 1
IRCA'S employer sanctions also had profound effects on the United States labor market. In developing them, the United States Congress was mindful of the needs of employers, requiring that sanctions be applied graduulb to give them time to adjust to the new regime. Congress also did not require employers to verify the authenticity of documents offered by laborers to prove their identity and right to work in the United States. Instead, they simply had to fill out an 1-9 form to demonstrate they had seen what appeared to be valid documents. Even if these documents later turned out to be false and the worker was deported, the employer was not liable to prosecution if he or she could produce an 1-9 form and a photocopy of the document they had seen. The predictable result was a boom in the market for fraudulent documents.18 Despite the low odds of prosecution under the law, employers did face some new risks, particularly if they relied heavily on unauthorized labor. To compensate themselves for these new risks, employers embarked on a pattern of systematic wage discrimination against Latinos in general and undocumented Mexicans in particular. Rather than taking the time and trouble to identify which migrants were undocumented, they simply discriminated against foreign-looking workers; and rather than denying them jobs, they simply lowered their wages. l9 Among foreigners, post-IRCA wage discrimination was especially severe against undocumented migrants. Whereas before IRCA undocumented migrants earned the same wages as documented migrants, and rates of pay were determined largely by education, United States experience, and English language ability, afterward undocumented migrants earned wages that were 28 percent less than those earned by documented migrants; and rather than being determined by schooling, experience, and English ability, they were determined by a person's social contacts. As wages deteriorated for undocumented migrants in the wake of IRCA, so did working conditions, with higher proportions earning wages below the legal minimum and larger numbers working under irregular drcumstan~es.~~ As table 1 indicates, entry-level wages for undocumented Mexican workers averaged $4.8 1 during 1980-1986, rose temporarily to $5.14 during the transition period, and then fell to $4.44 during 19911996 (expressed in constant 1990 dollars).

LOPEZ CP SOLVENCY(113)
Immigration Neg I1
I --
States are best to protect immigrant rights because of the levels and branches of State policy systems Wells 02 [Miriam J. Professor, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, from a Paper prepared for presentation at the AFL-CIO/ Michigan State University Workers' Rights Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, October, 20021 In sum, the disparity between the exclusion of illegal immigrants intended by federal policy, and their frequent inclusion within the protected "we" of local communities as the law is enforced, is due in part to the structure of the U.S. nation-state and the openings it creates for alternative representations and realizations of federal policy. That is, the varying. ambiguous. and often conflicting responsibilities and rights of the different levels and branches of the state. which are embedded in and legitimated by legal culture, have created opportunities for advocates to marshal normative arguments of their own as to the issues and values at stake, so as to mobilize the power of competing government elements to protect immigrants' rights. As we have seen, three facets of state structural complexity have provided openings for such initiatives: its multiple levels, its decentralized agencies, and its diverse administrative branches.
The States will and have protected immigrant rights and this action transforms social views on immigrants and immigration. Wells 02 [Miriam J. Professor, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, from a Paper prepared for presentation at the AFL-CIOI Michigan State University Workers' Rights Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, October, 20021 In the first case, local governments have used the disiuncture in normative mandates and legal prerogatives between the federal and subordinate levels of government to legitimate the passage of limited cooperation ordinances which not only restore to illegal immigrants rights and social services that are denied them at the federal level, but also withdraw from the INS auxiliary personnel, information, and facilities which its agents commonly utilize and benefit from. As a result, while such ordinances do not alter the formal terms of national policy, they can constrict the extent and shape the manner of its enforcement. This structural opening and form of argumentation are being widelv utilized to protect immigrants in another venue as well-that of labour and employment rights-through policies passed bv state and local governments that apply to firms that contract with them. All of these measures express. and put the Dower of the local level of the state behind, a challenge to federal policv and practice. In this wav they both mediate, and help to diffuse. value conflicts between the two levels. States are the best actors to protect and increase immigrant rights and inclusion because of the local connection to immigrants. Wells 02 [Miriam J. Professor, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, from a Paper prepared for presentation at the AFL-CIOI Michigan State University Workers' Rights Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, October, 20021 These processes mean that the actual impacts of U.S. immigration policy and the role of the state in effecting; them are much more varied, unpredictable. and malleable than often recognized. Thev provide support for William Sewell Jr.'s claim (1 992) that the power inherent in social structures is actualized through the intervention of human agents deploving value-based arguments. They indicate as well that, although in theory immigration volicv is (until recentlv) solely a federal responsibility, in fact, its impacts are influenced signally by the concerns and strategies of local actors. This study provides insight into the circumstances that give rise to and empower local disagreements with federal policy. Irnmiaant-inclusive outcomes are most likelv in localities where immigrants form a sizable ort ti on of local residents, are hinhlv connected among themselves and with native-born co-ethnics, are politic all^ active and influential. and comprise a significant part of the local economy. Legal advocates are important spearheaders of immigrant-inclusive challenges, as many of the principled grounds for contesting the practice of immigration law are rooted in legal culture. Alliances between employer and immigrant advocate groups have also proven effective, as both have reason to oppose the apprehension of illegal immigrants and the former can wield considerable political clout.

LOPEZ CP SOLVENCY (213)
Immigration Neg II
The State is the best and only actor to increase immigrant inclusivity, federal policy only casts immigrants as outsiders. Wells 02 [Miriam J. Professor, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, from a Paper prepared for presentation at the AFL-CIOI Michigan State University Workers' Rights Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, October, 20021 Finally, the increasing transnational embeddedness of the U.S. populace and state contributes to immigrant-inclusive outcomes as well. The involvement of the U.S. in international political accords exposes the nation to international censure for its treatment of immigrants, opening new structural channels, audiences, and standards for their protection. Although agreements such as NAALC lack strong enforcement sanctions, they constitute a forum within which domestic labour standards enforcement can be challenged by forcing a nation's courts and executive institutions to evaluate the country's labour practices against international standards. And, as we have seen, such challenges can alter domestic practice. For their part, transnational population flows have altered the composition and political dynamics of many U.S. communities. bringing new meaning to the term "membership." Such communities are now comprised of individuals distinguished by multiple boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, including ethnicity. national and regional origin, language, and immigration status. Such individuals live and work alongside each other. forming bonds of common commitment to local place. And as thev do so. discriminatow socio-political structures and practices within the U.S. can victimize all comparablv. melting the felt distinctions among them. In such contexts. undocumented immigrants cast as outsiders bv federal policy are perceived as insiders by local residents. The treatment and protection of Immigrants should and does fall to the State Wells 02 [Miriam J. Professor, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, from a Paper prepared for presentation at the AFL-CIO/ Michigan State University Workers' Rights Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, October,
20021
This article argues that the divergence between the immigrant-exclusive intent of federal policy and its often immigrant-inclusive implementation is in part attributable to the multi-layered complexity of the American nation-state and the openings it creates for alternative interpretations and concretizations of federal policy. Moreover, although in theory the capacitv to make and enforce immigration policv is reserved to the federal level of government. in practice. the status and treatment of unauthorized immi~rants the on ground are highly dependent on the political-economic features of local communities and the concerns and strategies of local actors. That is, in contrast to the characterizations of the "state" found in resource mobilization theories of social movements that portray it as a unitarv. cohesive, and determinant structure whose operation effects an integrated and predictable pattern of intent and implementation that either provides or withholds resources from movement actors (Jenkins 1985; Tilly 1978), I hope to show that the U.S. state is comprised of multiple and intersecting administrative layers and branches with varying and often conflicting goals, operating norms, and purviews of legitimate authoritv relating to immigrants' rights. These are embedded in legal statutes and precedents which constitute a body of cultural principles that shape and legitimate the functioning of state structures and allocation of state resources.

LOPEZ CP SOLVENCY (313)
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
The CP is critical the inclusion of Immigrants into local communities and America as a whole, the state and local communities are the best to solve. Wells 02 [Miriam J. Professor, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, fiom a Paper prepared for presentation at the AFL-CIO/ Michigan State University Workers' Rights Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, October, 20021 The Anglo-American common law tradition increases the ambiguity and contestability of government policies, in that it bases the law on legal precedents which interpret written statutes based on cases set in particular and varying circumstances. Because of the specificity of those circumstances and the weight given local custom in common law systems; the applicability of a precedent is often unclear and always contestable. The U.S. federal system of government further widens the window for contestation, in that it protects the relative autonomy of city, county. and state governments fiom federal authority, fostering their formation of divergent policies and norms. Administrative agencies, as well, are significantly decentralized, so that mandates issued nationally may be modified or overridden locally. Finally, the increasing embeddedness of the U.S. state within the fabric of international agreements enhances its structural complexity by creating new institutional pathways. standards. and sanctions that can be mobilized around immigrants' rights. This multifaceted, ambiguous, and internally contradictory, structure, I contend, creates opportunities for-even encoura~es+pponents of federal immigration policv to marshal normative arguments of their own as to the issues and principles at stake, so as to mobilize the power of competing government levels and branches in order to protect immigrants' rights. It is through such intervention, I suggest, the bounds of civic inclusion are established and the vower inherent in state structure, actualized. As a result of this dynamic, the terms of U.S. immigration policv and the role of the state in implementing it are much less fixed, predictable. or consistent than might appear at first dance, and they are cruciallv impacted by culture and human agency. Moreover, although in theory the capacity to make and enforce immigration policy is reserved to the federal level of government, in practice, the status and treatment of unauthorized immigrants on the ground are significantly dependent on the political-economic features of local communities and the concerns and strategies of local actors.

PRAS COUNTERPLAN
Bipartisan support for PRAs
Liebman, 2005 (Jeffrey B., Ph.D. '96, is associate professor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Government, "Reforming Social Security: Not all
privatization schemes are created equat", HarvardMagazine, March-April, http://www.ha~ardmagazine.com/on-line/0305S2.html)
<The current discussion of wavs to reform the U.S. Social Securitv retirement svstem is becoming increasinglv polarized over the issue of "privatization." This divide unfortunatelv obscures the fact that the views of most Democrats and Republicans on the subiect are not that far apart: a bipartisan solution should be achievable. More imoortant. bv lumping together all reforms that involve personal retirement accounts (PRAs). this voIarization obscures critical differences between PRA-based vlans that raise future standards of living and preserve the social-insurance features of the current svstem, and those that have few or no economic benefits to offset their high administrative costs, added risk, and reduced redistribution from rich to poor. Given that a PRA-based plan may well be enacted in the next few years, it is critical that the public understand that all such plans are not created equal.>
PRAs will be able to solve the social security collapse Diaz-Balart, 2005 (Mario, "Personal Retirement Accounts Will Boost Social Security", February 2gfh,http://www.house.gov/mariodiazbalart~news/columns/0228O5~democratsocialsecurity.htm)
<Bv including voluntarv versonal retirement accounts. we can h e l strengthen Social Securitv for future generations. These accounts caq ~ helv give low-income families and minorities a better and brighter financial future. Let me be clear, Congress will not pass any reform that would change benefits for current and near-retirees. Social Security is the only source of retirement income for 41 percent of elderly Hispanics, so it is extremely important that elderly Americans continue to receive all of the benefits that have been promised to them. As for Social Security's financial future, many Democrats hold illusions that Social Security is fine. The reality is that the oronram faces to serious problems down the road. In only 13 years - bv 2018 - Social Securitv is ~roiected receive less in oavroll taxes than it will oav out in benefits. Social Securitv then will be forced to beg& cashinv in its stored bonds. but the federal government will need to nav for that shortfall somehow - most likelv with sharp ~avroll hikes and steeD benefit cuts. Democrats may not have a problem with this, but tax President Bush and Republicans do. Not onlv do we want to make Social Securitv uermanentlv solvent. we also want to helr, people create nest evvs for themselves and their families. Personal retirement accounts can help accomplish this voal and would be a boon for all Americans. especiallv Hisvanics and other minorities. Bv making a change that allows younger workers to voluntarilv place a small portion of their Social Securitv taxes in personal retirement accounts. we can take a promising step toward fixing: Social Securitv for future generations while still fullv protecting benefits for retirees and near-retirees. For the first time, low-income individuals would have the opportunity to pass nest egg on to their children or grandchildren.> PRAs solve the inherent racism of the current social security and dramatically solve poverty Diaz-Balart, 2005 (Mario, a member of the House Budget Committee , "Personal Retirement Accounts Will Boost Social Security", http://www.house.gov/mariodiaz-balart/news/columns/O228O5~democratsocialsecurity.htm) February 2sth, <His~anics hard-working. familv-oriented people. Like most Americans, they want financial security and they also want an are opportunity to build nest eggs that they can pass on to their families. Unfortunately, because manv His~anics currentlv work in low- or middle-income iobs. thev lack the real oooortunitv to out anv monev aside for retirement. Thev also are often too reoccupied with meeting their dav-to-dav and month-to-month financial needs to focus on saving for their retirement. Some Democrats. including members of Congress. sav a versonal retirement account is a riskv gamble. But if a versonal retirement account is such a gamble. then whv do members of Congress ~ a r t i c i ~ ainea program for their retirement similar to what President Bush is uroposina for even, other t American? Trust me, if these accounts were a bad idea, members of Congress would never participate in them. Instead, it is for that very reason that we should allow people to create their own Social Security personal retirement accounts. It allows them the opportunity to invest in our country while also giving them the opportunity to build a secure nest egg. In any case, if it is good enough for members of Congress, then it should be good enough for every other American. Hispanics are a proud people who want to provide for their families. They support low taxes and prefer having a say in their retirement rather than rely on faceless bureaucrats. President Bush's Social Security reform principles fit them to a tee. B B create retirement income. increasing. wealth in low-income and moderate-income households. and encouraging indenendence from the government. As Naomi Lopez Bauman, a member of The Heritage Foundation's Mandate for Leadership Working Group on Social to Security Reform, has noted: "personal retirement accounts. even with modest rates of return. have an enormous ~otential boost retirement income and reduce ~overtv dramaticallv. Personal retirement accounts also have the votential to promote intergenerational wealth for all socioeconomic ~rouvs."

PRAS COUNTERPLAN
PRAs allow people to actually keep their money which prevents a politically motivated congress from seizing retirement money John, 2004 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "How to Fix Social Security", Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #I81 1, November 17, htt~://www.herita~e.org/Research/SocialSecurity/be.l8ll .cfm)
<A kev feature of this svstem is that workers would own their accounts. Everv cent that goes into the PRA would benefit either the worker or the worker's familv. Althouph the worker would not be able to use this monev until retirement. the fact that he or she owns it and is able to see how the monev is being used would help to Drevent future Con-messes from attempting to seize retirement monev for some uoliticallv motivated purwose. In addi-tion, if the worker dies before retirement. amounts left in the PRA after providing for any survivors' benefits would PO into the worker's estate and could be left to the familv. a church. or anv other worthv cause designated bv the worker. >
PRAs won't effect the retired John, 2004 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "How to Fix Social Security", Heritage Foundation , Backgrounder #1811, November 17, http://www.heritage.orrz/Research/SocialSecurity/bgl811 .cfin) <Current Retirees Would Not Be Affected. No system of PRAs would affect current retirees in any way. Thev would receive everv cent including an annual cost-of-living increase. This would also be true for workers near-inn retirement, that thev have been ~rornised. Because thev would not have the abilitv to alter their retirement savings signifi-cantlv. all workers above a certain age (which would be determined in part by the structure of the specific PRA plan) would also receive their full promised Social Securitv retirement benefits, includin~ cost-of-living increases. Depending on the plan. this age could be as high as 60 or as low as in the 40s. In most cases. it would reflect the worker's age on the date that the plan goes into effect. even if it is announced well before then.> PRAs would be voluntary - workers would have the choice between the current system o r a personal one John, 2004 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "How to Fix Social Security", Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #I811, November 17, http://www.heritarze.or~!Research/SocialSecuri~/brz18 11 .cfn~) <PRAs would be voluntarv. Younger workers would have the ovuortunitv either to oven a PRA or to continue in the current svstem and accept whatever benefits it could afford to uav at their retirement. Because the PRA wlan would allow the worker the o~wortunitv to receive higher retirement benefits than the government-paid svstem could afford to uav. workers would automaticallv have a PRA unless t thev o ~out of the svstem.[7] Opting out could be accomplished by filing a simple form with the Social Security Administration or even by checking a box on the workers' income tax forms.> PRAs work best when combined with the current social security system - empirical solvency John, 2004 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "How to Fix Social Security", Heritage Foundation , Backgrounder #I811, November 17,
<In the future, Social Securitv retirement benefits should come from both the current government-paid program, which would become Social Securitv Part A. and from the individual worker's PRA. which will be known as Social Securitv Part B. Workers should be able to choose whether to relv totallv on Part A or to invest a portion of their retirement taxes through Part B. As shown bv the experience of over 25 countries. including the United Kingdom. Sweden. Switzerland. and Aus-tralia. PRAs can helw workers to irn~rove their retirement incomes without unreasonable risks. At the same time, simply establishing PRAs is not sufficient. Social Security Part B should be designed to give workers more control over how their retirement income is structured by allowing them to build nest eggs. Upon retirement, these nest eggs could be used to increase monthly income, reserved for an emergency, or left to family members. In the event that the worker dies before retirement, these nest eggs would remain a part of the worker's estate and could be passed on to heirs.>

PRAS COUNTERPLAN
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
A PRA would solve the social security problems of the status quo John, 2004 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "How to Fix Social Security", Heritage Foundation , Backgrounder #1811, November 17, http:/iwww.herita~e.or~/Research/SocialSecurit~lbn18h ) 11 . c
<According to the Congressional Budget Office, approximately 80 nercent of Americans aav more in aawoll taxes than in federal income u . [ l ] Today's Social Securitv svstem urovides retirees with a stable retirement income and a level of vrotection against uovertv caused bv disabilitv or the premature death of a uarent or spouse. Despite the presence of private methods to invest for retirement, in 200 1 approximately one-third of retirees on Social Securitv received at least 90 Dercent of their income from that program. Almost two-thirds of them deuended on Social Securitv for at least 50 Dercent of their retirement income.[2] These workers would likelv benefit the most from a PRA that allowed them to invest some of their uavroll taxe$.>
Personal Retirement Account solves a 1 the problems of the current social security system John, 2004 (David C., Research Fellow in Social Security and Financial Institutions in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy y Studies at The Heritage Foundation, "How to Fix Social Security ', Heritage Foundation , Backgrounder #18I 1, November 17, htt~://www.heritarse.org/Research/SocialSecuri/b1811 .cfin)
<A practical framework for establishing a successful PRA moeram would: "Create an account structure that uses a portion of existing pavroll taxes and allows workers of all income levels an o~uortunitv build familv nest eggs. The PRAs would be voluntary and would to not affect current retirees or those close to retirement in anv wav. The Social Securitv PRAs should be funded bv directing a portion of their Social Securitv retirement taxes into their P u s . About 5 nercent of income would be best. but the directed portion should not be low-cost administrative structure for the accounts that uses the cur-rent less than 2 percent or more than 10 Dercent. *Create a sirn~le, pavroll tax svstem and vrofessional investment managers. Usine the existing ~av-rolltax svstem would reduce costs. Rather than having the government invest PRA monev. the agencv overseeing the accounts should contract out fund management to nrofessional fund managers. *Create a carefullv controlled set of investment options that includes an avurouriate default option. Initiallv. workers would be allowed to uut their PRA contributions into anv one of three balanced and diversified mixes of stock index funds, government bonds. and similar aension-grade investments. *Adiust current Social Securitv benefits to a more sustainable level. Desaite uromises from both the left and the right to pav uromised benefits in full. this is simvlv not realistic. While current retirees and those close to retirement should receive everv cent that thev are due. future benefit nromises must be scaled back to more realistic levels. *Create a realistic plan for pavine the general revenue cost of establishing a PRA svs-tem. The necessarv general revenue will have to come from some combination of borrowing additional monev. collectine additional taxes. reducin~ other government spending. and reducin~ Social Securitv benefits. While some Representatives and Senators will be tempted to cover Social Securitv's deficits with higher taxes. this is the wrong auuroach. The necessarv amounts are so large that such a tax increase would consume enough resources to stall economic growth. *Create a svstem that allows workers flexibilitv in structuring their retirement benefits while ensuring that thev receive an adeauate monthlv benefit. A PRA plan should reauire all retirees to use some of that monev to purchase an annuitv that would guarantee at least a minimal level of income for life. includine an adiustment for inflation. This reauirement would nrotect taxpavers against retirees who could otherwise spent their entire P M s and then e x ~ e csome form of government handout to meet their monthlv expenses.> t

WALL COUNTERPLAN
/ --
Immigration Neg I1
Legalization would only create a greater incentive for illegal immigration. Krauthammer 06 [Krauthammer, Charles. (Columnist) "Time to get a backbone on immigration; Quit stalling and build a border wall." Editorial. Chicago Tribune 10 Apr. 2006, final ed.: 19.1 Every sensible immigration policv has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters, and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 1 1 million illegals among us. Start with the second. No one of goodwill wants to see these 11 million suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come. We say, of course. that this will be the verv last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-timeamnesty. The problem is that we say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows it's uhony. What do you think was said when in 1986 we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform? It turned into the largest legalization program in American history--nearly 3 million got permanent residency. And we are now back at it again with 1 1 million new illegals in our midst. How can it be otherwise? We already have a river of people coming every day knowing they're going to be illegal and verhaus even exploited. Thev come nonetheless. The newest amnesty-the "earned legalization" now being dangled in fiont of them by urowosed Senate legislation--can only increase the flow. Those who think employer sanctions will control immigration are dreaming. Employer sanctions were the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli. They are not only useless. they are pernicious. They turn employers into enforcers of border control. That is the job of government, not landscapers. Building a fence would virtually halt illegal immigration and allow the government to be infinitely more generous with current illegals in the U.S. Krauthammer 06 [Krauthammer, Charles. (Columnist) "Time to get a backbone on immigration; Quit stalling and build a border wall." Editorial. Chicago Tribune 10 Apr. 2006, final ed.: 19.1 My proposition is the following: A vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new--i.e., future--illegal immigration. Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it. then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put cameras. Put sensors. Put out lots of patrols. Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out votential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immiwants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the last 50 years. Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keeu truck bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessitv trumps aesthetics. And don't tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that's a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that's an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat. sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one. Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It simplv has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once we humanizing the situation of our 11 million existing illegals. If the government can do that. everything becomes vossible--most es~eciallv. can demonstrate that it can control future immigration. there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as journalist Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical means. Then shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last. This is no time for mushy compromise. A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke our laws to come to America. This is not a compromise meant to appease both sides without achieving anything. It is not some piece of hybrid legislation that arbitrarily divides illegals into those with five-year-old "roots" in America and those without, or some such mischief-making nonsense. This is full amnestv (earned with back taxes and learning English and the like) with full border controI. If we do it right. not only will we solve the problem, we will get it done as one nation.

2006-2007
WALL COUNTERPLAN
Immigration Neg II
1 --
Building a border wall would dramatically lower the risk of terrorism in the U.S. Kobach 06 [Kobach, Kris (Prof. Law @ U. Missouri-Kansas City). Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony, House International Relations, "Border Vulnerabilities and International Terrorism". CQ Congressional Testimony, I/n. July 5,20061 It is undeniable that terrorists have entered the United States by crossing our land borders illegally. The empirical evidence of terrorist entw is significant. Several cases are now publiclv known. For example, on January 15,2004, Mahmoud Kourani was indicted in Dearborn, Michigan, for conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization (Hezbollah). He had entered the B i t e d Bates by bribing a Mexican official to wrovide him a visa to enter Mexico. and then paying a coyote to smuggle him across the border into the United States. Kourani came to the attention of the INS while living with other illegal aliens in Dearborn and was initially imprisoned on immigration charges. It was later learned that he had trained with Hezbollah in Iran and Lebanon and was raising money for Hezbollah in the United States. Another example that has been made public is that of A1 Qaeda terrorist Farida Ahmed. On July 19,2004, Ahmed was arrested in McAllen, Texas after crossing into the B i t e d b t e s three days earlier. She had waded across the Rio Grande. and was bound for New York Citv. Terrorists know all about our porous southern border, and these cases demonstrate how effectively they have exploited it. And since 9/11 we have increased our securitv at ports of entrv, which makes illegal border crossing an even more attractive means of entrv. Moreover. we know that Hezbollah and Hamas maintain an active presence in the tri-border region of Brazil. Argentina, and Paraguay. In addition to these specific cases, there are statistics suggesting that the number of terrorists crossing our southern border may be much higher than we think. In Fiscal Year 2005. the Border Patrol Apprehended 3.722 aliens from nations that are either designated state sponsors of terrorism or places in which A1 Oaeda has operated.3 We also know that for every one alien the Border Patrol apwehends. there may be three aliens who are not caught. If this is the case, then more than 10.000 aliens from highrisk, terroristaiHociated countries illegally entered the D i t e d Bates, in FY 2005. Obviously the majority of these aliens are not terrorists. But if onlv one in a thousand were. that would still be ten terrorists who successfully crossed our borders. The construction of additional fencing on the borders is an absolutelv essential response to this terrorist threat. Physical walls have been shown to dramatically reduce the flow of illegal aliens into the United States. in those sectors where substantial walls exist.

AGAMBEN LINKS
Immigration Neg II
/ --
Citizenship creates distinctions between "us" and "them." Giving undocumented workers citizenship only makes a boundary between an inside "family" and the "stranger" outsiders. Lee, '06. (Charles T., lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Southern California. "Tactile Citizenship: Domestic Workers, the remainders of home, and undocumented citizen participation in the third space of mimicry." The John Hopkins University Press, 2006. Project Muse.) The first feature of citizenshiv basicallv means that conventional citizenship is defined by a dichotomous, binaw logic of either/or, in or out, citizen or illegal, member or stranger. As Judith Shklar points out, "In any modern state and especially in an immigrant society, citizenship must always refer primarily to nationality."" For most liberal and civic republican theorists, citizenshir, is onlv for those who are already "in" as members: onlv citizens of a particular state get to partake in citizen participation in that state. The in-or-out boundary of citizenship is traditionally determined by principles of ius sanguinis (bloodline) and ius soli (birthplace). Democratic theorists from Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith to Michael Walzer have charged against this "ascriptive" notion of citizenship based on immutable characteristics and propose instead a "consensual" conception of citizenship in which political membership is determined by mutual consent -- granted by the person seeking citizenship as well as by the existing c i t i ~ e n r y This seemingly democratic "consensual" notion .~ of citizenship, however, fortifies rather than loosens the binary distinction between citizens and outsiders. For example, Schuck and Smith's vision of democratic consent, as Honig argues, is persistently haunted by the "willful lawbreaker" of the illegal alien who "never consents to American laws, and 'we' never consent to his presence on 'our' territory."jO Membershin based on consent amplifies the division between "us" and "them." Walzer, while arguing that migrant workers who are admitted through democratic consent by the republic must be naturalized as members and given citizenship. nonetheless presents the imagery of the political communitv as a sacred "family" (rather than a neighborhood or a club) to re-demarcate the boundary between "members" and stranger^."^ While for Walzer, there can be "no stranger in this family,"G he neglects that the family always carries the shadow of stranpers. As Phil Cole argues, the "existence of a liberal politv made up of free and equal citizens rests upon the existence of outsiders who are refused a share of. . . its The more we put emphasis on national membership as that of a "familv," the more likely that we label. make distinction of, and ostracize the strangers as distant and unrelated others. Placing values on citizenship hardens the distinction between the citizen and the non-citizen, and views aliens as inferior. Bosniak, '98. (Linda, professor of law at Rutgers with a focus in immigration and citizenship law. "The Citizenship of Aliens." Social Text, No. 56. Autumn, 1998, pp. 29-35. JSTOR.) What we are seeing in these various developments is an effort to reinvigorate, or revalorize the legal status of citizenship in this countryeither by making citizenshir, count for more. or by making it harder to obtain. or both. Revaluing citizenship in this context means, among other things. hardening the distinction between citizen and non-citizen. or citizen and alien. in legal parlance-and it means increased institutional exclusion of immimants on account of their alienage. The effort to revalue citizenship. in other words. entails a devaluation of the figure of the alien.
Unless universal citizenship is offered, there will always be distinctions between the privileged citizen and the '%econd-class" alien. Bosniak, '98, (Linda, professor of law at Rutgers with a focus in immigration and citizenship law. "The Citizenship of Aliens." Social Text, No. 56. Autumn, 1998, pp. 29-35. JSTOR.) In light of the foregoing, aliens pose a special challenge for citizenship theory. Aliens suffer social exclusion within the communitv like other mar~inalized groups. but they are not quite like other groups (such as African Americans, or women, for example) whose historical exclusion from citizenship is now regarded as uniust. Certainly, aspects of aliens' treatment may appear to be uniust. But a citizenship project that is conceive in national terms arguably presupposes at least some divide between citizens and aliens: it arguably requires some limitations on access to citizens hi^ and the privileging of citizens over aliens. As long as states do not accord citizenship automatically to every person who enters the national territory-something most states are not inclined to do-aliens will exist as a categ;orv. and as long as they exist, thev will enjoy "second-class" citizenship by definition.

ASSIMILATION LINKS
Link-Citizenship: The process of granting citizenship forces immigrants to become Americanized. Fonte and Carens, 2000 (John, Senior Fellow and director for American Common Culture; and Joseph, professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto. "Cantigny Conference Series." Center for Immigration Studies, July 2000. http://www.cis.org/articles/cantigny/proceedings.htmI)
The overriding principle that ought to govern naturalization, he said, is the conception of "binding vrosvective citizens to their new country." This involves informing the applicant o f what it means to be an American; who we are and where we came from; our demand of a commitment to the U.S. Constitution, and a commitment to the "value and principles of liberal democracv." The purpose of naturalization, he said, is to "Americanize" immigrants. which means putting them through "a process of civic assimilation." The argument that other countries have no such concern for civic education is irrelevant, Bahmueller said; the United States has such an interest, and has had it for a long time.
Link-AmeriCorps: AmeriCorps is used to instill patriotic, American values into its participants, forcing immigrants to assimilate. Gerber, 2001. (Robin, senior fellow at the Academy of Leadership, University of Maryland. "For a new kind of draft." Christian Science Monitor, November 13,2001. www.csmonitor.com) John McCain believes AmeriCorps should build in everv participant a sense of American values. With elegance, he writes that those "who claim their liberty but not their duty to the civilization that ensures it live a half-life, indulging their self-interest at the cost of their selfrespect." There's no better way to teach duty than to live it: no better way to understand the blessings of liberty than to help secure them for another American. Now is the time for our national leaders to use the fervor of patriotic passion to act boldIv. Now is the time when the public will be receptive to the idea of compulsory service that teaches young people the meaning of being an American. "National defense means more than military training," Eleanor Roosevelt said in 1940. "It means the building up of physique, of character, and of a people conscious of what they owe to their country and what it means to them."
Link-Civic education/National service: Civic education and national service have historically been tools to assimilate immigrants. Steinlight, 2004. (Dr. Stephen M., Director of National Affairs and Senior Fellow at the American Jewish Committee. High Noon to Midnight: Does Current American Immigration Policy Doom American Jewry?" Center for Immigration Studies, 2004. http://www.cis.org/articlesL!O04/steinlight2.htm1)
Perhaps the most important distinction between todav's immigrants and those of yesteryear is the absence of the tacit and overt pressures that eventually forced assimilation upon even the most reluctant immigrant mouvs. These forces have been weakened bv the prevailing multiculturalist ideology that legitimizes and reinforces identity politics, the demise of Americanization programs that inculcated patriotic assimilation (multiculturalism denies the very existence or even desirability of a legitimate, cohesive American culture), the death of civic education, the rise of bilingualism, and the elimination of anv obligation to do national service. As noted, it is massive immigration itself that creates Balkanizing multiculturalism; it did not fall from the sky.

NATIONALISM LINKS
I --
Immigration Neg 11
Changing immigration policies to incorporate guest workers in American membership is a move towards nationalism. Joppke and Morawska, '03. (Christian, professor of poIitica1 and social sciences at the European University Institute; and Ewa, Professor of Sociology and History at the University of Pennsylvania. "Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States." Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY. Copyright 2003. pg. 120) As Soysal notes, Tomas Hammar and others have referred to this territorially based membership as "denizenship." But she suggests that this concept, which "remain[s] within the confines of the nation-state model," is an inadequate description: "[Tlhe incorporation of guestworkers is no mere expansion of the scope of national citizenship. nor is it an irremlaritv. Rather, it reveals a profound transformation in the institution of citizenship. both in its institutional logic and the way it is legitimated. To locate the changes. we need to go beyond the nation-state." Again. from the national perspective. it is true that the extension of rights to non-citizens represents a fundamental shift in approach. But the "incorporation" of immigrants in terms of membership rights has been and continues to be the rule-the logic, if you will-of the American membership system. At least since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, immigrants have been protected by the Constitution and federal laws against unfriendly state regulation. And the welfare state established in the twentieth centurv had generally been understood to benefit lawful immigrants as well as citizens-at least until the round of antiimmigration legislation enacted in the mid-1990s. Indeed, that legislation, disentitling lawful immigrants from most means-tested social programs, shows that if anv movement is taking place in US membership models, it is a drift towards the nationalist model than towards the postnational model.
Immigration Neg I1
I --
Assimilation is an act of governmental coercion. Assimilation can only truly be voluntary when there aren't policies, like the plan, encouraging a culture change. Baubock, '96. (Rainer, quals. "Cultural Minority Rights for Immigrants." International Migration Review,Vol. 30, No. 1, Special Issue: Ethics, Migration, and Global Stewardship. Spring, 1996, pp. 203-250. JSTOR.) Thirdly, individuals may also try to change their membership and assimilate into another culture. In this case, constraints are not only set by the group of present membership but also by the group of potential affiliation. Whether assimilation is an ovtion thus depends not just on individual efforts, but on the power of the group which they leave and of the group which they could join. Individual freedom of choice is seriouslv infringed when assimilation is either denied or coerced. Assimilation is denied when people who want to change their cultural membership are prevented from doing so because their present group restricts exit or because the group they wish to join denies them entry. Assimilation may be coerced bv a group of origin when it expels a member and thus forces her to seek protection in another cultural environment. More frequently, dominant cultural groups coerce individuals who would prefer to remain attached to their culture or origin into assimilation by denying them the liberties and resources necessary to keep that culture alive. Assimilation thus can be called voluntary only if all these constraints on individual choice are absent or rather weak. Denied assimilation leads to cultural segregation and coerced assimilation to homogenization. Assimilationist or segregationist regimes have often required remarkable internal stability by removing cultural conflict from the political agenda. However, these are illegitimate options for liberal democracy. Coercion is normally easy to recognize where a state imposes cultural segregation. The matter is slightly more complicated for coerced assimilation. Changing a cultural membership (e.g. by adopting a new language for daily use or converting to another religion) cannot be whollv involuntary because it involves an effort on the individual's side. However, voluntariness reauires more-the presence of several options and the absence of strow external pressure to choose among them. Assimilation should therefore be considered as involuntary if a state denies recognition to a minoritv culture. Contrary to what many representatives of minorities think. defending voluntary assimilation therefore can be reconciled with their most basic claims. In order to make assimilation truly voluntary. national majorities would have to refrain from undermining a minority's capabilitv of cultural reproduction and should not require abandoning a minority affiliation as a precondition for equal citizenship and opportunities. Given the enormous amount of resources monopolized bv modern states and used in the service of cultural reproduction of majorities. these negative demands of noninterference also imply some nositive claims for a reallocation of resources. Moreover, in the context of modern societies the denial of assimilation is often more harmful to minority members than coercion. Racism attributes to certain minorities a natural inability to assimilate into the allegedly superior culture. Those individuals who try nevertheless are perceived as the most dangerous elements who subvert the racial purity of the dominant group. A liberal cultural majority, however, will regard minority members as capable of changing their cultural aflfrliation, will normally not require them to assimilate, but will recognize them as members of the majority if they do.

ASSIMILATION IMPACTS
/ --
Immigration Neg I1
Assimilation clashes with transnational identities. It doesn't help immigrants, but rather blocks their opportunities. Joppke and Morawska, '03. (Christian, professor of political and social sciences at the European University Institute; and Ewa, Professor of Sociology and History at the University of Pennsylvania. "Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States." Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY. Copyright 2003. pg. 25) However, the coexistence of assimilation and sustained transnational identities and participation has often caused tensions in the lives of immigrants and their children. As reported in the United States and in Europe, discomfort has been most common. and most painful, for members of non-white immigrant groups as the result of the contradictory effects of assimilation and racial integration into the host societv. For these immigrants and their offspring. internation into the host society entails also loss of the social status associated with nonwhite racial or non-Western (i.e., Judeo-Christian) religious membership and the blocking rather than opening of advancement opportunities. As Mary Waters observes in the US case, "this turns the basic assumption of assimilation theories [that host-country identitv bestows the higher status1 on its head," because acquiring the identitv of the receiving society now implies downward mobility (Waters 1999: 93; for a similar situation in Europe see Wrench and Solomos 1993; Baumgartl and Favell 1995).

STATE POLICIES AFFECT ASSIMILATION
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
State policies influence the integration of immigrants into the receiver society. Joppke and Morawska, '03. (Christian, professor of political and social sciences at the European University Institute; and Ewa, Professor of Sociology and History at the University of Pennsylvania. "Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States." Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY. Copyright 2003. pg. 26) The new immigrant transnationalism was originally conceptualized as a strategy of resistance "from below" by members of marginalizes and underprivileged racial or ethnice groups from (semi-)peripheral parts of the world against the hegemonic powers of the "core" structures of white receiver societies. Immigrants and their offspring born in these societies escape the latter's control by engaging in transnational spaces, thereby contributing to the general decline of the nation-state's prerogatives to contain and regulate their economic, political, and symbolic activities and commitments. Recently, calls have appeared in the new transnationalism literature to modify this view and to "bring the [sender and receiver1 state back in" as an important influence on the forms and scope of immigrant f transnationalism. (For an overview of these arguments, see, for example, Geddes and Favell 1999; Faist 2000; Hollifield 2000). O concern here, the host nation-state's oolicies at both national and local levels are now being recognized as influencing the intensity, endurance. and, importantlv, the consequences of transnational engagements for the integration of immigrants and their children into the receiver society.

CITIZENSHIP B A L R A C I S T
Citizenship reinforces white supremacy. Jo, 2003. (Ji-Yeon O., Educational Research at the University of North Carolina. "Educating 'Good7 Citizens:'~magining Citizens of the ih Next Millennium." The H g School Journal - Volume 87, Number 2, December 2003-January 2004, pp. 34-43. Project Muse.) It is through this process of (de)legitimatin~certain bodies through the trope of citizenship that differentiated mobilities, forms of . institutional access, and capacities to particivate in political processes take s h a ~ e Whiteness. citizenship, and freedom function within these texts as a chain of equivalences. Whiteness becomes equated with citizenship. and citizenship with freedom, revealing the specific moves through which "this country's national identity, normalitv, and superiority are not independent. however. of the existence of The nation nonwhites. An integral part of defining free Americans is by contrast to those who are non-American and constructed bv this discourse empowers whites to associate their identities with freedom. Thomas Nakayama and Robert Krizek's study of college students, who were inclined to conflate white with majority, status, and American, reveals the extent to which these articulations .~ become internalized within U.S. ~ m e r i c a n sSuch equivalences are assumed, acted on, and thus provide the parameters for the social scripts we follow in our daily practices. In this sense, the discourse of whiteness explored within this section becomes a "material force"35 by defining citizenship as both white and free vis-a-vis immigrant alien as racialized and unfree, thus enabling the differentiated mobilities of citizens and noncitizens. The spatial formation of a nation in which whiteness is synonymous with fieedom articulates the nation as a free space for whites. in which they are able to move when and where they wish, while those whose bodies are marked through the tropes of race and class through which illegal alien is imagined may be detained, exploited. and abused. This means that citizenship is not merely an identity but is perhaps more adeauatelv understood as a function of space and power. For instance, many Latino [End Page 1241 citizens suffer abuse at the hands of the INS and other state officials. Even though their identities may be defined as U.S. citizens, they are not necessarily free to participate, move, or belong to U.S. America in the same ways as white Anglos, for whom the national space is defined.% When Latino students in Los Angeles hit the streets in protest of Proposition 187, Anglos passing by in cars shouted at them to "go back to Mexico." This case reveals that some citizens are freer to exercise their citizenship than others. The fact that Anglo motorists responded to Latino citizens as noncitizens, even as the latter were exercising their fundamental right to free speech, demonstrates the unevenness with which citizenship may be enacted. Here, white citizens' sense of ownership over the national svace is enacted as both a racist and a nationalist exclusion. While all people involved in the scenario are citizens, then, Latino citizenship is subordinated to a white sense of belonging (and a sense that Latinos do not belong), which is a material manifestation of the kinds of antiimmigration discourse legitimating such differentiated forms of belonging.

CITIZENSHIP BADRACIST
Immigration Neg I1
1 --
Notions of unified citizenship are ingrained with a nativist sentiment. Jo, 2003. (Ji-Yeon O., Educational Research at the University of North Carolina. "Educating 'Good' Citizens: Imagining Citizens of the Next Millennium." The High School Journal - Volume 87, Number 2, December 2003-January 2004, pp. 34-43. Project Muse.) In response to the diversified demographics of the United States. there is a movement toward building an Anglocized notion of citizenship under the rhetoric of maintaining the unitv and securitv of the nation. This traditional and nativist notion of citizenship does not recognize the inherent and obvious heterogeneitv that was woven into the historical fabric of American society (Marion, et.al. 1998), and the nonwhite immigrants' right to belong and their right to be different is constantly denied (Rosaldo, 1994). In this sense, t of immigrants and their descendents is always in auestion and their heritage languages cannot be recognized as "resources" of the nation (Peyton, et.al. 2001). Hage (2000) reiterates this relationship between national belonging and national capital: "National belonging tends to be proportional to accumulated national capital. Thus, a national subject born to the dominant culture who has accumulated national capital in the form of the dominant linguistic, physical and cultural dispositions will yield more national belonging than a migrant who has managed to acquire the dominant national accent and certain national cultural practices, but lacks the physical characteristics and dispositions of the dominant national 'type'." America's identitv politics is formed fiom the distinction between non-white immigrant ancestry and Anglo-citizenw that is found in national belonging and the national ca~ital is valued from such belonging. Because of that the identity politics in buildinp an Anglocized national 'citizenship,' non-white immimants' cultural and linguistic diversities are not reco~nizedin U.S. society and schools. This practice of building a national identity of the United States as a monolingual society positions students who speak languages other than English and who possess different physical characteristics other than white as "foreigners" or "outsiders" (Olsen,1996; Tse, 2001; Tuan,1998). They are often perceived as "un-American," and do not participate in the national movement toward building a solidified national identity (Hall, 1992). This unified notion of national identitv overlooks the different social classes, gender. and ethnic proups in the United States. Thus. the unified notion of national identities has to be challen~ed (Blackledge, 2002) and the effort to build hegemonic notions of citizenshix, under the umbrella of a homogenized national identity should be examined. Furthermore, with the rise of transnational migration to the United States, the boundaries of nation-states and clear connections among language-culture-nation (Susrez-Orozco, 2001) are increasingly transcended. blurred. and contested so that unified notions of citizenship become ever more problematic.

CITIZENSHIP BAD-RACIST
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Naturalization is ingrained with racial undertones. This creates social citizenship, which results in racial class distinctions. Carbado, '05. (Devon, professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Racial Naturalization." The American Quarterly, Volume 57, issue 3. September 2005. Project Muse.) The third model lays naturalization onto broader social processes of race. The basic aim of this model is to demonstrate that race is implicated in naturalization not only as a prerequisite-that is, as a basis for determininp who nets to become an American citizen. Race also determines the kind of American citizenship status one occupies. Under this model. everyone who is naturalized acquires formal citizenship, a status that confers a set of rights and privile~es-for example. the rieht to vote. According to this model, formal citizenship interacts with race to produce social citizenship, a status that attempts to track the social conditions-economic, political, educational-of people's lives. The model delineates two categories of social citizenship: first class and second class. The former signifies a privile~ed social position in society, the latter a marginal position. The fundamental idea this model conveys is that naturalization occurs in a racial context, and this context shapes how citizenship is experienced. To make the point more concretelv. while a white Frenchman and a black they would not necessarilv have the same social Ethiopian would. under formal citizenship, have the same formal rights and privile~es. citizenship.

ALTERNATIVES
Guestworkers don't need to be deemed citizens. They can establish an identity of "persons" that has transnational reach. Joppke and Morawska, '03. (Christian, professor of political and social sciences at the European University Institute; and Ewa, Professor of Sociology and History at the University of Pennsylvania. "Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States." Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY. Copyright 2003. pg. 16)
Some scholars have concluded from the upgrading of alien status in postwar European states, to a certain degree also in the United States, that national citizenship has become less relevant for the integration of immigrants. In Soyal's (1994: 3) concise formulation, puestworkers in postwar Europe have become integrated, not as "citizens" but as "persons." a global human rights regime: "This new model, which I call post-national...derive(s) from transnational discourse and structures celebrating human rights as a world-level organizing principle."
Advocating a new term, "the citizenship of aliens'' still demands fair treatment and social empowerment of immigrants while exposing problems with traditional citizenship. Bosniak, '98. (Linda, professor of law at Rutgers with a focus in immigration and citizenship law. "The Citizenship of Aliens." Social Text, No. 56. Autumn, 1998, pp. 29-35. JSTOR.)
In this respect, the national commitments that most citizenship theorists maintain (whether explicitly and consciously or not) make it difficult for them to address the particular form of marginalization that that aliens experience. The extent of the aliens' marginalization. or the particular form that it takes. mav appear to be uniust. but what will not usually appear uniust is the fact of this exclusion. or marginalization. in the first instance. In the end, the boundary that divides citizen from alien is the same boundary that delimits the political communitv of the nation-state: the imaginative grip that this boundary vossesses is exception all^ difficult to cast off. This being the case, the auestion arises as to what those of us concerned with the social condition of non-citizens. or aliens. are to make of the recent invocations of citizenship as an aspirational ideal in political theory. One possibilitv is to seize the term for our own use and to begin to advocate what we might call "the citizenship of aliens." This approach is closely in keeping with Bonnie Honig's argument that we ought to "encourage and enable those lacking juridical citizenship to act as (if they were) citizens." Calling for this "citizenship of aliens" would express a demand for their fair treatment and social empowerment; but at the same time, it would require us to confront the nationalist premises that underlie most uses of the term citizenship-in much the same wav that calling for "global citizenship" does. In this aporoach, the phrase "citizenship of aliens" provides a pointed example of what Judith Butler has termed "a performative paradox;" it is a claim that, by its terms, "exposers1 the rexclusionaryl character of previous conventional formulations of the universal."

ALTERNATIVES
Immigration Neg I T
/ --
Mimicry blurs the boundaries between the inlout dichotomy of citizenship, and is able to resist the current hegemonic order. Lee, '06. (Charles T., lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Southern California. "Tactile Citizenship: Domestic Workers, the remainders of home, and undocumented citizen participation in the third space of mimicry." The John Hopkins University Press, 2006. Project Muse.) Rather than seeing citizenship through this eitherlor construction, I propose that we instead see undocumented immigrants through a third space lens of "neither1nor"-and-"bothland also." In other words, the undocumented subject is neither "in" nor "out." neither official legal citizen nor "unaffiliated" alien, but both a member and a stranger, both a citizen and an outsider (and also with a difference). thereby This blurring the in-or-out boundary of citizen partici~ation.~ third space of citizenship further takes on what Homi Bhabha calls the camouflaging moment of mimicry -- "almost the same, but not quite": they seem to be like us citizens, but not quite; they are "illegal aliens," but not quite like it, either.ll Mimicrv is a way of translatinn. a way of imitatin~"but in a mischievous. displacing sense -imitating an original in such a way that the vrioritv of the original is not reinforced but by the very fact that it can be simulated. copied, transferred, transformed, made into a simulacrum and so on."3b The third space of mimicry blurs. camouflages, and destabilizes the in-orout boundarv of citizenship, thus opening up the possibilities of undocumented workers' "citizen" participation. Anne McClintock careklly notes that in his construction of the mimicry, Bhabha has a tendency in sliding historical agency into a fetishized abstraction of formal ambivalence that takes on a transhistorical ubiquity. In Bhabha's hands, textual mimicry often functions as the celebratory resistant mode of a generalized (and privileged) "postcolonial," disregarding its insufficiency and passivity in redressing the urgent needs of the subordinate ~ l a s s e s .The point, McClintock argues, is not to dispense with the notion but "to historically complicate it," to ~ localize and contextualize mimicry.s From McClintock, we thus need to pinpoint the moments and locations where "citizen" participation in the mode of mimicrv can function as useful intervention. and where it reaches the limits in resisting against the hegemonic order.

ALTERNATIVES
A de facto citizenship that embraces multiculturalism and globalism is needed to overcome assimilation resulting from the traditional national citizenship. Tancredo, 2004. (Tom, Republican member of the US House of Representatives from Colorado, serves on the International Relations Committee. "Immigration, Citizenship, and National Security: The Silent Invasion." Mediterranean Quarterly - Volume 15, Number 4, Fall 2004, pp. 4-15. Project Muse.) Assimilation is being abandoned on the political Left because of the powerful influence of the ideology of multiculturalism. On the political Right, it is being abandoned because of the popularity of the ideology of globalism. On a superficial level these two concepts seem contradictory, but in reality they reinforce each other. Combined, they present a powerful cultural and political pressure toward what I call defacto citizenship, a new species of political rEnd Page 6) identity that neither assumes nor requires assimilation into a common civic culture. De facto citizenship grants all the rights and privileges of citizenship to all residents regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Anyone living in the community is accepted as an equal partner and afforded the same rights and benefits as citizens. This grant of de facto citizenship can be done formally through new laws or it can be done functionally through the simple nonenforcement of laws that are based on legal distinctions like immigration status. Multiculturalism teaches that all cultures are fundamentally equal in moral terms and that there is nothing inherently superior about Western civilization or American constitutionalism. In this view, we are not a melting pot but instead a variegated salad, wherein many cultures make singular contributions. Language is retained as the vehicle for expressing and maintaining a native culture. Accordingly, since there is nothing uniquely valuable in the American experience or in the workings of American institutions, there is no need for other cultures to assimilate into American values and institutions. In its more extreme form, multiculturalism teaches that American culture is actually inferior because of its stress on material success and thus is in need of constant infusions from other cultures to give it vitality and moral worth. The new concept of global citizenship is the other force undermining the traditional idea of assimilation. Over the long term this idea may prove even more important in altering our views of national security, because it can change our concept of national security itself. Globalism is generally thought of as an economic concept describing a worldwide regime of fiee trade. However, it has taken on political overtones and has spawned a new policy paradigm that advocates the fiee flow of peoples across borders as the necessary correlate of the free flow of goods and services. Under pressure from these two forces, multiculturalism and globalism, the deterioration in the concept of citizenship and the blurring of the distinction between citizen and resident is accelerating. Multiculturalism and globalism reinforce each other in their mutual rejection of traditional citizenship. Multiculturalism provides a pseudo-intellectual rationale for cuItural tribalism, while globalism provides a sophisticated economic rationale for the abandonment of national loyalties. In this new paradigm, citizenship-in the sense of loyalty to a nation-state and its constitutional principles as a prerequisite to [End Page 71 participation in decision making-is seen as archaic. An adherence to rules of participation based on citizenship can thus be a hindrance to economic development. When such ideas begin to influence the public policy Eramework for immigration law, people's concepts of national security and national security's place in the hierarchy of political values will change as well. Postnational citizenship gives the same rights as traditional forms of citizenship, but guarantees that they are global and allows for free movement between transnational spaces. Joppke and Morawska, '03. (Christian, professor of political and social sciences at the European University Institute; and Ewa, Professor of Sociology and History at the University of Pennsylvania. "Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States," Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY. Copyright 2003. pg. 196) A number of authors have identified the emergence of a new form of "postnational" citizenship or membership whereby rights now extend across borders, and supranational institutions and global legitimating discourses have suverimvosed their authoritv over the nationstate. with the effect of rendering national citizenship increasin~lv irrelevant as a source of rights to migrants (Jacobson 1996; Soysal 1994; Sassen 1998). In the European context, the postnational argument draws on the empirical case of the experience of mestworkers, many of whom stayed on and brought their families over after recruitment programs ground to a halt and restrictive immigration controls became the Western European norm. Although most former guestworkers did not take up national citizenship in the receiving countrv, thev nonetheless over time came to enjoy many of the same civil and social, though not political, rights as full national citizens (Baubock 1994). Postnatianalists have taken the existence of these rights given to non-citizens as vroof of the erosion of national citizenshiv as the main source of rights. They argue that migrants no longer even need to naturalize in the receiving countrv. but can successfully sustain their claims to residence and welfare by referring to universal rights of "personhood" that have superseded national citizenshiu as the guarantor of migrant rights. The link of this argument to the discussion on transnationalism is that postnational rights obviously make it easier for migrants to move in transnational spaces: the more their rights are guaranteed and legitimated on the global level. and the less they depend on belonginn to a particular nation. then the more fieelv mierants can move in between national contexts without the risk of losing claims to rights and entitlements.
107

ALTERNATIVES
Immigration Neg Ii
/ --
Postnational citizenship is the best way to preserve cultural identity and resist "white" hegemony. Joppke and Morawska, '03. (Christian, professor of political and social sciences at the European University Institute; and Ewa, Professor of Sociology and History at the Universiry of Pennsylvania. "Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States." Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY. Copyright 2003. pg, 199)
In her version of the postnational argument, Soysal (2000) claims that postnational conventions and discourses provide an important legitmating framework for migrant claims to retain their own cultural identity. Thus, she links up with the second theoretical issue that we briefly want to discuss, namely that of multicultural rights. This perspective asserts that recent waves of non-European migration--and Muslims in particular-have created strong pressures for granting migrants suecial rights. or exemptions fiom duties on the basis of their cultural or religious difference fiom the rest of society. Thus. mieration undercuts the vision of a unitaw citizenship on the basis of equal a individual rights on which the liberal nation-state rests- development which is alternativelv seen as a necessary correction to "white" cultural hegemony, or as a threat to social cohesion and solidaritv. For understanding transnationalism, multicultural rights are im~ortant because they imply a weakening of nation-states' claims on migrants to assimilate to the national culture and of pressures to sever ties to their countries and cultures of origin.

AFF-MULTICULTURALISM PERM
Immigration Neg I1
/ --
Perm Solves: Civic multiculturalism can only function in juxtaposition to a national culture. Thomas, 2001. (Brook, Professor of English at UCI;Ph. D from UC-Santa Barbera. "Civic Multiculturaisim and and the Myth of Liberal Consent: A Comparative Analysis." CR: The New CentenniaEReview - Volume I, Number 3, Winter 2001, pp, 1-35. Project Muse.) They may not have completely broken with the ethnic origin of nations, but the ethnos that they create is what we can call a "civic ethnos" that adheres to the ideal that people of any ethnic or cultural background can potentially become a member, so long as they embrace the country's political values; that is, its civic culture. Civic multiculturalism can embrace a multiplicity of ethnic cultures, but only when they do not threaten its nation's civic ethnos. Civic multiculturalism. therefore. operates with two different meanings of culture. On one hand, there is a national culture defined largely bv various universal civic ideals. On the other hand, there is the culture in mult'iculturalism, the cultures of specific ethnic groups within the nation. The national culture can be tolerant of ethnic cultures onlv insofar as the culture in multiculturalism excludes the political. for to admit that various ethnic cultures carrv with them political values and principles would be to risk having those values and principles conflict with the nation's civic culture. a conflict that would expose civic nations as not being as culturallv tolerant as they claim. These two different meanings of culture-a national culture that is defined largelv bv the political and an ethnic culture that excludes it-minht [End Page 11) well be necessary for civic multiculturalism to hnction. If so, it is a form of what Stanley Fish calls "boutique multiculturalism," which protects only those aspects of cultural identity that do not offend liberal sensibilities. 14 As I have already suggested, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Indeed, if one believes, as Fish seems to believe, that different cultural systems inevitably produce incommensurable values, some version of "boutique multiculturalism" might be the only version possible. Fish's label becomes pejorative only if one believes that an authentic ethnic identity exists immune to change. If, on the contrary, one believes, as many do, that all ethnic identities are contingent formations, subject to alteration, then "boutique multiculturalism" simply describes a situation in which an ethnic culture within a civic nation is not exactly the same as one within an ethnic nation. Nonetheless, it is important to add that an ethnic culture in a civic nation adopting civic multiculturalism wiH have a different status from one in a civic nation lacking a version of official multiculturalism, just as other differences might result depending on whether the civic multiculturalism adopted limits itself to Habermas's "right to cultural membership" or adds Kymlicka's "external protections." Even so, in all of these cases, if members of various ethnic groups consent to be members of a liberal society, it is not inconsistent to expect them to adopt certain Iiberal values. Is, however, membership in civic nations really based on a principle of consent? There are two powerful challenges to that assumption. The first has to do with the birthright citizenship of individuals; the second with groups that do not fit into narratives of consent.

501-1.hoe Heidt Solt Neg Immigration

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

501-1.hoe Heidt Solt Neg Immigration

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Michigan 7 Wk.

Michigan 7 Wk Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah. Jacinth. Jordan. Lasky. Sirni. Will

Michigan 7 W k Seniors 2006-2007

AT: Anti-Immigration Laws Racist

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

\ but a way of escaping virtue." These non-doers were the

ourselves by entering the context of history is not virtue,

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Sirni, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

The volume opens with an exploration of the relationship among

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

No solvency - illegal immigration is inevitable

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Gillespie 2006 [Nick, Editor of Choice, "Bush's Border Bravado," August,

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, WiIl

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 W k Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will

Michigan 7 Wk. Seniors 2006-2007

Hannah, Jacinth, Jordan, Lasky, Simi, Will