**Uniqueness 2 Generic Links 16
Neg Defense – AT – Center for American Progress Study
Download 0.75 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Neg Defense – Plan doesn’t raise wage floor
- Generic Defense – Can’t Solve All I/Ls to Economy
Neg Defense – AT – Center for American Progress StudyThe Center for American Progress study is flawed – there are multiple reasons why amnesty would not be an economic stimulus. McNeil 10 (Jena, homeland security policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, July 23 2010, http://blog.heritage.org/?p=23300) TJN Ever since President Barack Obama made a campaign promise to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform early in his presidency, there has been a series of studies aimed at making the economic case for another amnesty. The newest, a study by the Center for American Progress (CAP), claims that legalizing the 11 million illegal immigrants inside the United States would increase GDP by at least $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Touting amnesty as an economic stimulus is weak on several points. First, these studies almost across the board assume that legalized individuals will contribute more than the taxpayer dollars they receive. The Heritage Foundation, however, has found that illegal immigrants take in $32,138 in immediate benefits and services for every $9,686 in taxes they pay out. This scenario is likely to worsen as these individuals become eligible for government benefits only permitted to legal residents of the United States. This is largely because immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled (even the CAP report recognizes this fact), and low-skilled workers draw more heavily on government welfare and income maintenance services than higher skilled workers. The report, of course, rests on the idea that these individuals, once legalized will quickly learn English, obtain an education, and move about the economy in a way that will make them, and therefore all taxpayers, significantly better off. This economic story, however, involves in a lot of public outlays. First, it assumes that legalization will lead immigrants to obtain more education, thus improving their earning potential and their contributions to overall economic activity. However, publicly supported adult education is expensive and provides limited improvements in earnings. Second, low-skilled workers do help increase the productivity of higher skilled workers, but demand for these workers is limited by the growth of higher skilled employment and lower skilled workers tend to displace other lower skilled workers. In short, the public investment in low-skilled workers is high and their value is dependent on what happens to the growth in higher skilled employment. This isn’t to say that immigrants can never make a better life for themselves. And in fact, immigrants do contribute to the economy. But when you subtract the high cost from the likely economic contribution, there is little about this scenario that would be an economic stimulus. Another issue that these studies often leave out is that history demonstrates that another amnesty will encourage more people to come here illegally. It happened after the 1986 amnesty. In that instance, 3 million people were legalized on the premise that there would be robust immigration enforcement to stop more people from coming. The U.S. failed to provide this promised enforcement, and millions more came here illegally. A better approach would be to make illegal immigration a less attractive choice, concentrating on enforcement while looking for avenues to bring people here legally that are both market based and don’t encourage more illegal immigration. The report tries to downplay a focus on enforcement as ineffective. But when the Bush Administration started enforcing the law at the border and inside the U.S., people started going home. Neg Defense – Plan doesn’t raise wage floorImmigrants are the last group to get hired – they get the low wage jobs Hossain 09 (Mahmood Phd Candidate Wichita State; Immigration and its Impacts on the Wage Gap in the United States; p. 26) BHB The Job and Gender Queue theories show that many employers now would “prefer to hire white males followed by white females, nonwhite females and nonwhite males” (Bisping & Fain, 2000. P 126). If there is an unforeseeable event that occurs in the grouping of a particular order, the unemployment rate increases for one particular group. One example is that if there is a huge increase in the white male unemployment rate then there would be a ripple effect across the entire job queue (Bisping & Fain, 2000). This means that with more white males who are unemployed, the white females would have to wait much longer for a job thus also increasing their unemployment rate. In the same vein, if there are more employed white males and females who are unemployed, non white males would have a much greater problem in finding a suitable job and it is the same for the non white females. This can be regarded in terms of immigrants such that immigrants would the last choice for employers to hire. This is partly due to prospective employees refusing to work at the work place because several factors such as working conditions and wages paid. Since most immigrants are willing to work the lower paid jobs it can be inferred that employers are able to fulfill any positions that are open at lower pay. Generic Defense – Can’t Solve All I/Ls to EconomyCan't access all seven internal links to solve the economy—structural factors that outweigh Froomkin 2010 Dan, Huffington Post Online, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/7-things-about-the-econom_n_433688.html An extraordinary series of articles recently appeared on the Nieman Watchdog Web site, anchored by investigative reporter John Hanrahan and mostly based on interviews with some of the nation's most perceptive, prescient and prophetic economists. The series laid out a broad landscape of economic issues that have been largely overlooked during the reporting of the nation's economic collapse -- to our great peril. Hanrahan's articles explore key elements of the story that reporters should have been -- and should still be -- writing about. Among them: The endemic fraud at the heart of the collapse, the resultant need for a comprehensive dissection of some key financial institutions, how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have weakened the economy, the dramatic effects of the crash on domestic poverty and world poverty, and underlying it all, the critically important role of government spending in a recovery, be it through a second stimulus or expanded entitlements or jobs programs, all of which requires that deficits be seen, for the short run at least, as the solution, not the problem.As a coda to Hanrahan's series, here is a list of seven things all of us should be more alarmed by than we currently are, going forward. A common theme underlying them all is that while our leaders -- and the voices of conventional wisdom -- treat our current recession as cyclical in nature, and are essentially mostly just waiting around for growth to pick up again, there is plenty of reason to believe that this crisis was instead an expression of structural problems. And if that is so, and we don't take the proper action, then the wait could be a long one.
Download 0.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|