Immigration DAs - Packet - SDI 2018

Immigration Disad – Aff and Neg
Opening Notes
Info on this file
Resisting the true “free-for-all” approach:

Given the wording of the 2018-19 topic, debates over “immigration good” vs. “immigration bad” are
likely to arise in some form during the upcoming academic season. Dated backfiles from prior
immigration debates are apt to reveal arguments from all corners of the internet. In theory, the HSS
instructional staff could have asked students to mirror this approach to their research. Instead, we
concluded that a true free-for-all “immigration bad” file runs the risk of placing students in a position of
arguing some highly questionable positions. We have attempted to write some impact modules that are
less likely to ask students to defend the nastiest items that one could find online.
That said, during the season virtually any “immigration bad” module is apt to encounter counter-claims
that it serves as a justification for exclusion. Instead of whole-scale avoiding discussion of those issues,
we wrote one scenario with a back-and-forth critique of whether certain “immigration bad” arguments
should be rejected. Some students may not care to argue those positions – and camp attendees should
know that they, as ever, are not forced to advance an argument that makes them uncomfortable. The
packet offers a range of argument options – including academic criticism of the “immigration bad”
literature base.
The rhetoric of “chain migration”:

There is a deep debate over whether the phrase “chain migration’ is violent or unacceptable. This
debate has grown in last few months – with the Associated Press recently issuing guidance that
discourages its writers from deploying the phrase in their articles:
https://www.ilrc.org/new-ap-guidance-avoid-use-%E2%80%9Cchain-migration%E2%80%9D-language-family-migration-
following-grassroots-campaign
An interested student would have little difficulty in locating additional articles surrounding the use of
this phrase. The online petition that arguably prompted the changes by the Associated Press were
supported by a range of organizations – from thinktanks to the theological community.
Terminology notwithstanding, this topic will find Negatives advancing the argument that some
Affirmative plans will not only directly increase legal immigration, but may also indirectly increase
migration as emigres sponsor the legal immigration of family members. For this file, we opted to use the
phrase “Subsequent Family-Based Migration” – a close proximate to the alternate language referenced
in the Immigrant Legal Resource Center article (above).
1NC Shells
1NC shell – Wages
1NC Shell - Wages
Next off is the Wages Disad:
Legal immigration rates are down now. The DREAM Act reverses trends that are
decreasing family and military-based visas.
Chishti ‘18
et al; Muzaffar Chishti, a lawyer, is Director of MPI’s office at New York University School of Law. His work focuses on U.S.
immigration policy at the federal, state, and local levels; the intersection of labor and immigration law; immigration
enforcement; civil liberties; and immigrant integration. Mr. Chishti serves on the boards of the National Immigration Law
Center, New York Immigration Coalition, and the Asian American Federation. He has served as Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the National Immigration Forum and as a member of the American Bar Association’s Coordinating Committee on
Immigration. “Even as Congress Remains on Sidelines, the Trump Administration Slows Legal Immigration” – Migration Policy
Institute - MARCH 22, 2018 -CutWithRJ - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/even-congress-remains-sidelines-trump-
administration-slows-legal-immigration
With most public attention around immigration focused on the Trump administration’s efforts to crack
down on illegal immigration, the scope of a series of actions restricting legal entry to the country has gone
largely unnoticed. Without need for congressional approval, the administration has initiated several small but well-
calibrated actions through regulations, administrative guidelines, and immigration application processing
changes. Taken together, these steps have dramatically slowed down family- and employment-based
immigration, decreased refugee admissions to their lowest numbers in decades, tightened who can receive the most common temporary
work visa (H-1B), and restricted naturalization for immigrants serving in the U.S. military.
This broader hardline approach has slowed immigration rates. A reversal – like the
plan – can significantly encourage migration.
Chishti ‘18
While Congress is primarily responsible for enacting major changes in immigration law, the President and
his administration have broad discretion in implementing the laws and policies that emanate from them. The Trump administration
has approached this authority thus far with astute awareness of how small modifications can effect
wide-reaching policy change. Combined, these efforts will likely not drastically reduce the number of individuals
arriving in the United States each year, but they do create impediments for those trying to enter and reduce the
number able to arrive in the near future, while potentially discouraging others from trying at all. If that
is the goal of this administration, it certainly has found a blueprint.
The DREAM Act increases immigration. It directly admits 2 million people and causes
many more entries via subsequent family-based migration.
C.B.O. ‘17
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE - S. 1615 - Dream Act of 2017 - As introduced in the Senate on July 20, 2017 -
December 15, 2017 - #CutWithRJ- https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/s1615.pdf
On that basis, CBO

estimates that nearly 2 million people would apply for and be granted conditional LPR status
under S. 1615 , most within the first five years after enactment. Others would apply for and receive that
status in the latter half of the decade and even into the second decade after the bill’s enactment. Their ages at the time they
received the status would range from around 14 to the early 50s, with a median age in the late 20s. The research indicates that the vast
majority of conditional LPR recipients would be from Mexico or Central America.
Furthermore, CBO estimates that—of those nearly 2 million people—roughly 1.6 million would be granted
unconditional LPR status during the 2018-2027 period; more people would receive that status after that 10-year period. The number
of people who would receive unconditional LPR status was estimated as follows:
Using information from the Census Bureau and the Department of Labor about employment rates for lawfully present Hispanic aliens, CBO
expects that almost three-quarters of the individuals who qualify for unconditional LPR status would do so on the basis of their work, rather
than as a result of having met other criteria.4
Using information from the Department of Education and immigration researchers, CBO expects that all of the current college graduates, one-
third of those under the age of 18, and one-tenth of the current high school graduates who receive conditional LPR status would meet
qualifications for unconditional status because they have or are working toward a postsecondary degree. That group would represent around
one-fifth of the people who would qualify for unconditional LPR status. Using information from the Department of Education and immigration
researchers, CBO expects that all of the current college graduates, one-third of those under the age of 18, and one-tenth of the current high
school graduates who receive conditional LPR status would meet qualifications for unconditional status because they have or are working
toward a postsecondary degree. That group would represent around one-fifth of the people who would qualify for unconditional LPR status.
Finally, CBO expects that around 5 percent of the people who receive unconditional LPR status would do so because of disability or child care
waivers.
Using naturalization data from DHS, CBO estimates that under S. 1615, roughly 1 million of the 1.6 million people receiving unconditional
LPR status would become naturalized U.S. citizens during the 2018-2027 period, and that a substantial number of people would
naturalize in the following decades. Naturalization primarily affects the federal budget by allowing new citizens to
sponsor some of their relatives for LPR status in categories that are not subject to annual numerical caps, as
discussed below.
The people who would receive conditional LPR status under the bill fall into four categories: college attendees or graduates, high school
graduates and people who had earned a GED, children in high school or under high school age, and certain adults who did not initially meet the
educational requirement.
College Attendees and Graduates Immediately Eligible for Unconditional LPR Status. People who have already completed two years of higher
education would be eligible for unconditional LPR status upon enactment. CBO expects nearly 200,000 such people would receive conditional
LPR status under the bill, simultaneously having the conditional basis removed. High School Graduates
Immediately Eligible for Conditional LPR Status. People who have already completed high school but have not completed two years of
postsecondary education would be eligible for conditional LPR status upon enactment. They would need to satisfy further conditions to have
the conditional basis removed. CBO estimates that during the 2018-2027 period, more than 900,000 of those people would receive conditional
LPR status and 750,000 in that group would receive unconditional LPR status.
Students Not Yet Out of High School. Minors who have not yet entered high school would become eligible for conditional LPR status once they
entered high school. CBO expects that those children would receive conditional LPR status during or shortly after ninth grade. Current high
school students would be eligible for conditional LPR status upon the bill’s enactment. CBO estimates that of the 300,000 such students
receiving conditional LPR status, 250,000 would receive unconditional status during the 2018-2027 period.
Adults Without a High School Diploma. Adults who have not finished high school or received the GED credential would not be eligible for
conditional LPR status until they met the bill’s educational requirement. CBO anticipates that several obstacles would confront those adults:
They are less likely to speak English than are people in the other three groups who would receive conditional LPR status; They have lower
average household income; and They are well past the typical age for completing a GED examination or enrolling in a postsecondary
institution.
However, because lawful permanent residence confers significant legal and economic benefits, CBO anticipates that those adults would be
highly motivated to qualify, and that they would receive substantial assistance from nongovernmental organizations whose mission is to assist
noncitizens. Several facets of the legislation would improve their likelihood of meeting the educational requirements:
S. 1615 would not specify an application deadline for conditional LPR status, so people without a high school diploma would have several years
to take the necessary steps, and government agencies and nongovernmental organizations would have time to develop programs tailored to
those adults’ particular needs and challenges.
In most states, the GED Testing Service offers examinations in Spanish, and test takers are not required to have completed training in English as
a second language to receive certification.
The minimum education requirement would be enrollment in a program to prepare for the GED examination. The bill would not require
applicants to pass the examination to attain conditional LPR status.
Weighing those factors, CBO expects that half of the group of adults without a high school diploma would apply for conditional LPR status
under the bill, a rate that is notably below the application rates for DACA and IRCA. As a result, CBO estimates that just over half a million of
those people would receive conditional LPR status under the bill.
CBO expects that the people in this category would qualify for unconditional LPR status almost exclusively through employment, not as a result
of postsecondary education. CBO estimates that roughly 400,000 of those people would receive unconditional LPR status over the 2018-2027
period and that more would do so after the end of the 10-year budget window.
Subsequent Family-Based Migration . Naturalized U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents can
sponsor certain relatives for lawful permanent resident status, a process often called chain migration.
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens—that is, the parents, spouses, and minor children of citizens—can be
granted LPR status without being counted against annual numerical limits . In recent years, between 400,000 and
500,000 immediate relatives have received LPR status annually. In contrast, the spouses and children of legal permanent residents and the
adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens are eligible for LPR status through family-sponsored preferences, which are capped at 226,000 per
year. Because of that annual limit, a very large backlog exists—4 million approved petitions are on file with the State Department—and the vast
majority of those relatives must wait more than five years to receive LPR status.
The nearly 2 million direct beneficiaries of S. 1615 would be able to sponsor their relatives for LPR status. CBO
estimates that over the 2018-2027 period, S. 1615 would cause around 80,000 more people to receive LPR status—
as the immediate relatives of the direct beneficiaries of S. 1615 who naturalize— than would be the case
under current law . Virtually all of those new recipients are already in the United States. In subsequent decades, some of the additional
people who would receive LPR status through chain migration would arrive from abroad. However, the number of additional people who could
receive LPR status during the 2018-2027 period is constrained primarily by two factors: annual caps on certain categories of family-based
immigration and the “10-year bar” described below.
(Note: “S.1615” is the title of The DREAM Act of 2017)

Increased immigration causes a net reduction in wages for all workers. Prefer our
long-term studies.
Borjas ‘16
Dr. George Borjas is a Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School – “Yes, Immigration Hurts
American Workers” – Politico Magazine – Sept/October- #CutWithRJ- Modified for language that may offend -
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
This second message might be hard for many Americans to process, but anyone
who tells you that immigration doesn’t have
any negative effects doesn’t understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the
price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down . Wage trends over the past half-century
suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage
of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted , those skill groups that
received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.
Both low- and high-skilled natives (current US employees) are affected by the influx of immigrants. But
because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and
Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable . The typical high school dropout
earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have
increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group
dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year .
Wages are up now – that’s boosting the standard of living for all workers.
Manyika ‘18
et al; James Manyika is a senior partner at McKinsey & Company and chairman and director of the McKinsey Global Institute
(MGI), the firm’s business and economics research arm. James was appointed by President Barack Obama to serve as vice chair
of the Global Development Council at the White House (2012–16). James was on the engineering faculty at Oxford University
and a member of the Programming Research Group and the Robotics Research Lab, a fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, a visiting
scientist at NASA Jet Propulsion Labs, and a faculty exchange fellow at MIT. “The U.S. Economy Is Suffering from Low Demand.
Higher Wages Would Help” – Harvard Business Review - FEBRUARY 21, 2018 - UPDATED FEBRUARY 22, 2018 - #CutWithRJ -
https://hbr.org/2018/02/the-u-s-economy-is-suffering-from-low-demand-higher-wages-would-help
These pay increases have occurred against a backdrop of weak economic growth and rising income inequality. Economic growth has been stuck
in low gear for almost a decade now, averaging around 2% a year since 2010 while productivity growth, the key to increasing living standards,
has been languishing near historic lows since the financial crisis. But more
recently there has been a glimmer of hope. After
stagnating for years, wages have begun picking up slightly, as has productivity growth , while corporate profits remain
near record highs.
Are these recent wage increases merely necessary in light of a tightening labor market, or could they start a broader
trend that may change our economic growth trajectory?
After a year-long analysis of seven developed countries and six sectors, we have concluded that demand matters for
productivity growth and that increasing demand is key to restarting growth across advanced economies.
The impact of demand on productivity growth is often underappreciated. Looking closer at the period following the financial crisis, 2010 to
2014, we find that weak demand played a key role in the recent productivity growth decline to historic lows. In fact, about half of the slowdown
in productivity growth — from an average of 2.4% in the United States and Western Europe in 2000 to 2004 to 0.5% a decade later — was due
to weak demand and uncertainty.
For example, in the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, rising consumer purchasing power boosted productivity growth in both the retail and the auto
sector, by encouraging a shift to higher-value goods that can be supplied at higher productivity levels. In the auto sector, as customers in the
early 2000s purchased higher value-added SUVs and premium vehicles in both the United States and Germany, they spurred incremental
productivity growth of 0.4 to 0.5 percentage points. Today, that trend has slowed slightly in both countries, contributing only 0.3 percentage
points to productivity growth in the period 2010 to 2014.
Similarly, in retail, we estimate that consumers shifting to higher-value goods, for example higher-value wines or premium yogurts, contributed
45% to the 1995-2000 retail productivity acceleration in the United States. This subsequently waned, dragging down productivity growth.
To put it simply, when consumers have more to spend , they buy more sophisticated things. That’s good not
just for consumers and producers, but for the overall economy , because making more sophisticated,
higher-value things makes everyone involve more productive, and therefore helps increase overall
standards of living.
Wages are the key to the US economy.

Stilwell ‘15
Victoria Stilwell - economics reporter at Bloomberg News. Internally quoting Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital
Markets LLC in New York. “Wages haven't been this crucial to U.S. economy in half century, expert says” – Crain’s Detroit
Business - March 21, 2015 - #CutWithRJ - http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20150321/NEWS01/150329974/wages-havent-
been-this-crucial-to-u-s-economy-in-half-century-expert
When it comes to U.S. economic growth, wages may never have been this important .
The link between earnings and consumer spending has been tighter in this expansion than in any other since records began in the 1960s,
according to calculations by Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets LLC in New York.
Wages have become even more critical as households, still shaken after being caught with too much debt when the
recession hit, remain unwilling or unable to tap home equity or let credit card balances balloon to buy that
new television or dishwasher. By not overextending themselves again, Americans are only spending as much as their
incomes will allow, meaning that 70 percent of the economy is riding on how fast pay rises.
“Inan environment where credit is not being used in a material way, the fate of wages matters,” Porcelli said.
“They’re doing all of the driving from a consumption perspective.”
The impact is that it turns the case – the Aff is net worse for the economy.
(or insert econ impacts from the Aff packet if your opponent did not run the economy advantage).
1NC shell – Green Sustainability
1NC Shell – Green Sustainability
Next off is the Green Sustainability disad
Legal immigration rates are down now. The DREAM Act reverses trends that are
decreasing family and military-based visas.
Chishti ‘18
With most public attention around immigration focused on the Trump administration’s efforts to crack
down on illegal immigration, the scope of a series of actions restricting legal entry to the country has gone
largely unnoticed. Without need for congressional approval, the administration has initiated several small but well-
calibrated actions through regulations, administrative guidelines, and immigration application processing
changes. Taken together, these steps have dramatically slowed down family- and employment-based
immigration, decreased refugee admissions to their lowest numbers in decades, tightened who can receive the most common temporary
work visa (H-1B), and restricted naturalization for immigrants serving in the U.S. military.
This broader hardline approach has slowed immigration rates. A reversal – like the
plan – can significantly encourage migration.
Chishti ‘18
While Congress is primarily responsible for enacting major changes in immigration law, the President and
his administration have broad discretion in implementing the laws and policies that emanate from them. The Trump administration
has approached this authority thus far with astute awareness of how small modifications can effect
wide-reaching policy change. Combined, these efforts will likely not drastically reduce the number of individuals
arriving in the United States each year, but they do create impediments for those trying to enter and reduce the
number able to arrive in the near future, while potentially discouraging others from trying at all. If that
is the goal of this administration, it certainly has found a blueprint.
The DREAM Act increases immigration. It directly admits 2 million people and causes
many more entries via subsequent family-based migration.
C.B.O. ‘17
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE - S. 1615 - Dream Act of 2017 - As introduced in the Senate on July 20, 2017 -
December 15, 2017 - #CutWithRJ- https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/s1615.pdf
On that basis, CBO

estimates that nearly 2 million people would apply for and be granted conditional LPR status
under S. 1615 , most within the first five years after enactment. Others would apply for and receive that
status in the latter half of the decade and even into the second decade after the bill’s enactment. Their ages at the time they
received the status would range from around 14 to the early 50s, with a median age in the late 20s. The research indicates that the vast
majority of conditional LPR recipients would be from Mexico or Central America.
Furthermore, CBO estimates that—of those nearly 2 million people—roughly 1.6 million would be granted
unconditional LPR status during the 2018-2027 period; more people would receive that status after that 10-year period. The number
of people who would receive unconditional LPR status was estimated as follows:
Using information from the Census Bureau and the Department of Labor about employment rates for lawfully present Hispanic aliens, CBO
expects that almost three-quarters of the individuals who qualify for unconditional LPR status would do so on the basis of their work, rather
than as a result of having met other criteria.4
Using information from the Department of Education and immigration researchers, CBO expects that all of the current college graduates, one-
third of those under the age of 18, and one-tenth of the current high school graduates who receive conditional LPR status would meet
qualifications for unconditional status because they have or are working toward a postsecondary degree. That group would represent around
one-fifth of the people who would qualify for unconditional LPR status. Using information from the Department of Education and immigration
researchers, CBO expects that all of the current college graduates, one-third of those under the age of 18, and one-tenth of the current high
school graduates who receive conditional LPR status would meet qualifications for unconditional status because they have or are working
toward a postsecondary degree. That group would represent around one-fifth of the people who would qualify for unconditional LPR status.
Finally, CBO expects that around 5 percent of the people who receive unconditional LPR status would do so because of disability or child care
waivers.
Using naturalization data from DHS, CBO estimates that under S. 1615, roughly 1 million of the 1.6 million people receiving unconditional
LPR status would become naturalized U.S. citizens during the 2018-2027 period, and that a substantial number of people would
naturalize in the following decades. Naturalization primarily affects the federal budget by allowing new citizens to
sponsor some of their relatives for LPR status in categories that are not subject to annual numerical caps, as
discussed below.
The people who would receive conditional LPR status under the bill fall into four categories: college attendees or graduates, high school
graduates and people who had earned a GED, children in high school or under high school age, and certain adults who did not initially meet the
educational requirement.
College Attendees and Graduates Immediately Eligible for Unconditional LPR Status. People who have already completed two years of higher
education would be eligible for unconditional LPR status upon enactment. CBO expects nearly 200,000 such people would receive conditional
LPR status under the bill, simultaneously having the conditional basis removed. High School Graduates
Immediately Eligible for Conditional LPR Status. People who have already completed high school but have not completed two years of
postsecondary education would be eligible for conditional LPR status upon enactment. They would need to satisfy further conditions to have
the conditional basis removed. CBO estimates that during the 2018-2027 period, more than 900,000 of those people would receive conditional
LPR status and 750,000 in that group would receive unconditional LPR status.
Students Not Yet Out of High School. Minors who have not yet entered high school would become eligible for conditional LPR status once they
entered high school. CBO expects that those children would receive conditional LPR status during or shortly after ninth grade. Current high
school students would be eligible for conditional LPR status upon the bill’s enactment. CBO estimates that of the 300,000 such students
receiving conditional LPR status, 250,000 would receive unconditional status during the 2018-2027 period.
Adults Without a High School Diploma. Adults who have not finished high school or received the GED credential would not be eligible for
conditional LPR status until they met the bill’s educational requirement. CBO anticipates that several obstacles would confront those adults:
They are less likely to speak English than are people in the other three groups who would receive conditional LPR status; They have lower
average household income; and They are well past the typical age for completing a GED examination or enrolling in a postsecondary
institution.
However, because lawful permanent residence confers significant legal and economic benefits, CBO anticipates that those adults would be
highly motivated to qualify, and that they would receive substantial assistance from nongovernmental organizations whose mission is to assist
noncitizens. Several facets of the legislation would improve their likelihood of meeting the educational requirements:
S. 1615 would not specify an application deadline for conditional LPR status, so people without a high school diploma would have several years
to take the necessary steps, and government agencies and nongovernmental organizations would have time to develop programs tailored to
those adults’ particular needs and challenges.
In most states, the GED Testing Service offers examinations in Spanish, and test takers are not required to have completed training in English as
a second language to receive certification.
The minimum education requirement would be enrollment in a program to prepare for the GED examination. The bill would not require
applicants to pass the examination to attain conditional LPR status.
Weighing those factors, CBO expects that half of the group of adults without a high school diploma would apply for conditional LPR status
under the bill, a rate that is notably below the application rates for DACA and IRCA. As a result, CBO estimates that just over half a million of
those people would receive conditional LPR status under the bill.
CBO expects that the people in this category would qualify for unconditional LPR status almost exclusively through employment, not as a result
of postsecondary education. CBO estimates that roughly 400,000 of those people would receive unconditional LPR status over the 2018-2027
period and that more would do so after the end of the 10-year budget window.
Subsequent Family-Based Migration . Naturalized U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents can
sponsor certain relatives for lawful permanent resident status, a process often called chain migration.
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens—that is, the parents, spouses, and minor children of citizens—can be
granted LPR status without being counted against annual numerical limits . In recent years, between 400,000 and
500,000 immediate relatives have received LPR status annually. In contrast, the spouses and children of legal permanent residents and the
adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens are eligible for LPR status through family-sponsored preferences, which are capped at 226,000 per
year. Because of that annual limit, a very large backlog exists—4 million approved petitions are on file with the State Department—and the vast
majority of those relatives must wait more than five years to receive LPR status.
The nearly 2 million direct beneficiaries of S. 1615 would be able to sponsor their relatives for LPR status. CBO
estimates that over the 2018-2027 period, S. 1615 would cause around 80,000 more people to receive LPR status—
as the immediate relatives of the direct beneficiaries of S. 1615 who naturalize— than would be the case
under current law . Virtually all of those new recipients are already in the United States. In subsequent decades, some of the additional
people who would receive LPR status through chain migration would arrive from abroad. However, the number of additional people who could
receive LPR status during the 2018-2027 period is constrained primarily by two factors: annual caps on certain categories of family-based
immigration and the “10-year bar” described below.
(Note: “S.1615” is the title of The DREAM Act of 2017)

US population is declining now and will cause a sustainable US economy will emerge.
Millennials are causing a “baby bust”.
Rubenstein ‘17
Edwin S. Rubenstein previously was an economist and Director of Research at the Hudson Institute, as well as an Economics
editor National Review and a contributing editor at Forbes Magazine. Mr. Rubenstein has a B.A. from Johns Hopkins and a
graduate degree in economics from Columbia University. His essays on public policy have appeared in The Wall Street Journal,
The New York Times, Harvard Business Review, Investor’s Business Daily, Newsday, and National Review. “HOW MILLENNIALS
ARE SLOWING U.S. POPULATION GROWTH AND ENHANCING SUSTAINABILITY” – November - #CutWithRJ -
http://www.npg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MillennialsEnhancingSustainability-FP-2017.pdf
Born between 1980 and 2000, millennials are the youngest Americans in the labor force. Their attitudes towards
marriage, procreation, and materialism cannot be attributed to their youth. Nor is it a fad they will
outgrow. While the Great Recession is responsible for some of their worldview, it seems that long lasting economic and demographic trends
– wage stagnation, urban gentrification, high gas prices, the sharing economy, on-line consumption, and an unprecedented student loan crisis –
has fundamentally changed the game for millennials.
The largest generation of Americans may never have as many children, or spend as lavishly as its parents. Most mainstream
economists find this prospect daunting, as it portends lower GDP growth. For us, however, negative growth in both population and
consumption is nothing less than a perfect storm. Should it continue, NPG’s goal of a sustainable U.S. economy, in
which the utilization of scarce resources equals the ability of our eco-system to replenish those
resources, will be attainable.
Let us count the ways this can occur.
The United States is in the middle of what some call a “baby bust”. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the number of babies born in this country fell by 338,000 – or 8.7% between 2007 (the year prior to the Great Recession) and 2016.
Over that period the national fertility rate (births per 1,000 women of childbearing age, 15 to 44) fell from 69.3 to an historic low, 62.0, in 2016.
At the peak of the post World War II Baby Boom, in 1960, the rate was 118.0. As seen in the graphic above, the fertility rate decline is
driven entirely by millennial mothers in their teens and twenties.
Immigration is the lone variable counteracting this “baby bust” trend

Rubenstein ‘17
The New York Times, Harvard Business Review, Investor’s Business Daily, Newsday, and National Review. “HOW MILLENNIALS
ARE SLOWING U.S. POPULATION GROWTH AND ENHANCING SUSTAINABILITY” – November - #CutWithRJ -
http://www.npg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MillennialsEnhancingSustainability-FP-2017.pdf
The most recent calculation is for 2014. IRNI that year was
negative 3.7, implying that if birth and death rates for the
various age groups were to stay at 2014 levels, and immigration ceases, U.S. population will eventually
decline by 3.7 persons per 1,000 population – or by a steady -0.37% per annum.
This may not sound like a big deal but even a small negative rate, when compounded over a long stretch of years, can
lower population dramatically. Over a 25-year period, for example, population declines by 8.9%; after 50 years there would be 17%
fewer Americans, and in 100 years, 31% fewer.
Except for 2006 and 2007, IRNI
was negative throughout the 1990 to 2014 period. Population did not fall
because of immigration , which added a million per year during much of this time – even more when you
consider their U.S.- born children.
Millennials have already demonstrated that a lower “P” – U.S. population growth – may be in our future.
They also show signs of changing the traditional role of “A” - increased affluence – on the consumption of goods and services. Since World War
II new families, new houses, and new cars have powered the economy and propelled recoveries. Millennials may have lost interest in each.
(Note: The acronym “IRNI” means “The Intrinsic Rate of Natural Increase”)
The impact is green sustainability. More immigration drives-up US population rates.

US population levels pose the top extinction risk by hampering a sustainable and
survivable planet.
P.F.I.R. ‘17
P.F.I.R. is an acronym for “Progressives for Immigration Reform” - which is a non-profit organization seeking to educate the
public on the unintended consequences of mass migration. PFIR concurs with the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
(commonly called the Jordan Commission, after its chair, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan). In its 1997 report, it stated: “The
Commission decries hostility and discrimination against immigrants as antithetical to the traditions and interests of the country.
At the same time, we disagree with those who would label efforts to control immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant.
Rather, it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national
interests.” “How Does Immigration Impact The Environment?” - #CutWith RJ -
http://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/immigration-topics/environment/
Progressives for Immigration Reform is committed to the creation of a sustainable society in the United
States, one that secures essential natural resources for future generations and preserves flourishing
populations of all native species in perpetuity. It is our position that the United States will fail in these efforts, if we
fail to stabilize our population. As David Brower, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, put it, at the dawn of the environmental
movement: “We feel you don’t have a conservation policy unless you have a population policy.” [1]
PFIR seeks to preserve open space, farms and wildlife habitat from sprawl. That’s why we support new parks and wildlife refuges, and improved
land use, transportation and zoning policies. But over half the sprawl in the United States is caused by population growth. Unless we stop
population growth, sprawl will continue to gobble up undeveloped land. [Continued below]
How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?
David Attenborough narrates this BBC program. He says: “Today, we are living in an era in which the biggest threat to human
well-being , to other species , and to the Earth as we know it, might well be ourselves.”
PFIR wants the United States to take the lead in combating global climate change. That’s why we support higher
mileage requirements for cars and trucks and increased funding for mass transit; replacing coal-fired power plants with solar, wind and other
alternative energy sources; and higher efficiency standards for heating, cooling and insulating new buildings. But in recent decades, four-
fifths of the increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has come from U.S. population growth, as more
people drove more cars, built more houses, ate more food, and did all the other things that generate carbon. [2] Unless we stop
population growth, America will continue to generate too much CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases.
Some environmentalists argue that Americans only need to focus on fighting pollution and reducing our
consumption, in order to curb environmental destruction. They are right to argue for decreased consumption and
increased vigilance against polluters, but wrong to assume that such efforts can take the place of stabilizing our population. A growing
population can swamp improvements in consumption or pollution abatement. In fact, we have seen this happen
regarding national energy use and carbon emissions in the past few decades, as greater efficiency in per capita energy use has failed to keep
pace with increased numbers (more “capitas”). Total energy use and total carbon emissions have risen, due to population growth.
Ecologists use a formula to measure environmental impact, developed in part by John Holdren, the Obama administration’s chief science
advisor: I = P x C x T. Here I, total environmental impact, is a function of three factors: P = total population, multiplied by C = consumption per
person, multiplied by T = the technology used to facilitate that consumption. All three factors are equally important in creating overall
environmental impacts. None can be neglected, if we hope to limit our impacts and create a sustainable society. As President Clinton’s Council
on Sustainable Development put it:
“Managing population growth, resources, and wastes is essential to ensuring that the total impact of these factors is within the bounds of
sustainability. Stabilizing the population without changing consumption and waste production patterns would not be enough, but it would
make an immensely challenging task more manageable. In the United States, each is necessary; neither alone is sufficient.” [3]
One of the Council’s ten main recommendations for creating a sustainable society was: “Move toward stabilization of U.S. Population.”
Some American environmentalists argue that overpopulation is solely a global problem, not a national one, and that it requires an exclusive
focus on global solutions. They are right that worldwide population growth is an immense environmental problem, but wrong to think that
addressing it is best done by ignoring U.S. population growth. The U.S. government should finance and encourage family planning efforts in
developing nations, to help them slow their population growth. We should stick up for the rights of women in international forums and
encourage female literacy and economic empowerment in poor countries, since securing these rights and furthering these interests are both
the right things to do, as a matter of justice toward women, and they have proven successful at reducing fertility rates around the world.
However, Americans also need to attend to our own house. The United States is the third largest nation in the world, and our population is
growing rapidly. The largest 10-year American population increase was also the most recent one: 36 million people added to our population
between 1990 and 2000. Our most direct and important responsibility regarding global population growth is to end population growth within
our own borders.
In addition, while many progressives like to think of ourselves as “citizens of the world,” concerned for the well-being of all humankind, those of
us who remain citizens of the United States, have further, particular responsibilities. As Americans, we believe we have a special responsibility
to preserve wild species and wild landscapes right here, in our own country. Our children and grandchildren will blame us,
rightly, if we fail to preserve opportunities for them to get to know and appreciate wild nature. They will blame us, rightly, if we fail to
preserve clean air, clean water, sufficient topsoil to grow food, and all the other resources essential for their
well-being. In other words, we have a duty to future generations of Americans to create a sustainable society. Continued
population growth makes achieving that goal impossible. So we must end U.S. population growth .
However, in order to stabilize America’s population, we must reduce immigration , since today it is high immigration
rates that are driving continued rapid population growth in the United States. During much of the previous century, population
increase was fueled primarily by high native birth rates, but in recent decades, the total fertility rate of American
women has fallen dramatically: from 3.5 children per woman in the 1950s, to 1.7 children in the 1970s, to 2.05 children today.
According to a recent study from the Pew Hispanic Center, 82% of population growth between 2005 and 2050 will be due to
new immigrants arriving and their descendants. [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85]
With a total fertility rate slightly below 2.1 children per woman, today the United States is well positioned to
transition to slower population growth in coming decades. If we can encourage slightly lower birth rates among American
citizens, we could stabilize our population sometime later in this century. If we do not reduce immigration, however, our
population will balloon over the next hundred years, and continue growing with no end in sight.
Skeptical? Consider four numbers: 310 million, 377 million, 571 million, and 854 million. 310 million is the population of the United States as we
write these words, at the end of 2010. The last three numbers are population projections for the year 2100, according to a study by the U.S.
Census Bureau. [4] Each of the three projections holds fertility rates steady, while varying immigration levels, so annual immigration rates make
the main difference between them.
Under a zero immigration projection, the U.S. population continues to grow throughout the 21st century, increasing to 377 million people, 67
million more than our current population. Under a “middle” projection, with immigration a little less than one million annually, we instead add
nearly 300 million people and almost double our population by 2100, to 571 million people. And under the highest scenario, with over two
million immigrants annually, our population nearly triples by 2100, adding almost 600 million more people by the end of the century, to 854
million people. Obviously, according to the Census Bureau, immigration makes a huge difference to future U.S.
population numbers.
A booming population has numerous harmful ecological effects beyond the sprawl and increased greenhouse gas
emissions we have already discussed. It increases water use. It accelerates deforestation. It furthers crowding, which in turn makes it harder for
young American to connect with nature, furthering “nature deficit disorder.” As Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, asked in a
speech in Madison, Wisconsin in March, 2000: “With twice the population, will there be any wilderness left? Any quiet place? Any habitat for
song birds? Waterfalls? Other wild creatures? Not much.”
Population growth also increases our dependence on fossil fuels, making the U.S. more likely to resort to deepwater oil drilling and more
susceptible to disasters such as the recent BP Gulf oil spill. Indeed, it is hard to think of a single environmental problem that is not made
significantly worse by population growth, or that could not be more effectively met if we could stabilize or reduce our population.
As the Clinton Council on Sustainable Development put it ten years ago: “The sum of all human activity, and thus the sum of all environmental,
economic and social impacts from human activity, is captured by considering population together with consumption.” [5]
As President Jimmy Carter’s Council on Environmental Quality put it, in a report twenty years earlier: “The United States should . . . develop a
U.S. national population policy that includes attention to issues such as population stabilization.” [6]
As the great conservationist Aldo Leopold put it, fifty years before that:
“If there is any question of “superiority” involved at all, it is whether we will prove capable of regulating our own future human population
density by some qualitative standard, or whether, like the grouse, we will automatically fill up the large biological niche which Columbus found
for us, and which Mr. Edison and Mr. Ford, through “management” of our human environment, are constantly making larger. I fear we will. The
boosters fear we will not, or else they fear there will be some needless delay about it.” [7]
American environmentalists face a choice. Ultimately, our environmental goals can only be accomplished if the
population of the United States stops growing. This will only occur if immigration is substantially
reduced, preferably by bringing immigration numbers in line with emigration numbers. We must choose between
sustainability and continued population growth. We cannot have both.
Backlines
Mechanics
Uniqueness – Legal immigration
Sessions is keeping immigration rates low. This includes trends the plan reverses – like
deferring action and reducing legal immigration levels.
Chishti ‘18
Sessions encapsulated his philosophy in the Immigration Handbook for the New Republican Majority,
published in 2015. Beyond recommending termination of the Obama administration’s deferred action
programs and targeted enforcement priorities, the handbook advocated cuts to overall immigration levels, including
the number of admitted temporary workers, to protect wages and job prospects for Americans. The book also proposed reforms to prohibit
legal immigrants from using public benefits, and rejected the idea that the country needs more workers in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) fields. Even as Sessions has fallen out of favor with the White House, echoes of the
handbook appear across the spectrum of legal immigration changes the administration has pursued,
with former Sessions aide and now close presidential advisor Stephen Miller reportedly driving much of the
agenda.
Legal immigration down now

Nowrasteh ‘18
Alex Nowrasteh is the senior immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute – “How Trump is really changing immigration:
Making it harder for people to come here legally” - Chicago Tribune – May 13th - #CutWithRJ –
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-trump-legal-immigration-0513-20180513-story.html
Yes, Trump still wants his big, beautiful wall to stop illegal border crossings. But he’s been railing against all
forms of immigration since his campaign. And he’s having a much easier time chipping away at legal
immigration than funding his wall. In some cases, the methods are strict quotas or new rules. But paperwork and
red tape work, too. For instance, this administration tripled the number of pages in green card applications.
Forms for sponsoring a foreign-born spouse are nine times longer than they used to be.
Here’s an overview of key ways Trump has made it more difficult and expensive to come here legally for foreign
students , skilled temporary workers , green cards holders , refugees and others.
Uniqueness – Illegal Immigration
Illegal border crossings are down now. The Trump hardline is part of this.
Petulla ‘18
et al; Sam Petulla is a Multi-Platform Editor for CNN Politics - “The data behind Trump's new border strategy” – CNN - April 6,
2018 - #CutWithRJ - https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/border-crossing-stats-trump-strategy/index.html
Last year's decline could be attributed to any number of variables, including the specter of a crackdown
by the new Trump administration. The number of apprehensions also greatly increased ahead of the initial dip. These nuances and
unanswered questions didn't feature in Trump's weekend Twitter rant, nor his call on Tuesday for a renewed military presence on what he
derided as the country's "'Weak Laws' Border."
The long-term statistics suggest an even less dramatic story. Arrests of people trying to slip across the border
illegally have been trending down since 2000. Trump himself acknowledged as much, without crediting his past
administrations, on Thursday morning, when he tweeted about apprehensions reaching a 46-year low (by the end of
fiscal year 2017).
There are net decreases in illegal migration now.

Karst 18 (“Where have all the (illegal) immigrants gone?”, Tom Karst Analyst, March 5, 2018 11:23 PM,
https://www.thepacker.com/article/where-have-all-illegal-immigrants-gone)
Instead of building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, perhaps we should construct barriers to
prevent their leaving. A recent study by the Center for Migration Studies indicates a sharp decline in
the U.S. undocumented population over a six-year period. This bit of news won’t quell the demand by President Trump for a border wall,
though perhaps that is the intent of the report. The report, called “The US Undocumented Population Fell Sharply During the Obama Era: Estimates for 2016,” includes estimates of the U.S.
The study found: The undocumented population fell below

undocumented population for 2016 by country of origin and state of residence.
10.8 million in 2016, the lowest level since 2003; The number of US undocumented residents from Mexico
fell by almost one million between 2010 and 2016; Average annual undocumented population growth dropped from
15% in the 1990s to about 4% in 2000 to 2010. Since 2010, the undocumented population from most countries has declined. In the
2010 to 2016 period, five major sending countries had large population declines: Poland (-47%); Peru (-40%); Ecuador (-31%); Colombia (-29%); and South Korea (-27 percent). From 2010 to
2016, six of the 10 states with the largest undocumented populations had declines of more than 10%: Illinois (-20%); North Carolina (-16%); California (-13%); New York (-13%); Arizona (-12%);
and Georgia (-11%). The only large state to gain was Texas (+2%). The report said the shift occurred over a time period “that included Congress’ repeated consideration of the DREAM Act and
reform bills that included legalization programs.”The decline also occurred during the establishment and implementation of
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the study said. The study said the undocumented
population dropped in most of the states from 2010 to 2016, with California declining by 367,000, or 13% of its undocumented
population. The declines were closely related to the decline of the undocumented population from Mexico, according to the study. “CMS’s findings provide further
evidence of the historic shift in the undocumented population in the U.S.,” Donald Kerwin, CMS’s executive director said in the
release. “This shift undercuts the claimed need for massive expenditures on a border-wide wall. It shows that the undocumented population has
been decreasing for some time, and that the administration’s narrative of an out-of-control border is
exaggerated, if not simply wrong.”
Illegal border crossings are down – fewer people are even attempting it.
Burnett ‘17
John Burnett - Southwest Correspondent, National Desk for National Public Radio. As NPR's Southwest correspondent based in
Austin, Texas, John Burnett covers immigration, border affairs, Texas news, and features, and does investigative reporting.
“Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low” – NPR Reports - December 5, 2017 - #CutWithRJ -
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568546381/arrests-for-illegal-border-crossings-hit-46-year-low
Arrests of people trying to cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico plunged to the lowest level since 1971, as
fewer people attempted the trek, the Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday
Meanwhile, immigration arrests in the interior of the country increased by 25 percent, the data show.
The newly released data provides the most comprehensive look yet at how immigration enforcement is
changing under the Trump administration.
The dramatic shift in arrests of undocumented immigrants from the Southwest border to the interior of the nation continues to be a prominent
feature of the Trump presidency.
“Overall, removals are down because the border's under better control than it has been in 45 years," said Tom Homan, acting director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
New data released by DHS show that Border Patrol arrests are at a 46-year low. Border officers
apprehended 310,531 people for being in the country illegally in fiscal 2017, a 25 percent decrease from the year
before. Meanwhile, arrests by agents with ICE in the interior of the country spiked from the year before to 143,470 immigrants — mostly
Central Americans.
Illegal migration decreasing---best metrics prove

NYT 18 (June 20, “Border Crossings Have Been Declining for Years, Despite Claims of a ‘Crisis of Illegal
Immigration’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html)
The president, vice president and homeland security secretary have said the surge of migrants illegally entering the United States
has reached emergency levels. Here’s some historical context. This requires context. The Trump administration, defending its “zero tolerance”
immigration policy that has resulted in separating families, has repeatedly pointed to a “crisis of illegal immigration” at the border. But government data
shows that monthly crossings along the border with Mexico are dramatically lower than they were
years ago. The most commonly used metric to measure how many people are illegally crossing into the
United States is the number of people who are arrested, taken into custody or otherwise
“apprehended” at or near the country’s borders. From the 1980s to the mid-2000s, the government reported annually apprehending
around 1 million to 1.6 million foreigners who illegally entered the United States at the southwestern border. In 2000 alone, federal agents
apprehended between 71,000 and 220,000 migrants each month. By comparison, monthly border
crossings so far this year have ranged from 20,000 to 40,000 people. The number of people who have
been either apprehended or turned away at the southwestern border also has decreased over the past
decade.
Link - Subsequent Family-Based Migration
Extend our link. It’s not solely about the direct amnesty of DREAMers – plan indirectly
causes immigration to skyrocket via family sponsorship.
Subsequent family-based migration means plan causes 6 million new immigrants. Each
DREAMer will sponsor at least 2 additional family members.
Vaughn ‘18
Jessica M. Vaughan previously was a Foreign Service Officer with the State Department. Mrs. Vaughan has a Master’s degree
from Georgetown University and earned her Bachelor’s degree in International Studies at Washington College in Maryland.
“Why Cutting Chain Migration Must Be Part of an Immigration Deal” – National Review - #CutWithRJ - February 1, 2018 –
Modified for language that may offend - https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/chain-migration-cuts-now-are-vital/
This is another major reason that the chain migration (subsequent family-based migration) cuts are so vital. Without changes, an amnesty
for the Dreamers is an amnesty for their parents, too — the ones who chose to come here illegally. I estimate that each
Dreamer put on the path to citizenship will probably sponsor an average of two additional relatives — in all
likelihood, one or both parents and possibly siblings who are here illegally or living abroad. Without other cuts, a Dreamer
amnesty would cause a huge increase in legal immigration that could dwarf the size of the initial
amnesty , as happened in the past.
Trump’s proposal is to offer immediate legalization to 1.8 million Dreamers, some 700,000 of whom currently have work permits issued,
unconstitutionally, under President Obama, and more than a million others who also arrived as children but did not qualify for DACA because of
age or failure to complete high school, or some other reason.
To offset these numbers, the Trump plan would cut off sponsorship of adult relatives outside the nuclear family, including parents, and end the
visa lottery. Those changes would reduce legal immigration by about 33 percent from today’s levels.
Unfortunately, in an effort to mollify high-immigration fans from both parties in Congress, the chain-migration cuts under the Trump plan
would not go into effect until the entire waiting list of family chain-migration applicants is cleared. This would take at least ten years. Then it
would take another five years or so before the future chain-migration cuts could offset the 1.8 million new green cards for the Dreamers.
So, if the proposal becomes law, the Dreamers will obtain relief from deportation immediately upon passage of the bill, but Americans will have
to wait 15 years for relief from chain migration (subsequent family-based migration).
Even more concerning, a proposal now being hammered out by Senate Republicans reportedly would create a new form of residency visa for
parents of naturalized citizens, including the parents of the Dreamers. In
this scenario, there would be very little decrease in immigration
to offset the amnesty, which could then cover about 6 million people .
Our link is likely an underestimate – studies show new legal permanent residence
sponsor 4-to-5 additional family members that don’t count against caps.
Tienda ‘15
Marta Tienda - Maurice P. During Professor in Demographic Studies. Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson
School at Princeton University and also The Director, Program in Latino Studies at Princeton University – “Multiplying Diversity:
Family Unification and the Regional Origins of Late-Age US Immigrants” - INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW - Fall 2015 -
#CutWithRJ – Modified for language that may offend - http://wws.princeton.edu/system/files/research/documents/183%20-
%20Tienda%20M%20-%202015%20-%20Multiplying%20Diversity-
%20Family%20Unification%20and%20the%20Regional%20Origins%20of%20Late%20Age%20Immigrants,%201981-
2009.%E2%80%9D%20International%20Migration%20Review_0.pdf
We use administrative data about new legal permanent residents to show how family unification chain
migration (and subsequent family-based migration) changed both the age and regional origin of US immigrants. Between
1981 and 1995, every 100 initiating immigrants from Asia sponsored between 220 and 255 relatives, but from 1996 through 2000,
each 100 initiating immigrants from Asia sponsored nearly 400 relatives, with one-in-four ages 50 and above. The
family migration multiplier for Latin Americans was boosted by the legalization program: from 1996 to 2000, each of the 100
initiating migrants from Latin America sponsored between 420 and 531 family members, of which 18–21
percent were ages 50 and over.
This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives
or add importantly to our wealth and power...this Bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to emigrate to America shall be
admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here. -Lyndon B. Johnson, 19651
At the height of the civil rights movement, President Johnson’s vision of the Great Society resonated with the message of replacing the racist
immigration quotas in exchange for a system privileging family reunification. But history shows that the 1965 amendments to the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952 had profound, unanticipated consequences. These resulted partly because architects
of the legislation
vastly underestimated the power of chain migration (subsequent family-based migration) in driving
future flows and partly because of policy choices made when high fertility rather than aging dominated domestic policy agendas. In
addition to making family unification the centerpiece of admissions by broadening the preference categories to include adult relatives of
citizens and legal permanent residents (LPRs), the 1965 amendments added parents of US citizens to the uncapped
category.
Signal Link - 2NC-1NR Link Module
Granting amnesty to DREAMers sends a signal that will encourage new waves of
illegal immigration.
Inserra ‘18
David Inserra, a policy analyst in Heritage's Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, specializes in homeland
security issues, including cyber, counterterrorism, and immigration policy. He holds a Masters in Public Policy from George
Mason University and a Bachelor of Arts in government and economics from the College of William & Mary. “Pro-Amnesty
Republicans Would Undermine Border Security and U.S. Law” – Heritage Foundation - May 29th, 2018 - #CutWithRJ -
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/pro-amnesty-republicans-would-undermine-border-security-and-us-law
With some Republicans pushing for a vote on amnesty for those brought illegally to the U.S. as children,
Congress should remember why such policies hurt, rather than help.
In addition to giving short shrift to other needed immigration reforms and being unfair to both Americans and legal immigrants, the current
immigration efforts will likely only encourage more illegal immigration . In fact, it’s happened before.
In 1986, the U.S. provided amnesty to almost 3 million illegal immigrants while promising to stop future illegal
immigration. While the bill was being considered, some senators raised concerns about the message that such an
amnesty would send.
Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., argued that “[a]mnesty for the millions of illegal aliens currently in these United States would establish a dangerous
precedent which could well encourage additional illegal immigration.” Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, stated that “there may be those in other
countries who will say that since we granted amnesty once, maybe we will do it again.”
While those promises to stop future illegal immigration came to nothing, the amnesty took effect immediately. It
sent exactly the
message that Helms and Gramm feared—that the U.S. was willing to reward those who came here illegally by
granting them U.S. citizenship.
Congress would later pass several smaller amnesties in the 1990s, setting a firm precedent that Congress would indeed keep rewarding illegal
immigration.
Since then, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has grown to around 12 million. During that time, Congress
has considered but rejected additional amnesties.
The current proposal being pushed by some Republicans would legalize as many as 1.8 million illegal immigrants.
But doing so would only double down on the failed amnesty model that was tried in 1986 and the 1990s.
Research on previous amnesties confirms our link.

Inserra ‘17
David Inserra, a policy analyst in Heritage's Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, specializes in homeland
security issues, including cyber, counterterrorism, and immigration policy. He holds a Masters in Public Policy from George
Mason University and a Bachelor of Arts in government and economics from the College of William & Mary. “Dreaming of
Amnesty: Legalization Will Spur More Illegal Immigration” – Heritage Foundation - October 30, 2017 - #CutWithRJ -
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/dreaming-amnesty-legalization-will-spur-more-illegal-immigration
Congress is considering legislation that would provide amnesty to those brought illegally to the U.S. as
minors, including those who may not have been eligible for the DACA program. One such example is the Solution for Undocumented
Children through Careers, Employment, Education, and Defending Our Nation (SUCCEED) Act introduced by Senators James Lankford (R–OK),
Tom Tillis (R–NC), and Orrin Hatch (R–UT).4 Such legislative efforts are fundamentally flawed and will encourage more illegal
immigration . Rather than implementing amnesty, Congress should focus on a step-by-step process to enhance immigration enforcement
and improve the legal immigration system.
Any legislation that provides lawful status to an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.—that is, amnesty—raises three fundamental
questions. Does such legislation:
Encourage more illegal immigration, or discourage it?
Guarantee long-term commitment to a working immigration system or kick the can down the road?
Uphold the rule of law or weaken it?
Amnesty as Incentive for More Illegal Immigration. An

amnesty-centric approach to immigration reform does nothing
to discourage additional illegal immigration.5 The Immigration Reform and Control Act ( IRCA ) of 1986
provided 2.7 million illegal immigrants with legal status and access to citizenship.6 The House committee that crafted the
legislation claimed “a one-time legalization program is a necessary part of an effective enforcement program.”7 When Senators discussed the
final bill, the sponsor, Senator Alan Simpson (R–WY), promised “that this is it. It is one time. You either show up on this one
or you will be rejected.”8 With
11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants now living in the country, and with a constant
push for new amnesties, these promises have proven empty.9
There were a few Senators who correctly predicted that the 1986 amnesty would encourage more illegal immigration. Former Senator Jesse
Helms (R–NC) argued that “[a]mnesty for the millions of illegal aliens currently in these United States would establish a dangerous precedent
which could well encourage additional illegal immigration.” Former Senator Phil Gramm (R–TX) stated that “there may be those in other
countries who will say that since we granted amnesty once, maybe we will do it again.”
More recently, this lesson of history repeated itself, as President Barack Obama’s DACA program and general weakening of immigration
enforcement contributed to the surge of unaccompanied minors and families at the U.S. border. Fleeing from violence in Central America,
these illegal immigrants “consistently” believed that they were eligible for a legal pass or “permiso” to enter and stay in the U.S., according to
data collected by the Department of Homeland Security.
History has proven time and time again that amnesty and non-enforcement policies only encourage more illegal
immigration
A-to “Neg’s Subsequent Family-Based Migration Data is flawed”
Neg studies aren’t inaccurate – here is a pro-dict:

Tienda ‘15
Marta Tienda - Maurice P. During Professor in Demographic Studies. Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson
School at Princeton University and also The Director, Program in Latino Studies at Princeton University – “Multiplying Diversity:
Family Unification and the Regional Origins of Late-Age US Immigrants” - INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW - Fall 2015 -
#CutWithRJ – Modified for language that may offend - http://wws.princeton.edu/system/files/research/documents/183%20-
%20Tienda%20M%20-%202015%20-%20Multiplying%20Diversity-
%20Family%20Unification%20and%20the%20Regional%20Origins%20of%20Late%20Age%20Immigrants,%201981-
2009.%E2%80%9D%20International%20Migration%20Review_0.pdf
This study addresses several limitations of prior work by extending the timeline for estimating the
magnitude of family unification chain migration (subsequent family-based migration) beyond 2000 ,
relaxing assumptions of synthetic methods that assume uniform cohort sizes, and disaggregating
multipliers by age. Yu’s (2008) estimates based on the Immigrants Admitted microdata are likely
understated because they exclude the outsized IRCA cohorts. The longer observation period also permits
an early assessment of how the increase in employment visas after 1990 boosted family unification
migration. Jasso and Rosenzweig (1989) argue that employment and government-sponsored immigrants have the highest sponsorship rates
both because they are unlikely to have many relatives in the host country and because they naturalize at high rates. Although their data only
permitted estimation of multipliers for labor certified initiating immigrants over a single decade, their predictions were spot on for Asia.
Following the massive legalization program that disproportionately benefitted Mesoamericans, parent and sibling sponsorship became a
Mexican phenomenon as well. By
increasing the base of initiating immigrants, our analyses suggest that other
legalization programs, such as the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997, will likely foment family
unification chain migration (subsequent family-based migration) from the region (Tienda and Sanchez 2013).
Wages module
Uniqueness – Wages up now
Wages are up in the status quo.

Roff ‘18
Peter Roff – formerly the United Press International's senior political analyst from September 2000 until June 2005. “MORE JOBS. HIGHER
WAGES. SURGING ECONOMY. WHERE’S OUR THANKS TO TRUMP ?” – Newsweek – June 15th - #CutWithRJ - http://www.newsweek.com/more-
jobs-higher-wages-surging-economy-wheres-our-thanks-trump-opinion-974948
The American economy is surging, even before the new, lower corporate and personal tax rates go into effect. The promise
that companies and most individuals will soon be able to keep more of what they earn has, alongside the
Trump Administration’s successful effort to deregulate vital sectors of the economy, produced a boom unlike any seen since the Reagan
tax cuts goosed the economy out of the near-depression Jimmy Carter’s policies had put it in.
Wages are up too. According to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee the average hourly earnings of production and
nonsupervisory workers is 2.8 percent higher than it was 12 months ago. That’s the largest gain since July 2009.
Yes, wages have been sluggish – but they’re improving now and low Unemployment
will foster this trend.
Firestone ‘18
Karen Firestone, chair and CEO, Aureus Asset Management - an investment firm dedicated to providing contemporary asset
management to families and individuals. Previously, she spent 22 years at Fidelity Investments. “Companies have no choice
now but to raise wages” – CNBC – June 6th - #CutWithRJ - Modified for language that may offend -
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/companies-have-no-choice-now-but-to-raise-wages.html
The US economy is running at close to capacity, with only 3.8 percent unemployment. Finally, after years of
unrequited anticipation, we are seeing (witnessing) some reasonable wage growth .
Despite the 2.7 percent year-over-year current reading, this gain falls short of the close to 4 percent nominal increases seen historically during
periods of low unemployment.
This suggests it might be worth exploring whether specific structural changes today might persist in the future to hold down income growth to
below 3 percent annually. Studies have carefully examined how labor is less unionized, with limited bargaining power; is less interested in
moving geographically; is less productive somehow (maybe that three plus hours a day staring at our cellphones?); and includes a large pool of
workers sitting on the sidelines, who are technically not workforce "participants" since they are not officially seeking a job.
All these elements may contribute to wage stagnation, inhibiting the traditional response of higher pay to the shortage of workers. However,
the last point, suggesting that
the real unemployment rate has been higher than "officially" stated, best explains why
employers have not needed to offer much higher wages to induce new workers in many sectors.
It is also clear that the private sector cannot blame weak profits for the lack of wage growth to its employees.
As the chart below illustrates, operating and reported margins have doubled since 1994, at least for the S&P 500 companies.
Total wages account for a 57 percent of total revenue today compared to 65 percent in 1975. While the US economy has expanded over the
past decades, the portion earmarked for workers has declined.
One group has defied that trend: CEO's. The compensation for top executives at the 350 largest US corporations has skyrocketed, with the
average CEO in 1978 earning 30 times the salary of a typical worker versus a hair-raising 271 times today. If these firms were representative of
the entire domestic workforce, we would see a spread between the gains experienced by management versus rank and file employees.
However, the S&P 500 block of companies only accounts for 17 percent of domestic workers, with the majority employed by small to medium
sized entities. That explains why the average real wage increase for non-supervisory workers over the past decade (plus 0.8 percent), exceeded
that for the total worker pool (plus 0.6 percent), including managers. While the numbers are large at the biggest corporations, their impact on
the total labor market is small.
Is it possible there are other cost categories that have grown dramatically at the expense of "earnings" and might continue to crowd out
employees? Consider health care insurance premiums, which have climbed from 5.5 percent of total private industry compensation in 1997 to
7.6 percent today.
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announces its monthly wage growth, health care premiums and benefits are excluded from those numbers.
At my company, we pay approximately $25,000 a year for each employee who has a family plan. Our premiums have expanded at a rate two to
three times that of inflation, which is likely true for most organizations.
It could be possible that increased benefit packages, such as health care, flexible time, parental leave, etc., which are not included in "wages",
could be causing income sluggishness. However, when we observe the growth rate of wages compared to that of benefits, outside the post-
Recession period of heavy-severance payouts, the two charts closely coincide.
Finally, I looked at human resource department spending, in an effort to quantify whether programs that relate to harassment, education,
training, and safety policies might be so expensive that wage gains are a casualty. Despite the high profile nature of HR initiatives in the wake of
the #MeToo movement, HR staffing currently represents 1.4 full time equivalent for every one hundred workers, up slightly over the prior five
years . Staffing, of course, is not a perfect proxy for total cost of new corporate initiatives, but there is no evidence that wage growth is
restricted by sensitivity training.
Therefore, I would conclude that the ubiquitous "Help Wanted" signs I see in multiple storefronts and restaurants, and
articles about industries such as trucking, airlines, nursing, and IT will force employers, faced with labor shortages, to
ultimately pay more. After the recession, millions of people who lost jobs became self-employed or under-employed – Uber drivers,
personal trainers, dog walkers, home relocation experts, etc., and they were simply not in the data set.
Wages are improving now.

Fleming ‘18
Sam - US ECONOMICS EDITOR for The Financial Times - ““US wages jump on back of sturdy economic expansion” – Financial
Times - APRIL 27, 2018 - #CutWithRJ - https://www.ft.com/content/46d2d148-4a1b-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7ccb
US private sector pay grew at the quickest pace since before the recovery started , adding to evidence
that steady economic growth and falling unemployment are finally lifting incomes and potentially inflation.
Official figures showed a 2.9 per cent growth in private sector wages and salaries in the first three
months of the year compared with the same period a year earlier, the fastest pace since 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
The figures came as the US economy continued to grow above its trend rate in the first quarter, albeit at a slower
pace than in the final quarter of 2017. Gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 2.3 per cent, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said
separately, down from 2.9 per cent at the end of 2017.
Wages up – both small and large firms are boosting pay.

Duppler ‘18
Mattie Duppler is the senior fellow for fiscal policy at National Taxpayers Union. She is the president of the consulting firm
Forward Strategies. Mattie previously worked as a Hill leadership staffer and served as the Director of Budget and Regulatory
Policy at Americans for Tax Reform - “The American economy is stronger than ever six months after tax cuts” – The Hill – June
22nd - #CutWithRJ - http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/393648-the-american-economy-is-stronger-than-ever-six-months-after-
tax-cuts
More than four million people are receiving bonuses, benefit increases, and higher wages from hundreds of
companies, totaling some $4 billion back into the pockets of the working class . Companies like Apple,
Comcast, Boeing, and Bank of America have given workers across the country bonuses, in addition to pledging
new investments into our national economy. Many more small businesses have done the same in their communities by
growing their operations and hiring more people.
Immigration hurts wages – Internal Link
More Immigration will cause a net reduction in wages

Rubenstein ‘16
Internally quoting Paul Samuelson — the first American to win a Nobel Prize in economics. Edwin S. Rubenstein previously was
an economist and Director of Research at the Hudson Institute, as well as an Economics editor National Review and a
contributing editor at Forbes Magazine. Mr. Rubenstein has a B.A. from Johns Hopkins and a graduate degree in economics
from Columbia University. His essays on public policy have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Harvard
Business Review, Investor’s Business Daily, Newsday, and National Review. “The Negative Economic Impact of Immigration on
American Workers” – March - #CutWithRJ - http://www.npg.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/2016NegativeEconomicImpactForumPaper.pdf
“After World War I, laws were passed severely limiting immigration. Only a trickle of immigrants has been admitted
since then…. By keeping supply down, immigration policy tends to keep wages high. Let us underline this basic
principle: limitation in the supply of any grade of labor relative to all other productive factors can be expected to raise
its wage rate; an increase in supply will, other things being equal, tend to depress wage rates.” – Paul Samuelson,
Economics [1964]
What happens when immigration increases the supply of workers in a particular labor market? In his iconic
textbook, Paul Samuelson — the first American to win a Nobel Prize in economics — gave the common sense
answer implied by the standard model of the labor market. Samuelson wrote these words right before enactment of the 1965 Immigration
Act. The impending change may well have prompted him to make the point that immigration restrictions tended to “keep
wages high.” His book also stressed the other implication: as immigration increases the supply of a particular type of labor
(such as low-educated, unskilled workers), the wage paid to those workers will fall.
Wages are key to the US economy
Wages are increasing now and are key to the US economy. They boost consumption,
business investment and productivity.
Harrison ‘18
The evidence internally references a report by McKinsey. McKinsey & Company is an American worldwide management
consulting firm. It conducts qualitative and quantitative analysis to evaluate management decisions across the public and
private sectors. Edward - banking and finance specialist at the economic consultancy Global Macro Advisors. Holds a BA in
Economics from Dartmouth College and an MBA in Finance from Columbia University. “McKinsey: Consumer Demand Growth Is
Critical For Productivity And Investment” – Credit Writedowns - Feb 24, 2018 – ellipsis in original - #CutWithRJ -
https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2018/02/productivity-demand-mckinsey-greenspan.html#.Wyxgr6dKg2w
Productivity is an important yardstick for measuring the value of goods and services workers. A recent study by McKinsey
demonstrates that wages and demand are key to raising it.
Productivity. That’s an all-important yardstick for measuring the value of goods and services workers can produce in any given time period. And
growth in productivity is key in raising income and living standards. But, in the US, productivity growth has flagged in recent years. And that has
economists worried. A recent study by consulting group McKinsey gives reason not to worry — but only if the government supports policies
that bolster consumer demand.
Here’s the big issue: growth in the US economy has been sluggish since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. There have been spikes of growth.
But invariably, the economy downshifted again. And the level of growth has been lower than in previous expansions.
In fact, there hasn’t been a single calendar year in which the economy has grown 3% or more since 2005. The longest stretch previously was 4
years. And that was during the depths of the Great Depression between 1930 and 1933. So that means we have seen 12 straight years of
decidedly sub-par growth. Some people are calling this secular stagnation.
Now, growth depends on both the labor force and worker productivity. The only way to get growth back up is to either get more
workers or get existing workers to make more stuff or both. Many economists have focused on the labor force piece. But many economists
have instead focused on the productivity piece.
Former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is particularly worried about the productivity piece. For years, he has said that
producitvity growth is the key to understanding inflation. And more importantly, he recently warned that low productivity growth is the key
difference between the macro backdrop today and the 1990s.
In the mid- to late-1990s, Greenspan resisted the urge to raise interest rates as unemployment dropped, despite worries about consumer price
inflation. He theorized at the time that productivity growth would keep inflation at bay. Here’s how the New York Times put it in 2004. That’s
when Greenspan repeated his experiment with low rates despite a growing housing bubble:
“Mr. Greenspan’s last big idea came 10 years ago, when he correctly perceived that American productivity was growing much faster than
official statistics suggested and that the country could grow much more rapidly without inflation than most experts believed at the time.”
More recently, Greenspan has worried that low productivity gave us less room to maneuver. With tax cuts increasing the deficit, he fears
inflation. He told Bloomberg late last month that “we’re dealing with a fiscally unstable long-term outlook in which inflation will take
hold…we’ve been through almost a decade now of stagnation and we’re working our way toward stagflation.”
What if Greenspan is wrong? Perhaps it is the labor force side of the equation that is more important.
Recent work by McKinsey supports this notion. The McKinsey research shows that demand
for goods in services can increase
productivity. And that means the number of workers can alter growth by affecting both the number of workers and
productivity at the same time. Higher wages would have similar impacts by increasing present or expected
consumption.
Here’s how the researchers described their findings in the Harvard Business Review a few days ago:
A little over a century ago, Henry

Ford doubled the minimum pay of his workers to $5 a day. When other employers
followed suit, it became clear that Ford had
sparked a chain reaction. Higher pay throughout the industry helped lead to
more sales, creating a virtuous cycle of growth and prosperity. Could we be at another Henry Ford
moment?
Some major companies have announced plans to boost employee pay . Target raised its minimum wage to $11 this
past fall and committed to $15 by 2020. More recently, Walmart announced plans to match that increase to $11. In banking, Wells Fargo and
Fifth Third Bancorp also announced pay increases for minimum wage employees.
[…]
After a year-long analysis of seven developed countries and six sectors, we have concluded that demand
matters for productivity
growth and that increasing demand is key to restarting growth across advanced economies.
The impact of demand on productivity growth is often underappreciated. Looking closer at the period following the financial crisis, 2010 to
2014, we find that weak demand played a key role in the recent productivity growth decline to historic lows. In fact, about half of the slowdown
in productivity growth — from an average of 2.4% in the United States and Western Europe in 2000 to 2004 to 0.5% a decade later — was due
to weak demand and uncertainty.
workers with higher wages buy more complex goods and services. These goods
What the researchers say is that
and services require greater investment because their production requires is more complex. And this mix
of output and investment increases productivity.
The investment piece is key.
Wages are key to the economy

Tverberg ‘ 13
Gail Tverberg is a casualty actuary, and worked for many years in that field, most recently as a consultant for Towers Watson.
“Limits To Growth – Do Higher Oil Prices Cause Lower Wages?” – Economy Watch - FEBRUARY 15, 2013 - #CutWithRJ -
http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/limits-to-growth-do-higher-oil-prices-cause-lower-
wages.15-02.html
In my view, wagesare the backbone an economy. If workers have difficulty finding a job, or have difficulty earning
sufficient wages, the lack of wages will be a problem, not just for the workers, but for governments and
businesses. Governments will have a hard time collecting enough taxes, and businesses will have a hard time finding
enough customers.. There can be business-to-business transactions, but ultimately somewhere
“downstream,” businesses need wage-earning customers who can afford to pay for goods and services.
Even if a business produces a resource that is in very high demand, such as oil, it still needs wage-earning
customers either to buy the resource directly (for example, as gasoline), or to buy the resource indirectly (for example, as food which uses
oil in production and transport).
It is not just any wages that are important. It is the wages paid by private companies (rather than governments) that are important, as the
backbone to the economy. Governments tend to get their revenues from private citizens and from businesses, both of which are dependent on
wages of private citizens. There are a few pieces outside of this loop, such as taxes on imports from foreign countries. With the advent of free
international trade, this source is disappearing. Another piece outside the US wage-loop is taxes on resource extraction, if these resources are
exported.
Instead of using the analogy of a backbone, perhaps I should say that wages are the base that ultimately determines the
quantity of goods and services an economy can afford.
A-to “Turn – immigration helps the economy”
On balance, Immigration hurts wages – this outweighs any economic gains to

employers or specialized high-skill workers.
Borjas ‘16
et al; Dr. George Borjas is a Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School – “THE IMPACT OF HIGH
LEVELS OF IMMIGRATION ON U.S. WORKERS” - UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST: ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION - MARCH 16, 2016 -
#CutWithRJ – Modified for language that may offend - file:///C:/Users/William/Downloads/797203.pdf
For example, an influx of foreign-born laborers reduces the economic opportunities for laborers— all
laborers now face stiffer competition. At the same time, employers and high-skill natives (US workers) may
gain. Firms pay less for the services that laborers provide, and highskill natives (US workers) can specialize
in producing the goods and services that better suit their skills. The theory also suggests that over time, as the economy
adjusts to the immigrant influx, the effect of immigration on the wage of the average worker will be
attenuated, but the distributional impact will remain.
In addition to these distributional consequences, there is another important reason for caring about the wage effect of immigration: the
net
gains to the U.S. economy directly depend on how immigration affects wages. An important implication of the
laws of supply and demand is that the greater the distributional wage effect, the greater the economic gain from immigration.
This essay reviews what it is we know about the labor market impact of immigration, both in terms of the distributional wage effects and the
economic gains. It is important to stress that there is a lot of confusion (and sometimes deliberate confusion) regarding these estimates, so that
it is important to look carefully at the details behind various claims.
The evidence suggests that immigration depresses the wage of the workers who are most likely to
compete with the immigrants. A useful rule of thumb is: If immigrants increase the supply of workers in a particular
skill group by 10 percent, the wage of that group probably goes down by at least 3 percent.
Because so many of the immigrants who entered the United States in the past two decades were low-skill, this means that those most affected
by immigration were preexisting low-skill workers (both native- and foreign-born). It is important to add, however, that the
evidence also suggests that the wage of high-skill workers in specific occupations targeted by immigrants (such as the
high-tech sector) has also been negatively affected by immigration . Finally, the economic gains from
immigration accruing to natives (US workers) are relatively small—less than three-tenths of one percent of
GDP, or roughly around $50 billion annually.
Borjas Prodict
Prefer Borjas – he’s got the best qualifications:

C.I.S. ‘13
This originally appeared in a Center for Immigration Studies report from April of 2013. Now appears on the CIS bio section titled
“George Borjas” - #CutWithRJ- https://cis.org/George-Borjas
George J. Borjas has been described by both Business Week and the Wall Street Journal as “America’s
leading immigration economist”. He is the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy
School. He is the recipient of the 2011 IZA Prize in Labor Economics. Professor Borjas is also a Research Associate at the
National Bureau of Economic Research and a Research Fellow at IZA. Professor Borjas is the author of several books, including Heaven’s Door:
Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton University Press, 1999), and the widely used textbook Labor Economics (McGraw-Hill,
2012), now in its sixth edition. He
has published over 125 articles in books and scholarly journals. He received his
Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1975.
Green Sustainability Module
Overview – 2NC-1NR
Extend our green sustainability impact.

Due to a “baby-bust” trend, immigration is the lone variable that could drive-up US
population.
US population growth is the top extinction risk.
Here’s more proof that US population growth is an existential risk and the
immigration levels are the key variable.
McAlpin ‘14
David McAlpin – Author at PFIR - Progressives for Immigration Reform - “U.S. Population and Its Impact on the Environment:
Why Curbing Per Capita Consumption Is Not Enough” – Policy Brief 14-1 - PFIR - September 10, 2014 - #CutWithRJ -
http://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/publication/u-s-population-and-its-impact-on-the-environment-why-curbing-per-
capita-consumption-is-not-enough/
The survival of society and all life on earth depends greatly on the well-being of the environment and its
ecosystems. The development of the United States, and the existence of humanity in general, has relied on and will continue to rely on the
availability of natural resources, which are provided to us by the environment and these ecosystems. With that being said, it is then the
duty of this generation to create and maintain a sustainable society which protects the environment, in order to
ensure the availability of natural resources for future generations. Almost every person, except for the stubbornly ignorant few, agrees that the
destruction of the environment caused by human activity is a pressing issue, as political discourse and the layman’s conversation often feature
this topic. However, environmentalists
disagree with one another as to which preventative measure should be
taken in order to curb environmental destruction.
To address the degradation of our environment, some environmentalists look at the copious amount of carbon emissions being
produced here in the U.S. and decide that Americans should focus on reducing our consumption in order to abate
pollution. It is laudable to condemn the egregious pollution of the power sector and the gas-guzzling culture of our nation,
and I agree wholeheartedly that efforts are needed to curb consumption levels. However, while this approach
may seem practical and effective to those environmentally conscious, it places too much emphasis on consumption and in
doing so underestimates other factors that have a much greater impact on the environment, such as
population size.
In order to measure the impact of humanity on the environment as well as the demands humans place on available resources, ecologists prefer
to use what is the called the IPAT equation. Developed in the 1970s by John Holdren, the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science
and technology issues, the IPAT formula (I = P x A x T) measures three human variables that have the largest impact on the environment. “I” is
the total impact humans have on the environment, and is a function of three factors: P = total population, A = affluence (i.e. consumption), and
T = the technology used to facilitate consumption. All three factors have equal importance as they are interrelated, which is why population
growth here in the U.S. deserves more consideration in the ongoing debate about the environment.
Curbing consumption addresses only one of the many problems afflicting the environment. Benefits
to the environment resulting
from a reduction in consumption will be offset entirely by a growing population . In the past few decades, the
vast majority (nearly 80 percent) of the increase in carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions was a direct result of U.S. population growth.
[1] The more people there are in this country, the more demand there is for cars, houses, food, and other carbon generators. For example,
between 1970 and 1990 there was a 25 percent increase in energy use in the U.S., despite per capita energy use remaining stagnant during that
period. [2] Thus the significant
increase in the consumption of energy can be attributed to population growth, as
the U.S. population unsurprisingly continued to flourish throughout those years.
While curbing per capita consumption is an important component of combatting environmental degradation, it is an effective approach only
when a population size is stable. It won’t matter how prominent green technology becomes if this nation has twice as many people living in it.
In order for the U.S. to merely maintain its currently outrageous ecological footprint, every increase in population size would have to be met by
an equal decrease in per capita consumption. If the population size continues to grow, then per capita consumption will have to decrease
indefinitely to prevent further environmental destruction. In a country that eats the most food, [3] wastes the most water, [4] and uses the
most oil, [5] the chances of the U.S. drastically reducing its per capita consumption seems unlikely at best.
Stalling the increase of pollution is the best outcome that curbing per capita consumption can offer, and simply stalling will not cut it when it
comes to environmental preservation. Overall consumption levels in the U.S. determine the country’s impact on the environment, not per
capita consumption.
According to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the United States accounts for 19 percent of all carbon emissions, second only to china,
and this number will certainly increase with a growing population. [6] To make matters worse, “current greenhouse-gas emissions are already
committing the planet to likely climate change in the next 20 years,” says Richard Black, Stephen R.G. Bennett, Sandy M. Thomas and John R.
Beddington in their scholarly article Climate Change: Migration as Adaption. With current global consumption committing the Earth to
significant (and likely detrimental) climate change in the near future, the United States needs to seriously address its own carbon pollution if we
ever expect other countries to address theirs. Population growth fuels consumption, and making efforts to stabilize our own
population would send a message to those countries experiencing rapid population growth and countries with large populations
(like China and India) that population stabilization is crucial to the preservation of the Earth’s fragile
environment. Perhaps this message would even encourage other countries to follow suit.
The United States is already experiencing environmental destruction and scarcity of natural resources caused by unregulated population
growth. For example, water availability is being threatened by overpopulation in certain geographical areas within the U.S. In the article, Why
Excess Immigration Damages the Environment, Population-Environment Balance Inc.’s author writes, “Many regions of the country are even
now depleting underground aquifers at rates far in excess of their recharge rates because, in carrying capacity terms, they are already over-
populated. [ . . . ] In some areas of the country, on the East Coast, and especially in Florida, the toxic pollution generated by dense population is
already permanently destroying underground aquifer reservoirs.” The fact that water resources are already running scarce indicates that the
U.S.’s 300 million citizens is a population size unsustainable for all intents and purposes. If society is not presently sustainable with 300 million
inhabitants, here is no reason to think we will be able to live sustainably with two times as many people. As Virginia Abernathy writes in her
scholarly article, The Environmental and Ethical Aspects of International Migration, “the insatiable thirst for oil and energy, the annual erosion
or paving over of 3 million acres of U.S. farmland, the appropriation for residential purposes of rural habitats with an attendant loss of species,
the buildup of carbon dioxide loads and such all indict the human load factor: too many people living in an energy-guzzling society.”
Most people who were wise enough to pay attention in their high school biology class are familiar with the concept of carrying capacity. Put
simply, the carrying capacity of a species is the population size of that species the environment can sustain, given the proper habitat, access to
water, food availability, and other elements required to sustain life. When a population booms and the carrying capacity of a species is
exceeded, a regulating factor acts to return population size to the point of equilibrium, usually through widespread famine or shortages in
water supply. The ultimate outcome, of course, is widespread death. The damage done to the environment when the carrying capacity is
exceeded is so devastating that its impact is often irreversible. As explained in the article, Why Excess Immigration Damages the Environment,
“When the carrying capacity is exceeded, the environmental damage is usually so severe that the population carrying capacity for future
generations is greatly reduced. This chain of events is not just true of the Amazon Rain Forest or of Central America or of Bangladesh or of
deforested Nepal. It is also especially true for many areas of the United States and for the United States as a whole.” While widespread famine
has yet to occur, there are growing trends in the U.S. which may indicate that the U.S. may have already exceeded its carrying capacity.
According to the EPA, “Wetlands are part of the foundation of our nation’s water resources and are vital to the health of waterways and
communities that are downstream. Wetlands feed downstream waters, trap floodwaters, recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution,
and provide fish and wildlife habitat. Wetlands are also economic drivers because of their key role in fishing, hunting, agriculture and
recreation.” Drawing on the words of the government, wetlands are vital to a sustainable society because they provide multiple food resources
(fish, wildlife, and agriculture) and a water resource. However, despite their environmental significance and importance to the food and water
supply, population growth in the United States has cut the number of wetlands in half. Between 1780 and 1980, the United States lost 53
percent of its wetlands, hitting California disproportionately worse, where population growth was highest. [7] The destruction of these
wetlands that are abundant in natural resources can certainly be attributed to the increase of urban sprawl.
The term “urban sprawl,” christened by city planner Earl Draper in 1937, refers to the uncontrolled spread of urban development into
neighboring regions. Population growth drives urban sprawl, as residents of high-density urban centers, most notably cities, move to low-
density “sprawling” communities in the neighboring regions. With the geographical expansion of a dispersing population comes devastating
consequences to the environment, such as increases in pollution and destruction of valuable agriculture lands. The massive construction of
residential and commercial units for the migrating masses leads to the decrease of vegetation cover, forest fragmentation, and the loss and
degradation of wildlife habitats. As Winthrop Staples III and Philip Cafaro write in their article, The Environmental Argument for Reducing
Immigration to the United States, “Between 1982 and 2001, the United States converted 34 million acres of forest, cropland, and pasture to
developed uses, an area the size of Illinois. The average annual rate of land conversion increased from 1.4 million acres to 2.2 million acres over
this time, and continues on an upward trend.” The destruction of these wild lands disrupts natural ecosystems and kills or displaces most all of
its wildlife, as over 1300 plant and animal species remain on the endangered species lists with more being added every year. [8] Unless the
population size in the U.S. is stabilized, urban sprawl will forever continue and so will the demise of ecosystems and wildlife alike.
Incessant urban sprawl and pollution are two of the most serious environmental problems plaguing the world. To thwart global warming, the
displacement of wildlife from their natural habitats and the depletion of natural resources, population stabilization is a mandatory and
necessary step the U.S. must take. While the U.S. only accounts for approximately 4.5 percent of the world’s population, our consumption is
disproportionately greater than any other country, and will unavoidably increase with a growing population. Our offenses to the environment
are egregious in comparison to the rest of the world, which is why the U.S. must address climate change and other environmental problems
here in our country first. Because curbing per capita consumption can only do so much to prevent environmental degradation, it is time to also
address population growth.
There are two dynamics that fuel population growth within a particular nation barring a high death rate: the total fertility
rate and immigration levels. According to the World Bank, the total fertility rate in the United States is presently
1.89 births per woman, which is slightly under the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. However, despite
what the low fertility rate may suggest, population growth continues to thrive in America. The U.S. Census Bureau
reports that between 2000 and 2010, the United States population grew by 27.3 million people. Unsurprisingly, regions impacted by the highest
levels of immigration experienced the most rapid population growth, as the south and west regions of the United States grew 14.3 percent and
13.8 percent, respectively. With domestic
fertility rates contributing negatively to population size, the recent surge
in population can be directly attributed to immigration. The population of immigrants in the United States, both legal and
illegal, reached an unprecedented 40 million in 2010, the largest number ever recorded in our nation’s history. Of the nation’s 40 million
immigrant population, nearly 14 million immigrated to the U.S. between 2000 and 2010. [9] If
the fertility rate in the United
States remains below the replacement level as it does now, then immigration will essentially become the only
driver of future population growth , continuing a trend that will have dire consequences to our
environment.
Uniqueness – Population Rates Down absent immigration
US population rates are tending down now – immigration is the lone way to reverse
this.
Thompson ‘18
Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, labor markets, and the media “One
Simple Way Trump Can Get the Economic Growth He Wants” – The Atlantic - FEB 27, 2018 - #CutWithRJ -
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/02/trump-growth-immigration/554186/
There are two simple ways to add more people to the U.S. population: more babies and more immigrants .
The trouble with increasing fertility is that no advanced economy seems to have figured out how to do it. The U.S. is in
the middle of a protracted lull in baby-making—but so is Scandinavia, and Western Europe, and Japan, and
Russia. Low birth rates may simply be a consequence of gender equality and overall prosperity: As a nation’s
share of educated women grows, its fertility rate tends to decline, perhaps because working women don’t have the
time, money, or interest in raising the sort of large families that were so common (and necessary) in agrarian economies.
A-to Kritik of the sustainability impact – 2NC-1NR
The sustainability impact does not rest on nativism. Yes, xenophobes have
unacceptable motives – but it’s false correlation-ism to claim an intrinsic tie between
our sustainability arguments and those nativist appeals. We reject the identity-
violence of nativist appeals.
McAlpin ‘14
The counterarguments for why reduced immigration levels are needed for environmental preservation
rely on three red herrings to discredit immigration’s role in the destruction of the environment. As previously noted, the points of the
counterargument are: first, those in favor of restrictive immigration policies secretly hold racist or nativist motives; second, policies concerning
population stabilization and climate change should be addressed globally rather than nationally; and finally, immigrants consume less than
natives, so the U.S. should allow its population to grow indefinitely. All three claims ring hollow, and merely circumvent the arguments in favor
of living within environmental limits, rather than addressing them directly.
The argument most often used to support restrictive immigration reform is commonly known as the Malthusian argument. A Malthusian’s
primary concern is immigration’s relationship with population growth, and overpopulation’s catastrophic
consequences to the environment. Nativists , on the other hand, argue for the protection of the United
States’ cultural values, and view high immigration levels as a threat to the fabric of a cohesive society.
Although a Malthusian approach to immigration argues points entirely different and separate from the
Nativist point of view, opponents to reducing immigration levels to the U.S. often characterize the two arguments as
inseparable from each other.
Here’s a defense of our population impact from an external organization that’s not
critiqued by their evidence. It proves sustainability claims aren’t inherently tied to
violent nativism or excusing US consumption. It’s offense because ignoring green
impacts only empowers Far-Right anti-immigration influences when environmental
change does take place.
Assadourian ‘17
Erik Assadourian is a Senior Fellow at the Worldwatch Institute and a sustainability researcher who is primarily focused on
rooting out the plague of consumerism and overconsumption, but recognizes that population is also a major threat to human
civilization and the thriving of the biosphere. The Worldwatch Institute is a globally focused environmental research
organization. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan
Survey of Sustainability Experts. “Why We Must Talk About Population” - Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere -
October 10, 2017 - #CutWithRJ - https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/must-talk-about-population/
As for immigrants— sure
it probably wasn’t the best idea for Professor Phil Cafaro to go on Tucker Carlson’s
show to support anti-immigrant sentiments, but Cafaro’s point is valid, even if uncomfortable and
confusing for progressives. Until America has a one-planet footprint, all new immigrants are going to
increase global impacts because they’ll consume more in the US than in their home countries. (This even
suggests all adoption ideally should be domestic, which opens a-whole-nother can of worms!)
That’s not to say we should ban immigration or foreign adoption, but it means we should have a clear plan
around immigration ( along with one on reducing American consumption ) and we should offset immigration by
reductions in births of Americans (easier done if we have a population goal in mind for the United States). This offset is essentially what’s
happening in European countries that have smaller than replacement rate birthrates—but the problem there is that this cultivates anti-
immigrant sentiments as white European populations darken. With America at least, we have always been an immigrant nation so theoretically
we could adapt, though obviously the current administration and its supporters are fomenting the same fears and biases that Americans have
shown since its early days, as waves of immigrants from Ireland, Southern Europe, China, and Mexico started arriving.
Setting Goals
Is it so scary or morally fraught to start advocating for a smaller global population—or at the very least start talking openly
about population challenges? Is it impossible to imagine nurturing a one-child family size norm in the US and Europe (where each
child’s impact is many times greater than a child’s in a developing country)? One is good. Two is enough. Three is too many.
As Roberts notes, momentum is already bringing us toward smaller family sizes—but that same momentum is also bringing us toward higher
consumption rates. Some smart social marketing and celebrity modeling could bring us toward reductions in population (as well as
consumption) quicker. Breaking the myth that sole children are spoiled and lonely—as Bill McKibben did in his great book Maybe One—would
be a good place to start. As would showing the economic and environmental benefits of having one child. And so would making it cool to have
one child. Perhaps that’s the marketing slogan we use: “It’s Hip to Have One.”
And let developing countries shape their own population targets so as to avoid the obvious criticisms of imperialism (maybe it’s even time for a
Framework Convention on Population Growth to go along with the Framework Convention on Climate Change—so all countries can feel
ownership in this effort). But clearly, populationstabilization is as important in developing countries—not because of the
immediate effects on human impact (I), but because as Earth systems finally break down after the decades of abuse
we’ve delivered, people are going to retreat from their flooding towns, their drought stricken lands, their war-torn
regions, and they’re going to have to go somewhere. And then the right-wing extremists will say “we told you so,”
be perfectly poised to take over more government

waving their copies of Camp of Saints in their hands as they do, and
institutions —and that may be the population crisis’ scariest outcome of all.
PFIR does not link to their Kritik. Our authors don’t displace blame from US
consumers. They simply think that population growth would also cause green impacts
and is a bigger variable than consumption. It’s offense against their K – because their
authors actively ignore the green impacts of painting every immigration restriction as
intrinsically nativist.
McAlpin ‘14
These predictions about immigration’s future impact on the environment forecast a bleak future here in the United States. Yet, although these
predictions are backed by empirical evidence, immigration’s connection to the degradation of the environment is
often discredited and overlooked in general. This policy brief contends that the counterargument to immigration’s role
in the destruction of the environment relies on three red herrings. First, opponents to restricting immigration levels
suggest that immigrants exert less pressure on the environment than their American-born counterparts, so the U.S. should therefore focus
instead on curbing consumption rates. The second argument is that policies aimed at population stabilization should be addressed at the global
level, and any policy addressing population stabilization domestically is a wasted effort. Lastly, proponents of increasing immigration levels
to the U.S. often contend that those in favor of restrictive immigration policies secretly harbor racist
motives and their arguments concerning the environment should be disregarded. We find the last argument
to be especially heinous for it relies solely on an ad hominem fallacy intending to dissuade potential supporters
from further investigation into immigration’s impact on the environment.
In response to these unsubstantiated claims against character, this policy brief firmly maintains an exclusively objective view on immigration
policy, and the intentions of this article are to highlight the nexus of population growth, immigration and the environment, and to suggest
policy reform aimed at achieving sustainability within the United States.
The Impact of Population Size to the Environment
The survival of society and all life on earth depends greatly on the well-being of the environment and its ecosystems. The development of the
United States, and the existence of humanity in general, has relied on and will continue to rely on the availability of natural resources, which
are provided to us by the environment and these ecosystems. With that being said, it is then the duty of this generation to create and maintain
a sustainable society which protects the environment, in order to ensure the availability of natural resources for future generations. Almost
every person, except for the stubbornly ignorant few, agrees that the destruction of the environment caused by human activity is a pressing
issue, as political discourse and the layman’s conversation often feature this topic. However, environmentalists disagree with one another as to
which preventative measure should be taken in order to curb environmental destruction.
To address the degradation of our environment, someenvironmentalists look at the copious amount of carbon
emissions being produced here in the U.S. and decide that Americans should focus on reducing our
consumption in order to abate pollution. It is laudable to condemn the egregious pollution of the power sector and
the gas-guzzling culture of our nation, and I agree wholeheartedly that efforts are needed to curb
consumption levels. However, while this approach may seem practical and effective to those environmentally conscious, it places
too much emphasis on consumption and in doing so underestimates other factors that have a much greater impact on
the environment, such as population size.
In order to measure the impact of humanity on the environment as well as the demands humans place on available resources, ecologists prefer
to use what is the called the IPAT equation. Developed in the 1970s by John Holdren, the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science
and technology issues, the IPAT formula (I = P x A x T) measures three human variables that have the largest impact on the environment. “I” is
the total impact humans have on the environment, and is a function of three factors: P = total population, A = affluence (i.e. consumption), and
T = the technology used to facilitate consumption. All three factors have equal importance as they are interrelated, which is why population
growth here in the U.S. deserves more consideration in the ongoing debate about the environment.
Curbing consumption addresses only one of the many problems afflicting the environment. Benefits
to the environment resulting
from a reduction in consumption will be offset entirely by a growing population. In the past few decades, the vast
majority (nearly 80 percent) of the increase in carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions was a direct result of U.S. population growth. [1] The
more people there are in this country, the more demand there is for cars, houses, food, and other carbon generators. For example, between
1970 and 1990 there was a 25 percent increase in energy use in the U.S., despite per capita energy use remaining stagnant during that period.
[2] Thus the significant increase in the consumption of energy can be attributed to population growth, as the U.S. population unsurprisingly
continued to flourish throughout those years.
No link. Their Levenson card is an indict on ATB. But, their sustainability claims aren’t
rooted in racial animosity. It’s about population levels. ATB doesn’t ignore US
consumption patterns and isn’t rooted in xenophobic claims about identity.
Lydersen ‘9
Kari Lydersen is a staff writer in the Chicago bureau of The Washington Post. “Border War” – Earth Island Journal - Summer -
#CutWithRJ - http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/border_war/
Many environmentalists say the US simply cannot handle a continually growing population. At the local and
regional levels, more people means a greater burden on scarce freshwater resources, more sprawling development, worsening air quality. On a
more macro level, agreater number of Americans threatens to exacerbate climate change, deforestation,
overfishing, and a host of other environmental problems, given US residents’ high consumption rates. The
argument appears straightforward enough: The US will be hard-pressed to sustain its growing
population at current consumption levels.
The discussion, though, is complicated by the fact that about 80 percent of the population increase in
coming decades is expected to come from immigration. Since US birthrates have been holding steady at
roughly 2.1 children for the past three decades, any attempt to stabilize US population growth would have to focus
on severely reducing immigration.
And that is a highly contentious proposition. Immigration has become the new third rail of US politics, threatening to shock anyone who
touches it. In
a nation founded by immigrants – but also with a long history of nativist sentiment – the issue is
intensely emotional. Debates about immigration typically degenerate into ad hominem attacks, with
xenophobic demagogues like Lou Dobbs warning of a loss of “American” identity as immigrant rights groups accuse
their opponents of being “racists.” The explosive arguments about how many people should be allowed into the US – which people, and how –
make most other controversial political topics look tame.
Amid all the name-calling, a

consortium of prominent conservationists hopes it can launch a reasoned, respectful
debate about immigration and the environment. The Apply the Brakes network (which includes Lester
Brown and Dave Foreman, among others) advocates immediate moves to stabilize the US population both
through lowering fertility rates and strictly limiting immigration. The coalition was started three years ago at a meeting in
Oregon, prompted by a feeling that many large green groups, fearful of being branded as “politically incorrect,” were neglecting the connection
between environmental destruction and US population growth.
“Immigration has been ignored or pushed to the side by the environmental community,” says Don Weeden,
whose family foundation (started by his grandfather to help preserve biodiversity), provided modest seed money to launch Apply the Brakes.
“Within the environmental community, social justice has come in as an important part of what
environmentalists do. The immigration issue has become a human rights issue for many. So
environmentalists have a cognitive dissonance. They know population growth is running counter to
many of the efforts they’re making on the environment. But they don’t have it in their hearts to say we
should reduce immigration as a result. It’s a political minefield.”
Immigration has been a touchy topic in the environmental movement for years. Many large green groups try to keep their distance from the
issue. The Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation, for example, scrupulously avoid work on immigration.
These groups’ studied neglect likely stems from a desire to avoid the controversy that nearly fractured the Sierra Club. The Club – founded by
famed naturalist John Muir, a Scottish immigrant – long had a neutral stance on US immigration policy. But in 1998, some Sierra Club members
launched a petition drive calling for the Club to adopt a strict anti-immigration platform, creating a bitter debate that simmered for a number of
years. In 2004, a slate of five outspoken anti-immigrant activists – including former Colorado governor Dick Lamm – ran for the Sierra Club’s 15-
member board of directors. Sierra Club spokesman Oliver Bernstein says the candidates were strategically exploiting a since-altered policy
allowing someone to run for the board immediately after joining the organization. “These very well-documented anti-immigrant, extremist,
racist groups were really defeated quite handily by the membership,” he says.
Since then, the Sierra Club’s International Program has sharpened its focus on addressing the root causes of migration, including free trade, lack
of reproductive rights and women’s rights, and social inequality in poorer nations. The platform recognizes overpopulation as a problem, but
addresses it in the framework of “Population Justice,” stressing “sustainability, economic security, human rights, viable ecosystems and
environmentally responsible consumption,” according to the group’s Web site.
Still, the issue continues to cause conflict within the organization. In 2006, Paul Watson, the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,
quit the Sierra Club’s board because he reportedly was upset that it was, in his view, ignoring the immigration issue. (Bernstein couldn’t confirm
this, but said it is a possible explanation for Watson’s departure.)
Immigrants’ rights proponents say the idea of tackling environmental issues via immigration controls is, at best, a misguided belief that
ecological issues can be addressed within national borders in our global world, and at worst, a “greening of hate,” wherein immigrants become
scapegoats for a host of ills caused by Americans’ own overconsumption and ill-conceived foreign policies. They says anti-immigration groups or
activists with few bona fide environmentalist credentials appear to be using environmental arguments as a way to further agendas that are
actually seated in racism.
Vicki Cervantes, a longtime Latin America solidarity activist based in Chicago, is afraid that in some cases, dedicated environmentalists who may
not fully understand the immigration issue are being manipulated by those with a veiled xenophobic agenda.
“There are all these different groups out there, and each one is appealing in a different way to the same fundamental fear people have – that
fear of things being different, of the world not being how they remember it,” she says.
A chunk of the anti-immigration movement within environmental circles can be traced back to John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist whom
the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes as an “erstwhile liberal activist who loved beekeeping and the rural life,” and an active
member of the National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and other groups in the ‘60s and ‘70s. While few doubt Tanton’s love of the
environment, his warnings about the country’s “rapid cultural and linguistic transformations” and his prominent role with ProEnglish – an
organization dedicated to “protecting our nation’s unity in the English language” – reveal a strong nativist undercurrent in his agenda.
According to SPLC investigations, Tanton and his colleagues have spawned a network of anti-immigrant groups, including the Federation for
American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Numbers USA (also funded by the progressive Weeden Foundation), which have worked closely with
members of Congress (mostly Republicans) to put in place strong border controls. In recent years, these groups have made the environment a
major plank of their anti-immigration arguments, especially in trying to appeal to liberal or middle-of-the-road audiences. They have run full-
page ads in national newspapers and magazines, including liberal-leaning publications like The Atlantic and The Nation. One ad shows a white
man in a business suit at a crossroads; another depicts a bulldozer knocking down trees. According to the SPLC, FAIR and other anti-immigration
groups that sponsored these ads have ties to or often associate with obviously racist groups, including the California Coalition for Immigration
Reform (whose leader Barbara Coe has called Mexicans “savages”) and the Council of Conservative Citizens.
Apply the Brakes members stress there is no race-related element to their opinions. They say they are
equally opposed to waves of immigrants from Europe or Mexico, and see no ecological difference between an engineer
on a legal visa and someone who sneaks across the border to do manual labor. They say their immigration-reduction vision
includes improvements in human rights and economic situations in would-be immigrants’ home countries so that
they are not encouraged or forced to leave.
(Note: “ATB” is an acronym that references “Apply the Brakes” – a group that sometimes advances
claims about the need to reduce immigration as part of a broader agenda to reduce the environmental
impacts of US population growth.)
Population claims aren’t anti-immigrant. Sustainability impacts can critique US

consumption patterns and do so without sweepingly rejecting immigration.
Weeden ‘8
Don - Executive Director, Weeden Foundation - focused on preserving international and national biodiversity. Don has had a
nearly 25-year career in the international population and economic development field, serving in various field and management
positions for Columbia University and The International Planned Parenthood Federation, “Immigration, Population, and the
Environment: Connecting the Dots” - ATB – Copyrighted page from 2008-2018 - #CutWithRJ -
http://applythebrakes.org/leader_donweeden.htm
Norman Myers of Oxford University and Paul Ehrlich have described the United States as the world's most
overpopulated country because we are the only one with massive population, massive growth, and massive
per-capita consumption. Today, it is critical that our society drastically lower the average American's
ecological footprint of 24 acres per person (a level far exceeding our nation's resources). But if the United States adds yet
another 100 million residents, any gains in reducing per-capita consumption-or promoting smart growth, or better
managing water resources-are likely to be negated. A stable US population does not by itself improve environmental protection, but it
does make it much easier to attain environmental goals.
Immigration's Role
America's ballooning population, unique in the developed world, is largely driven by historically high immigration
numbers, which, combined with recent immigrants' higher fertility rates, is responsible for 82 percent of the approximately 3 million people
added to the population annually (Pew Hispanic Center). The framers of the Immigration Act of 1965-which jump started today's mass
immigration-never intended to increase legal immigration levels, let alone to quadruple them. Since then, in a climate of political inertia, the US
Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbies have been the primary drivers for bolstering immigration numbers, with a stated goal of
increasing overall growth and consumption, and a less open one of holding down wages. Thus, higher consumption is not simply an inadvertent
aftereffect of today's immigration policy; it is largely its intention.
A Sustainable Demographic Future
Prescriptions for reaching a population-environment balance need not be anti-immigrant : The U.S can
still accept immigrants, just not at the current rate. Reductions in immigration levels could be phased in,
starting at a cap of 500,000 per year, which was the recommendation of the bi-partisan 1996 U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by liberal congresswomen Barbara Jordan (1996). As a result of lower future
numbers, most labor economists believe, individual immigrants in this country would be better off in terms of higher wages/benefits and
availability of jobs and education.
No link – it’s a mischaracterization to claim sustainability impacts are anti-immigrant.

Their concern is population levels in the US. They’re fine if that’s accomplished
through other means and they aren’t in xenophobic opposition to immigration.
Elder ‘8
Bill Elder is the Site Editor for Apply the Brakes and is formerly the Population Coordinator for the Sierra Club’s Cascade
Washington State Chapter - ATB – Copyrighted page from 2008-2018 - #CutWithRJ - http://applythebrakes.org/learnmore.htm
Some economic interests with a short-term outlook welcome population growth. Environmentalists do not because
we understand its true environmental, quality of life and economic costs. We've already lost 95% of our old growth forests and
50% of our wetlands. We have grown well beyond the energy supply within our borders. Water supplies are declining.
The state of Washington, as an example, (and a number of others) has been growing at about 20% per decade. Just like
Bangladesh. We are fighting to save the last of our wild salmon runs from growth related sprawl, dams and deforestation. A
task made all the harder as state and local governments unsuccessfully struggle with growth-caused traffic gridlock and a $40
billion infrastructure deficit for which there is no funding plan.
The direct relationship between population growth and loss of natural resources has been a mantra of the environmental
movement for years. It is expressed by the formula: Impact = Population xAffluence x Technology or I=PAT for short
Accordingly, environmental organizations have called for stabilizing U.S. population for over 30 years. Some
have advocated "…eventual decline in U.S. population since it has already reached levels that are not environmentally sustainable."
Population Growth, Reproduction, Immigration, and the Role of Congress.
Population has been a tough issue for environmentalists to deal with. We value children. We value all people
of the world and immigration. We have a hard time reconciling these values with the knowledge that
too much of a good thing is harmful.
But, although its

not politically correct in many circles, we realize that both our rate of reproduction and
rate of immigration cause population growth and must be addressed.
Reproduction: After a period of slow growth during the years of the Great Depression and World War II, U.S. population started booming due to
a expansion in the fertility rate to about three and a half births per woman. The environmental movement of the day called for reduction in
fertility and as a result of many factors, the rate had fallen off to below replacement level of 1.7 births per woman by the time of the first Earth
Day in 1970. Our current fertility rate of 2.1 is at replacement level, but is still 50% higher than the 1.4 rate of the developed nations of Europe
and Japan. The U.S. Congress does not seek voluntary reduction in fertility. To the contrary, it supports incentives for larger family size.
Immigration: For
almost 200 years (1776 through 1965) immigration averaged about 250,000 per year. If we had
simply continued at that rate we would now be in equilibrium with the approximately 250,000 people who emigrate
from the U.S. per decade.
A-to “US not key, US Overpop is irrel”
US population growth does matter and is the key variable in global sustainability
efforts.
Markham ‘8
Victoria D. Markham, Director, Center for Environment and Population, a leading US-based non-profit organization which
addresses human and environmental interactions through research, policy, advocacy, field work and youth engagement. Vicky
has over 25 years' experience in the field of Population, Health and Environment (PHE) and population-environment (P-E)
issues. She was the first director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) International Directorate's
Program on Population and Sustainable Development where she produced the "Atlas of Population and Environment" (winner
of the American Library Association's national award for "Most Outstanding Resource"), and, with the MacArthur Foundation,
started several national programs on population and environmental research. Markham holds a Master of Environmental
Science from Yale University and a Bachelors of Arts and Humanities with honors from the University of Maryland. “U.S.
Population, Energy & Climate Change” - #CutWithRJ - http://www.moyak.com/papers/population-energy-climate-change.pdf
There is growing evidence that population , linked to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, is a key
factor in global climatic change.1 In the climate change equation, population is the “big multiplier” – particularly
when linked with resource consumption – because it intensifies the rate, scale, and scope of both the root
causes and effects of climate change in the United States (U.S.), and worldwide.
Within the global context, the U.S. stands out for two reasons: it has by far the largest population amongst
other industrialized nations, the only sizable one with significant population growth, and; it uses more
energy than any other country and is the largest carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas emitter amongst industrialized nations
worldwide.2
This unique combination – America’s high population numbers and growth, together with its high rates of per
capita energy consumption and pollution – makes the U.S. pivotal in the national and global population-climate
change debate .
In simple terms, the U.S. is the world’s largest developed nation, consumes energy and resources at very high rates, and is growing rapidly.
This has major implications for global climate change because the American population’s energy
consuming habits are so disproportionate to that of other nations’. While the U.S. represents about 5% of the global
population, it consumes about 25% of the world’s energy, and generates 5 times the world average of CO2 emissions .
Because Americans are high resource consumers in a country with a large, rapidly growing population base, the U.S. has a much bigger “per-
person” impact on global climate change than any other nation. With about 8,000 people added daily in the U.S., and 3 million people added
each year, there’s real potential to reach 1 billion high-energy-consuming Americans by 2100. Meeting the energy demands of this
large and rapidly growing population that consumes elevated levels of resources and energy – while at the same time reducing
the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change – will prove daunting in the coming decades. Even now we
are seeing its effects.
US population rates do matter and will cross tipping points. Causes green impacts to
have a greater effect and can offset the gains being made by other nations.
Markham ‘8
While the U.S. “population and climate change” connection is complex, it manifests itself in two primary ways:
first, population is related to the causes of climate change, mainly through high per capita energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (the
“carbon footprint”) and;
second, population
factors can exacerbate climate change’s effects by placing more pressures on the
natural resource base at specific sites, for example, when there is high population density and continued rapid growth in coastal, urban,
suburban, or ecologically vulnerable areas of the U.S.
In addition, gains made in addressing climate change can be made much more difficult – in some cases
even offset altogether – by these population factors, when combined with high per capita natural resource
consumption.
US population growth is the key to global green impacts.

Markham ‘8
We often see “population growth” and “climate change” as being separate, rather than making the connection between the two – and this is
particularly true in the U.S. The issues are, however, inextricably linked and must be understood and addressed at the same time, as they relate
to one another, as two sides of the same coin. Thisscience-based report helps to make that connection, providing the basic
information needed to better understand these issues, and to take first steps to effectively address them, as they are associated. It can be
used as a tool to demonstrate how U.S. population and resource consumption trends are linked to climatic
change, in the U.S. and globally.
America’s Role in Global Climate Change
The world’s leading scientists agree that unprecedented changes to the climate of the U.S. and the planet are underway, due in large part to
human-induced factors.3 Over the past five decades humans have played the dominant role in the world’s changing climate, mainly through
the generation of “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), with “metropolitanization” (metro area and suburban growth) and land use
changes also playing an important part.4
The effects of climate change are felt both worldwide and here in the nation. Globally, the 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the
past 13 years,5 and 2006 was the U.S.’ warmest year on record.6 Average annual U.S. temperatures are over two degrees Fahrenheit higher
than a century ago.7 There is increased frequency of severe weather events (such as rainstorms, heat waves and hurricanes), and major shifts
in U.S. growing seasons and in the ranges of plant and animal species. Climatic change is causing the spread of vector-borne diseases rarely
seen in the U.S., such as malaria and dengue fever.8 The nation’s freshwater resources are more prone to drought and the consequences of less
mountain snow pack. Glaciers are retreating, sea ice is melting, and sea level is rising.9
Yet, how is
the “U.S. population” – its growth, density, movement, composition and per-person natural resource
consumption – connected to climate change in the country, and globally? Today 98% of the world’s population growth is in
developing countries, a growth trend that is expected to continue well into this century.10 With most population growth occurring in other
parts of the world, why focus on the U.S.? And why is America in the hot seat of “population-climate change” impacts
worldwide?
The most recent scientific data reveals the answer, showing that the links between population and
climate change are particularly acute when you look at the U.S. case within the global arena. In short, while
America has about 1/20th of the world’s population, it consumes about 1/4th of the world’s energy.11
And, Americans produce almost 20 tons of CO2 per person per year – about five times the world average – of 4 tons of CO2 per person a year,
and also substantially larger than 8 tons of CO2 per person per year for Europeans, and 2 tons for developing countries.12
These trends in U.S. population, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions are expected to continue, and even rise, in the foreseeable future.
The U.S. population is expected to double in one generation, by 2076, and even reach 1 billion in some of our lifetimes.13 On the energy side,
while U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose about 15% from 1990 to 2006,14 by 2020 they are predicted to increase by nearly 30% under a
“business as usual” scenario.15
Taking into account how climate change works – as a “global commons”, where the planet’s air and emissions
over a specific location, like the U.S., typically move halfway around the world a week later – America’s
unique “population and energy” profile place it front and center in relation to the world’s climatic
changes .1
A-to “US would cause warming regardless of immigration levels”
US outputs could avoid climate impacts – but population levels will need to remain
low.
Rubenstein ‘17
The New York Times, Harvard Business Review, Investor’s Business Daily, Newsday, and National Review. “The Impact of U.S.
Population Growth on Global Climate Change” – January - #CutWithRJ - http://www.npg.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/Impact-US-Pop-growth-global-climate-change.pdf
Reduced energy intensity is the result of many small and large efficiency gains since 1980, among them: a
25% improvement in fuel economy of passenger vehicles; a nearly 40% reduction in industrial energy
use per unit of industrial output, a more than 25% reduction in energy lost in our electricity power grid,
and a 70% reduction in energy used by new clothes washers. About 40% of the entire energy intensity decline is due to
shifts in the U.S. economy away from energy intensive sectors (e.g., heavy manufacturing) towards services such as health care8 .
By comparison, the fall in what we might call “emissions intensity” – CO2 emissions per unit of energy – has been fairly small: about 10% since
1980, projected to fall by another 6% from 2014 to 2040. The main factors influencing emissions intensity include substitution of natural gas for
coal in electricity generation, the increased use of renewable energy, and improved emissions control systems in U.S. automobiles.
The upshot is that per capita CO2 emissions have been roughly flat or falling over the last four
decades . If U.S. population had stabilized during that period, CO2 emissions would have remained
unchanged or even declined. But that was not the case: U.S. population rose from 216 million in 1975 to 318 million in
2014, a gain of 102 million or 47%.
A-to Full Renewables, Jacobson
Jacobson is wrong – US can’t switch to full renewables.

Hayward ‘17
Steven Hayward is currently senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, and a visiting
lecturer at Berkeley Law School. “GREEN WEENIE OF THE YEAR: MARK JACOBSON” - PowerLine - NOVEMBER 2, 2017 -
#CutWithRJ - http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/green-weenie-of-the-year-mark-jacobson.php
It is tempting to award Mark Jacobson of Stanford University the All-Time Green Weenie Award. Jacobson is the
charlatan who says that the United States can supply 100 percent of its energy needs by the year 2050 with
wind and solar power, along with some pumped hydro storage (as if environmentalists will sign off on the hundreds of dams and pipelines
such a system would require). “No natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed,” Jacobson asserted in 2015. His
scenarios depend on lots of preposterous assumptions along with wishful thinking that would make every
Pollyanna blush.
We noted here back in June that Jacobson’s flim-flam

was dealt a hammer blow from a review in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences by 21 highly respected academic energy experts that passed through extra
layers of editorial and peer review because of Jacobson’s pre-emptive complaints. The review made clear that Jacobson’s work is unserious.
Here’s the climax of the summary:
In particular, we
point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made
implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid,
reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.
In plain English, what the review says is: Jacobson’s work is a joke.
Rather than rebut his critics and bolster his own thesis with revised modeling or better founded assumptions,
Jacobson has decided instead to sue his critics for $10 million:
Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor who has prominently contended that the United States can fully power itself with wind,
water and solar energy, is suing the National Academy of Sciences and the lead author of a study published in its flagship journal that criticized
Jacobson’s views — pushing an already bitter academic dispute into a courtroom setting.
The suit, which asks for more than $10 million in damages and retraction of the study, charges that lead author Christopher Clack “knew and
was informed prior to publication that many of the statements in the [paper] were false.” It adds that the NAS “knowingly and intentionally
published false statements of fact” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences despite being aware of Jacobson’s complaints. . .
Clack and his colleagues published a lengthy response to Jacobson’s complaints in June, disagreeing about the point on hydropower and much
else. Jacobson’s study “has been shown very clearly to contain a large number of fundamental errors,” the response said.
US can’t go full renewable - Jacobson is wrong.

Rubenstein ‘18
The New York Times, Harvard Business Review, Investor’s Business Daily, Newsday, and National Review. “RENEWABLES TO THE
RESCUE? THE MYTHS, THE REALITY, AND WHY A SMALLER U.S. POPULATION IS NEEDED TO SAVE THE PLANET” – March -
http://www.npg.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/RenewablesToTheRescue-FP2018.pdf
Can the U.S. economy run on renewable energy alone? That may seem like a fanciful question at a time when the
incumbent President insists that climate change is a “hoax” and is determined to restore coal to its once preeminent role in the nation’s energy
supply. But a few years back Mark Z. Jacobson, a
prominent Stanford University professor of engineering,
published a widely acclaimed article claiming that energy from the wind, the sun, and water could
power nearly the whole shebang by midcentury.1 What’s more, it would be cheaper than running it on fossil fuels.
Academia struck back. A much anticipated counter-article, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – the
same journal in which Professor Jacobson’s upbeat screed appeared – a group of 21 prominent scholars, including
physicists and engineers , climate scientists and sociologists , took a finetooth comb to Jacobson’s
methodology. Their conclusion was damning: Professor Jacobson relied on “invalid modeling tools,”
committed “modeling errors,” and made “implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.”
Warming module
2NC - Warming impact module
Higher immigration levels to the US causes a net increase in CO2 emissions. This is a
key variable driving climate change.
Rubenstein ‘17
Population Growth on Global Climate Change” – January - #CutWithRJ - http://www.npg.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/Impact-US-Pop-growth-global-climate-change.pdf
As stated before,U.S. immigration is the wildcard . Under current immigration policies (the No Action Alternative),
U.S. population is projected to rise to over half a billion by 2100 – just 84 years from now. That will make it difficult for
America to reduce its total CO2 emissions, and – more importantly – difficult for us to persuade China and other
less developed countries to do likewise.
When it comes to global warming, U.S. environmentalists have focused on policies aimed at curbing new
sources of fossil fuels, increasing the efficiency with which fossil fuels are used, and encouraging the use of renewable fuels such as wind,
solar, and battery power. They have studiously avoided the “demand” side of the energy equation – the role U.S.
population growth plays in increasing the demand for goods and services, which require energy.
Per capita CO2 emissions are significantly higher in the U.S. than in most other countries in the world. A
growing population can overwhelm improvements in energy efficiency and emissions abatement. Indeed,
for most of our recent history, reductions in energy use per capita and per dollar of GDP have failed to offset the increased demand for energy
brought on by population growth.
Over the long run, U.S. population growth is the most important factor in CO2 emissions emanating from this
country – and immigration is likely to be the main determinant of how fast our population grows . We
must, therefore, enforce responsible immigration policies which dramatically reduce our annual admissions
– and enact national population policies which work to slow, halt, and eventually reverse our population growth. Only then can we
hope to lessen – let alone reverse – our nation’s contribution towards global climate change.
The impact is extinction – adaptation is unlikely if emission inputs get much worse.
Spratt ‘11
[David, climate policy analyst and cofounder of Carbon Equity, which advocates personal carbon
allowances as the most fair and equitable means of rapidly reducing carbon emissions “4 degrees
hotter: an adaptation trap?” http://www.climatecodered.org/2011/02/4-degrees-hotter-adaptation-
trap.html]
In his 2010 book, “Requiem for a Species”, Clive Hamilton lays bare the trap of the “adaptation myth”: The
new understanding of
the climate system and the likely influences of tipping points induced by human intervention also forces
us to reconsider one of the other foundations of international negotiations and national climate
strategies, the belief in the ability to adapt. From the outset of the global warming debate some have argued that as
much emphasis should be placed on adapting to climate change as on mitigating it. As the setting and
meeting of targets appears more difficult, more people began talking about the need to adapt.
Underlying the discussion is an unspoken belief that one way or another we (in rich countries) will be able to
adapt in a way that broadly preserves our way of life because global warming will change things slowly,
predictably and manageably. Wealthy countries can easily afford to build flood defences to shield roads and shopping centres from
storm surges, and we can ‘climate proof’ homes against the effects of frequent heatwaves. Yet if our belief in our ability to stabilise the Earth’s
climate is misconceived then so is our belief in our ability to adapt easily to climate change. If
instead of a smooth transition to a
new, albeit less pleasant, climate warming sets off a runaway process, adaptation will be a never-
ending labour. The adaptation trap finds voice in those sceptics and delayers such as Roger Pielke Jr and Bjorn Lomborg, who insist that it
is cheaper and more effective to adapt to global warming than to fight it. Pielke calls for “rejecting bad policy arguments when offered in the
way of substitutes for adaptation, like the tired old view that today’s disaster losses are somehow a justification for changes to energy policies”.
Events such as New Orleans after cyclone Katrina should disavow the notion that adaptation (rebuilding the city) is more economical that
mitigation (strengthening the storm defences before the event). And it won’t take too long to figure out that building a new energy system is
cheaper than constantly rebuilding lives and buildings and infrastructure and agriculture when “1-in-a-100 year” extreme heatwaves, droughts,
fires, floods and cyclones become regular events on the hotter planet calendar. It is clear that our collective survival depends
on the most radical mitigation effort we can imagine. Climate change is already dangerous, it is no
longer a future-tense proposition. The hour is late. James Hansen, in a new paper, says that “…goals of
limiting human-made warming to 2C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster.” At just 0.8C
warming so far, he says we have little or no “cushion” left to avoid dangerous climate change. Restoring
a safe climate means the world very quickly building a zero-emissions economy without fossil fuels, and
reducing the current level of greenhouse gases. It is a vast undertaking akin to a post-war reconstruction, but we have
the technologies and the economic capacity. What we presently lack is an honest conversation about where we are headed,
and the political will to build the solutions that are already available to us. Our time is better spent working out how to make
the impossible happen, rather than living the delusion that reasonable adaptation is possible to a 4-
degree warmer world.
Link – More Immigration = net increase in US emissions
More immigration to the US causes a massive boost in net emissions of CO2. This – in
turn – causes global climate change.
Rubenstein ‘17
Population Growth on Global Climate Change” – January - Modified for Language that may offend - #CutWithRJ -
http://www.npg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Impact-US-Pop-growth-global-climate-change.pdf
Anthropogenic global warming – warming caused by human activities – comes from the CO2 generated by burning
carbonbased fuels, principally coal, oil, and natural gas, along with deforestation and soil erosion.
CO2 is also produced by natural sources. In fact, natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than those produced by
human activity. However, naturally occurring CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plant and forest growth (photosynthesis), as well as by
the oceans where CO2 is dissolved and converted to carbolic acid. As a result of this natural balance, geologists find that carbon dioxide levels
remained steady for the 10,000 years between the end of the last ice age and the start of the industrial revolution (about 1750).
Human activity has upset that delicate balance. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since 1750, according to an article
published in 20163 . In fact, current CO2 concentrations are above anything experienced on Earth during the last 800,000 years, according to
reliable data that has been extracted from ice cores.
Energy-saving technology has reduced per capita carbon dioxide emissions since the first Earth Day. Total emissions are higher, however,
because of population growth. This could have been avoided had the 1970 environmental law ordered Congress to study the impact of its own
actions – especially the immigration laws that dramatically increased U.S. population growth.
As highlighted below, our liberal

immigration policies have triggered a massive transfer of population from
countries with comparatively low per capita CO2 emissions to one of the highest per capita CO2
emitters in the world. A more rational (prudent) immigration policy would help reduce, if not reverse, the impact
of U.S. population growth on the global environment.
Many environmentalists still argue that Americans need focus only on reducing pollution and
consumption in order to curb environmental degradation. They are right to push for less consumption and
increased energy efficiency, but wrong to assume such efforts can replace a reduction of our population. A
growing population can overwhelm improvements in energy efficiency and emissions abatement.
Indeed, over most of our recent history reductions in energy use per capita and per dollar of GDP have failed to
offset the increased numbers of “capitas.” Over the long run, energy use and CO2 emissions have risen steadily
due to population growth.
A-to “Can adapt to warming”
Can’t adapt to warming – rates likely to be too fast to ensure resilience.

EPA ‘7
[United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Climate Change-health and environmental effects: ecosystems and biodiversity.”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/ecosystemsandbiodiversity.html -- 12/20]
Observations of ecosystem impacts are difficult to use in future projections because of the complexities involved in human/nature interactions
(e.g., land use change). Nevertheless, the observed changes are compelling examples of how rising temperatures
can affect the natural world and raise questions of how vulnerable populations will adapt to direct and indirect effects associated
with climate change. The IPCC (IPCC, 2007) has noted, During the course of this century the resilience of many ecosystems
(their ability to adapt naturally) is likely to be exceeded by an unprecedented combination of change in
climate and in other global change drivers (especially land use change and overexploitation), if greenhouse gas emissions
and other changes continue at or above current rates. By 2100 ecosystems will be exposed to atmospheric
CO2 levels substantially higher than in the past 650,000 years, and global temperatures at least among the highest as those
experienced in the past 740,000 years. This will alter the structure, reduce biodiversity and perturb functioning of
most ecosystems, and compromise the services they currently provide.
A-to “Warming Not Real”
Global Warming is happening – most recent and best evidence concludes that it is
human induced
Muller ‘12
[Richard, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, “The Conversion of a
Climate-Change Skeptic”, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all]
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that
global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans
are almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average
temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase
of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results
from the human emission of greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC], the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the
I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C.
consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more
recent warming could be natural. Our Berkeley Earth approach usedsophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our
lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowedus to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We
carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from
data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from
poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data
adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome
effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known
explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a
few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such
oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused
the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We
tried fitting the shape to simple math functions
(exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best
match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in
polar ice.
Consensus is on our side

EDF ‘9
[ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 1-13 “GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS AND FACTS” -- http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011]
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming. The most respected
scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it
by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House
called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other
National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-
term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005) The only
debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a
result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we
have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
A-to “Aff = Biased Authors”
Our climate models are the most accurate- studies of studies prove
Science Daily ‘8
(4/6, "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change", http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm)
The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject
of debate among politicians, environmentalists and even scientists. A new study by meteorologists at the University of
Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on
reversing global warming trends. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the
next 100 years. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler
and Junsu Kim from the Department of
Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To
this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. The authors apply
this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past
two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea,
Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model
generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and
the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching
conventional atmospheric observations," said Reichler. "We can now place a much higher level of
confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past." The many hours of studying models
and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their
predictions. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study's results also
provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its
fourth global warming report. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the
models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.
Neg authors are worse- they’re just special interest hacks

Hansen ‘6
(Jim. Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s
Earth Institute. “The Threat to the Planet” The New York Review of Books. Pages 11-12.
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.columbia.edu%2F~roban%2Flab_2006_fall%2Fhansen.
pdf&images=yes )
Why are the same scientists and political forces that succeeded in controlling the threat to the ozone layer now failing miserably to deal with
the global warming crisis? Though we depend on fossil fuels far more than we ever did on CFCs, there is plenty of blame to go around. Scientists
present the facts about climate change clinically, failing to stress that business-as- usual will transform the planet. The
press and
television, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus concerning global warming, give equal time to fringe
"contrarians" supported by the fossil fuel industry. Special interest groups mount effective disinformation
campaigns to sow doubt about the reality of global warming. The government appears to be strongly influenced by special interests, or
otherwise confused and distracted, and it has failed to provide leadership. The public is understandably confused or uninterested. I used to
spread the blame uniformly until, when I was about to appear on public television, the producer informed me that the program "must" also
include a "contrarian" who would take issue with claims of global warming. Presenting such a view, he told me, was a common practice in
commercial television as well as radio and newspapers. Supporters of public TV or advertisers, with their own special interests, require
"balance" as a price for their continued financial support. Gore's book reveals that while more than half of the recent newspaper articles on
climate change have given equal weight to such contrarian views, virtually none of the scientific articles in peer-reviewed
journals have questioned the consensus that emissions from human activities cause global warming. As a
result, even when the scientific evidence is clear, technical nit-picking by contrarians leaves the public with the false
impression that there is still great scientific uncertainty about the reality and causes of climate change.
Yes, climate change impact
Warming causes extinction---experts agree

Griffin ‘15
(David Ray, - emeritus professor of philosophy of religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University,
Co-Director of the Center for Process Studies – “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?”, p142-143, Clarity
Press)
Although the idea of extinction was mentioned a few times above, the issue deserves a section to itself. Indeed, even if it seldom makes the
evening news, extinction
is one of the major stories of our time, because we are in the midst of one of the
six mass extinctions since the emergence of life on our planet. The previous five mass extinctions were: • The extinction
at the end of the Ordovician Period (referred to as “the end-Ordovician extinction”), which occurred about 440 mya (million years ago);• The
end-Devonian extinction, which occurred some 370 mya; • The end-Permian extinction, which was the worst of the
extinctions thus far, occurred about 245 mya, having evidently been triggered by a massive lava flow in Siberia that
increased global temperatures by 6 ̊C, which melted frozen methane deposits, which in turn raised the temperature even
further. This “Great Dying,” as it is called, evidently caused about 95 percent of the planet’s complex organisms to go
extinct – a catastrophe so great that “[it] took about 50 million years for life again to develop the diversity that it
had prior to the event.”29• The end-Triassic extinction, which occurred some 210 mya (shortly after mammals and dinosaurs had
evolved), and came about when “an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused acidification of the oceans and global warming” (which is believed to
have been caused by volcanoes).30• The end-Cretaceous extinction, which occurred about 65 mya, eliminated (among other animals) the last
of the dinosaurs. Whereas all of those extinctions were caused by various types of natural causes, the
sixth mass extinction, which
may prove to be the worst ever, is unique in being caused by human beings. It began about 100,000 years ago,
when humans began spreading from Africa to the rest of the world. The extinction speeded up qualitatively after agriculture began in the
Holocene epoch, and even more after the industrial revolution.31 In fact, humanbeings, who now emit about 100 times more
CO2 than volcanoes, are evidently extinguishing species – according to a 2010 article in a special issue on biological
diversity published by the Royal Society – at a rate that “far exceeds anything in the fossil
record.”32Another article in the same issue, written by Jeremy Jackson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography ,
discussed extinction caused by ocean acidification. Explaining that “massive influxes of carbon at the end of the
Paleocene caused intense global warming, ocean acidification, mass extinction throughout the deep sea
and the worldwide disappearance of coral reefs,” Jackson said that unless there is immediate and decisive
conservation action , “another great mass extinction affecting all ocean ecosystems and comparable to
the upheavals of the geological past appears inevitable.”33At the end of her 2014 book, The Sixth Extinction, Elizabeth
Kolbert asked, “In an extinction event of our own making, what happens to us?” Many people seem to think that we self-named Homo
sapiens are so wise and powerful that nothing could drive us to extinction. However, she points out, “When a mass extinction occurs, it takes
out the weak and also lays low the strong.” The famous
anthropologist Richard Leakey , she added, warned that “Homo
sapiens might not only be the agents of the sixth extinction, but also risks being one of its victims.”34
There are now some scientists who believe that human extinction , or at least near extinction, will happen in the
near future . Kevin Anderson, director of England’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, said in 2009 that if the
global temperature rises by 4 ̊C, about 90 percent of the Earth’s people will die - although human extinction will
not be total, because “a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive.”35
Anderson’s view is considered overly optimistic by others, such as atmospheric and marine scientist Ira Leifer of the
University of California Santa Barbara. Asking what portion of the population would be able to adapt to a global temperature
increase of 4 ̊C, Leifer said he believed that it would be “just a few thousand people [seeking refuge] in the Arctic or Antarctica.”36 Even Leifer’s
view is too optimistic for other scientists, such as Australian
microbiologist Frank Fenner - who had announced the eradication of
smallpox to the World Health Assembly in 1980. In 2010, Fenner, the author of 22 books and hundreds of scientific articles, said: “ Homo
sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years .”37 Some scientists who expect an imminent
extinction of the human race regard methane emissions from thawing permafrost as the most likely
cause. A good introduction to the thinking of some scientists about the danger of extinction from methane is provided by a 2013 video called
“Mass Extinction: Let’s Not,” which was narrated and co-authored by Thom Hartmann.38 Given the seriousness of the danger from methane,
the present book might better have been subtitled, “Can Civilization Survive the CO2-CH4 Crisis?” Probably the scientist who has written the
most about the demise of the human race within the next several decades is Guy
R. McPherson , professor emeritus of
evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona. In various articles, at a blog called “Nature Bats Last,” and in a 2013 book
entitled Going Dark, McPherson has presented an array of scenarios through which humanity could become extinct, one of which is due to
methane emissions from thawing permafrost.39 The prediction of human extinction through methane emissions has
been central to the thinking of retired Earth-systems scientist Malcolm Light. In 2012, Light wrote that the process of significant
methane release, which began in 2010, “will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into
the atmosphere and lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century.” From Light’s
point of view, the only hope for human survival is a massive reduction in CO2 emissions combined with the
immediate use of geoengineering “as a cooling method in the Arctic to counteract the effects of the methane buildup.”40
Tipping points and positive feedbacks confirm our impacts.

Klein ‘14
Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics,
member of the board of directors of 350.org, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, pp. 12-14
In a 2012 report, the World Bank laid out the gamble implied by that target. “As
global warming approaches and exceeds 2-degrees
Celsius, there is a risk of triggering nonlinear tipping elements . Examples include the disintegration of the West
Antarctic ice sheet leading to more rapid sea-level rise, or large-scale Amazon dieback drastically affecting ecosystems, rivers,
agriculture, energy production, and livelihoods. This would further add to 21st-century global warming and impact entire continents.” In
other words, once we allow temperatures to climb past a certain point, where the mercury stops is not in our control. ¶ But the bigger problem—and the reason
Copenhagen caused such great despair—is that because governments did not agree to binding targets, they are free to pretty much ignore their commitments.
Which is precisely what is happening. Indeed, emissions are rising so rapidly that unless something radical changes within our economic structure, 2 degrees now
looks like a utopian dream. And it’s not just environmentalists who are raising the alarm. The World Bank also warned when it released its report that “we’re
on track to a 4-C warmer world [by century’s end] marked by extreme heat waves, declining global food
stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise .” And the report cautioned that,
“there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4-C world is possible .” Kevin Anderson, former director (now deputy
director) of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, which has quickly established itself as one of the U.K’s premier climate research institutions, is even blunter; he
says 4 degrees Celsius warming—7.2 degrees Fahrenheit—is “incompatible with an organized, equitable, and
civilized global community.”¶ We don’t know exactly what a 4 degree Celsius world would look like, but even the best-case scenario is likely to be
calamitous. Four degrees of warming could raise global sea levels by 1 or possibly even 2 meters by 2100 (and
would lock in at least a few additional meters over future centuries). This would drown some island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, and inundate many
coastal areas from Ecuador and Brazil to the Netherlands to much of California and the northeastern United States as well as huge swaths of South and Southeast
Asia. Major cities likely in jeopardy include Boston, New York, greater Los Angeles, Vancouver, London, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. ¶ Meanwhile, brutal
heat waves that can kill tens of thousands of people, even in wealthy countries, would become entirely
unremarkable summer events on every continent but Antarctica. The heat would also cause staple crops
to suffer dramatic yield losses across the globe (it is possible that Indian wheat and U.S. could plummet by as much as 60 percent), this
at a time when demand will be surging due to population growth and a growing demand for meat. And since
crops will be facing not just heat stress but also extreme events such as wide-ranging droughts, flooding, or pest outbreaks, the losses could easily turn
out to be more severe than the models have predicted. When you add ruinous hurricanes, raging
wildfires, fisheries collapses, widespread disruptions to water supplies, extinctions, and globe-trotting
diseases to the mix, it indeed becomes difficult to imagine that a peaceful, ordered society could be
sustained (that is, where such a thing exists in the first place).¶ And keep in mind that these are the optimistic scenarios in which warming is more or less
stabilized at 4 degrees Celsius and does not trigger tipping points beyond which runaway warming would occur. Based on the latest modeling, it is becoming safer to
assume that 4 degrees could bring about a number of extremely dangerous feedback loops—an Arctic that is regularly
ice-free in September, for instance, or, according to one recent study, global vegetation that is too saturated to act as a reliable
“sink”, leading to more carbon being emitted rather than stored. Once this happens, any hope of predicting impacts pretty much goes out the window. And this
process may be starting sooner than anyone predicted. In May 2014, NASA and the University of California, Irvine scientists revealed that glacier melt in a section of
West Antarctica roughly the size of France now “appears unstoppable.” This likely spells down for the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, which according to lead study
author Eric Rignot “comes with a sea level rise between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.” The disintegration,
however, could unfold over centuries and there is still time for emission reductions to slow down the process and prevent the worst. ¶ Much more frightening than
any of this is the fact that plenty of mainstream analysts think that on our current emissions trajectory, we are headed for
even more than 4 degrees of warming. In 2011, the usually staid International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a report predicting that we are
actually on track for 6 degrees Celsius—10.8 degrees Fahrenheit—of warming. And as the IEA’s chief economist put it: “Everybody, even the
school children, knows that this will have catastrophic implications for all of us.” (The evidence indicates that 6 degrees of
warming is likely to set in motion several major tipping points—not only slower ones such as the aforementioned breakdown of
the West Antarctic ice sheet, but possibly more abrupt ones, like massive releases of methane from Arctic permafrost.) The
accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers as also published a report warning businesses that we are headed for “4-C , or even 6-C” of warming.¶ These various
projections are the equivalent of every alarm in your house going off simultaneously. And then every alarm on your street going off as well, one by one by one. They
mean, quite simply, that climate change has become an existential crisis for the human species . The only historical
precedent for a crisis of this depth and scale was the Cold War fear that we were headed toward nuclear holocaust, which would have made much of the planet
uninhabitable. But that was (and remains) a threat; a slim possibility, should geopolitics spiral out of control. The vast majority of nuclear scientists never told us
that we were almost certainly going to put our civilization in peril if we kept going about our daily lives as usual, doing exactly what we were already going, which is
what climate scientists have been telling us for years. ¶ As the Ohio State University climatologist Lonnie G. Thompson, a world-renowned specialist on glacier melt,
explained in 2010, “Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical
rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or
speaking before Congressional committees. When then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of
us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization .”
**Aff answers begin here
2AC Frontline vs. Wages Scenario
2AC vs. Wages
( ) Not unique - immigration is up now

Ford ‘18
Internally quoting Customs and Border Protection statistics - Matt Ford is a staff writer at The New Republic. “The Immigration
Forces Beyond Trump’s Control” - New Republic – June 8th - #CutWithRJ -
https://newrepublic.com/article/148879/immigration-forces-beyond-trumps-control
Last December, the Trump administration celebrated what it thought was a major accomplishment: a 24 percent drop in
arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2017 fiscal year. The 310,531 arrests made, a 46-year low, marked a
significant decrease in one of the key indicators that measures unauthorized crossings into the United States.
U.S. immigration officials attributed the decline to Trump’s hardline policies since taking office. “We have
clearly seen the successful results of the president’s commitment to supporting the front-line officers and agents of [the Department of
Homeland Security] as they enforce the law and secure our borders,” Elaine Duke, DHS’ acting secretary at the time, told reporters.
The celebration appears to be over. C ustoms and B order P rotection statistics released earlier this week showed that
arrests have risen for three straight months. While border crossings ebb and flow with the seasons, the numbers are
markedly higher compared to the same period last year. U.S. officials made 160 percent more arrests in
May 2018 than in May 2017, DHS officials said on Wednesday.
( ) Link makes no sense – DREAMers are already in the US. Many already have jobs. If
they do not, it’s likely that they a fulfilling the plan’s requirement to complete a
degree – and degree completion is unlikely to push down wages.
( ) Their Subsequent Family-Based Migration link is wrong.

Gelatt ‘17
et al; Dr. Julia Gelatt is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, working with the U.S. Immigration Policy
Program. Her work focuses on the legal immigration system, demographic trends, and the implications of local, state, and
federal U.S. immigration policy. Dr. Gelatt earned her PhD in sociology, with a specialization in demography, from Princeton
University, where her work focused on the relationship between immigration status and children’s health and well-being. -
“Legalization for DREAMers: A Realistic Appraisal of Potential Chain Migration” - Migration Policy Institute – COMMENTARY -
NOVEMBER 2017 - Modified for language that may offend - #CutWithRJ - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/legalization-
dreamers-realistic-appraisal-potential-chain-migration
Amid growing momentum in Congress to pass DREAM Act legislation before the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) program expires, critics are arguing that legalization would spur vast new “chain migration”
(subsequent family-based migration) because DREAMers could eventually sponsor their family
members for green cards. In fact, they argue that each unauthorized immigrant legalized via the DREAM
Act could sponsor as many as 6.4 relatives, on average, for legal permanent residence.
While research shows that after obtaining legal permanent resident (LPR) status or citizenship, immigrants in past
decades have sponsored an average of about 3.5 relatives each, these comparisons cannot be applied to
DACA recipients and the broader population of young unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children (known as
DREAMers). There are two key reasons for this, as will be outlined below: DREAMers have very different characteristics
than most green-card holders, and their family members face constrained immigration possibilities.
The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that by

the time DREAMers obtain citizenship—a process that would take at least
five years—an
average of 0.36 of their spouses and parents would be able to obtain a green card under the
most generous of the DREAM Act-type bills introduced in Congress. Because of existing visa backlogs, it would
take them another 13 years or more to sponsor 0.34 to 0.67 siblings (a number that includes the spouses and minor children
of those siblings).
In other words, over a lifetime, the average legalizing DREAMer would sponsor at most about one family
member —a number that is a far cry from the estimates of 3.5 to 6.4 relatives that rely on older data and cover
different populations.
( ) No link and Turn - DREAMers won’t kill wages and will boost the overall economy
Hsin 18
Amy Hsin is an Associate Professor Department of Sociology Queens College, CUNY. The author holds an M. A., in Economics,
New York University, and a B. A., in Economics, New York University. Amy’s work has been supported by the Stanford Center on
Poverty and Inequality, “'Dreamers' could give US economy – and even American workers – a boost”, Chicago Tribune - Jan 23,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-dreamers-could-give-us-economy-and-even-american-workers-a-boost-90377-20180119-
story.html
Impact of Dreamer citizenship on wages My research with economists Ryan Edwards and Francesc Ortega estimated the
economic impact of the 2017 DREAM Act if it were to become law. About 2.1 million of the undocumented youths would likely be eligible to
become citizens based on its age and educational requirements. Our
research showed that immigrants given permanent
legal work permits under the DREAM Act would not compete with low-skilled U.S.-born workers
because only those with at least a high school degree are eligible for legalization. The act also
encourages college attendance by making it one of the conditions for attaining legal residency. We also
found that the act would have no significant effect on the wages of U.S.-born workers regardless of education level because Dreamers make up
such a small fraction of the labor force. U.S.-born college graduates and high school dropouts would experience no
change in wages . Those with some college may experience small declines of at most 0.2 percent a year, while high school
graduates would actually experience wage increases of a similar magnitude. For the legalized immigrants,
however, the benefits would be substantial. For example, legalized immigrants with some college
education would see wages increase by about 15 percent, driven by expansions in employment
opportunities due to legalization and by the educational gains that the DREAM Act encourages. Broader
economic benefits The DREAM Act also promotes overall economic growth by increasing the
productivity of legalized workers and expanding the tax base. Lacking legal work options, Dreamers tend
to be overqualified for the jobs they hold. My ongoing work with sociologist Holly Reed shows that the undocumented
youth who make it to college are more motivated and academically prepared compared with their
U.S.-born peers. This is at least in part because they had to overcome greater odds to attend college. We find that
they are also more likely than their native-born peers to graduate college with a degree. Yet despite being
highly motivated and accomplished, undocumented college graduates are employed in jobs that are not commensurate with their education
level, according to sociologist Esther Cho. With
legal work options, they will be able to find jobs that match their
skills and qualifications, making them more productive. Legalization also improves the mental health of
immigrants by removing the social stigma of being labeled a criminal and the looming threat of arrest
and deportation. From an economic standpoint, healthier and happier workers also make for a more
productive workforce.
( ) Not unique – wages down now. Neg stats don’t account for inflation.
Stein ‘18
et al; Jeff Stein covers policy for The Washington Post He has covered the Republican tax law, health-care policy and
immigration, among other topics. Before joining The Post, Stein was a congressional reporter for Vox. “For the biggest group of
American workers, wages aren't just flat. They're falling” - St Louis Post Dispatch – June 16th - #CutWithRJ -
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/for-the-biggest-group-of-american-workers-wages-aren-t/article_a3126b3e-bb13-
5b16-b394-fc6abf329144.html
The average hourly wage paid to a key group of U.S. workers has fallen from last year when accounting for
inflation, as an economy that appears strong by several measures continues to fail to create bigger paychecks.
For workers in "production and nonsupervisory" positions, the value of the average paycheck has
actually declined in the past year. For those workers, average "real wages" — a measure of pay that takes inflation into account — fell
from $22.62 in May 2017 to $22.59 in May 2018, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported earlier this week.
This pool of workers includes those in manufacturing and construction jobs, as well as all "nonsupervisory" workers in service industries such
health care or fast food. The group accounts for about four-fifths of the privately employed workers in America,
according to BLS.
Without adjusting for inflation, these "nonsupervisory" workers saw their average hourly earnings jump 2.8
percent from last year. But that was not enough to keep pace with the 2.9 percent increase in inflation,
which economists attributed to rising gas prices.
"This is very likely because of the spike in oil prices eating into inflation-adjusted earnings," said Allen Sinai, chief global
economist and strategist at Decision Economics. "We pay for energy-related costs out of our wages, out of our compensation. And it's making a
real impact."
The fall in those wages has alarmed some economists, who say paychecks should be getting fatter at a time when
unemployment is low and businesses are hiring.
( ) Immigration doesn’t hurt wages – Borjas is wrong.

Smith ‘18
Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs
at Noahpinion. “Immigrants Haven't Hurt Pay for Americans” – Bloomberg – Feb 14th, 2018 - #CutWithRJ-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-14/immigrants-haven-t-hurt-pay-for-americans
Wages actually rose faster when more foreign laborers were entering the U.S.
As President Donald Trump’s push for immigration restriction continues, his supporters among the
pundit class continue to make
economic arguments for closing the country’s gates. That’s only understandable -- it’s easy to blame immigrant
competition for economic woes. But very often, it’s wrong.
On a recent appearance on Fox News, classicist and historian Victor Davis Hanson started off with some good and important points about the
need for a shared culture to bind together the U.S.’s multiracial society. But he then continued to make some very dodgy economic arguments.
Hanson asserted that “the Trump miracle [is] giving empowerment to the working … classes,” and that this empowerment was also being
driven by “a radical curtailment [of] illegal immigration.” Hanson credits reduced illegal immigration with lower unemployment and increasing
competition for workers.
Hanson is right about two big things. First, illegal immigration has indeed been radically curtailed:
The decline didn’t happen under Trump; it began under George W. Bush, when the Great Recession abruptly reduced demand for low-skilled
labor. But illegal immigration didn’t pick up again after the recovery began, thanks to several factors -- increased deportations and stronger
border enforcement by the Barack Obama administration, combined with much lower fertility and higher income levels in Mexico, the main
source of illegal immigration.
Hanson is also correct that U.S. unemployment is very low:
Though a better measure of labor-market health, the prime-age employment-to-population ratio, shows more modest performance:
But was the halting of illegal immigration responsible for the recovery of employment? There are good reasons to think that it was a minor
factor at best.
First of all, research

shows that low-skilled immigration has at most a small effect on the wages of native-born
workers. Though one high-profile researcher, Harvard University’s George Borjas, has claimed to find more deleterious
effects, repeated studies of refugee influxes have found very small or nonexistent impacts on employment
and wages . Since refugees tend to be very low-skilled immigrants, these findings imply that illegal immigration to the U.S.
didn’t put many -- or any -- native-born Americans out of work.
( ) Wages not key to economy. The causality makes no sense - wages down now, even
when the general economy is up.
Smith ‘18
at Noahpinion. “Everything Is Booming Except for Wages” - Bloomberg - February 23, 2018- #CutWithRJ – NOTE: there are a
series of colons in the card – these are for charts that were not cut-and-paste. No text omitted.
It’s now safe to say that the U.S. economy is in a boom.
Small business leaders are saying it. Measures of business optimism, tracked by the National Federation of Independent Business,
are at all-time highs:
These heady survey measures haven’t yet been matched by hard data, but the hard numbers are looking good too. Business investment as a
percent of gross domestic product is almost as high as it’s been since the recession:
Meanwhile, broad measures of unemployment are as low as at the peak of the mid-2000s boom:
And job creation continues at a healthy clip.
In other words, it’s time to stop calling this a recovery, and start calling it a boom. This is very good news for President
Donald Trump, whose 2020 re-election bid will be strengthened by good economic times, even though the degree to which presidential policies
really affect the economy is dubious.
But one important economic indicator remains disturbingly subdued -- wages.
In dollar terms, wage growth has been superficially healthy -- in January, average hourly earnings rose 2.9 percent from a year earlier. But
consumer prices increased 2.1 percent during the same period. In other words, real hourly earnings grew by only 0.8 percent -- less than half
the real growth rate of the overall economy.
Meanwhile, the NFIB survey reports that 31 percent of employers are paying their workers more. But this is also presumably unadjusted for
inflation. Because inflation is positive in most years, wages tend to go up on average every year. But that doesn’t mean workers are actually
getting more purchasing power.
In terms of real wage growth, 2017 wasn't a great year, and for nonsupervisory workers it was especially slow:
2AC frontline vs. Green Sustainability Scenario
2AC vs. Green Sustainability
( ) Not unique - immigration is up now

Ford ‘18
Internally quoting Customs and Border Protection statistics - Matt Ford is a staff writer at The New Republic. “The Immigration
Forces Beyond Trump’s Control” - New Republic – June 8th - #CutWithRJ -
https://newrepublic.com/article/148879/immigration-forces-beyond-trumps-control
Last December, the Trump administration celebrated what it thought was a major accomplishment: a 24 percent drop in
arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2017 fiscal year. The 310,531 arrests made, a 46-year low, marked a
significant decrease in one of the key indicators that measures unauthorized crossings into the United States.
U.S. immigration officials attributed the decline to Trump’s hardline policies since taking office. “We have
clearly seen the successful results of the president’s commitment to supporting the front-line officers and agents of [the Department of
Homeland Security] as they enforce the law and secure our borders,” Elaine Duke, DHS’ acting secretary at the time, told reporters.
The celebration appears to be over. C ustoms and B order P rotection statistics released earlier this week showed that
arrests have risen for three straight months. While border crossings ebb and flow with the seasons, the numbers are
markedly higher compared to the same period last year. U.S. officials made 160 percent more arrests in
May 2018 than in May 2017, DHS officials said on Wednesday.
( ) Link makes no sense – DREAMers are already in the US. They’re already consuming
resources and most have lived here for year. Plan does very little to change overall US
consumption.
( ) Their Subsequent Family-Based Migration link is wrong.

Gelatt ‘17
NOVEMBER 2017 - Modified for language that may offend - #CutWithRJ - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/legalization-
dreamers-realistic-appraisal-potential-chain-migration
Amid growing momentum in Congress to pass DREAM Act legislation before the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) program expires, critics are arguing that legalization would spur vast new “chain migration”
(subsequent family-based migration) because DREAMers could eventually sponsor their family
members for green cards. In fact, they argue that each unauthorized immigrant legalized via the DREAM
Act could sponsor as many as 6.4 relatives, on average, for legal permanent residence.
While research shows that after obtaining legal permanent resident (LPR) status or citizenship, immigrants in past
decades have sponsored an average of about 3.5 relatives each, these comparisons cannot be applied to
DACA recipients and the broader population of young unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children (known as
DREAMers). There are two key reasons for this, as will be outlined below: DREAMers have very different characteristics
than most green-card holders, and their family members face constrained immigration possibilities.
The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that by

the time DREAMers obtain citizenship—a process that would take at least
five years—an
average of 0.36 of their spouses and parents would be able to obtain a green card under the
most generous of the DREAM Act-type bills introduced in Congress. Because of existing visa backlogs, it would
take them another 13 years or more to sponsor 0.34 to 0.67 siblings (a number that includes the spouses and minor children
of those siblings).
In other words, over a lifetime, the average legalizing DREAMer would sponsor at most about one family
member —a number that is a far cry from the estimates of 3.5 to 6.4 relatives that rely on older data and cover
different populations.
( ) PFIR’s impact claims are inaccurate. It is a cover for violent nativism.

S.P.L.C. ‘10
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and
public interest litigation based in Montgomery, Alabama -“Greenwash: Nativists, Environmentalism and the Hypocrisy of Hate”
- June 30, 2010 - https://www.splcenter.org/20100630/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-hypocrisy-hate
Environmentalists need to be aware of so-called " p rogressives for immigration reform" and their true
motives. These individuals and organizations do not see protecting the environment as their primary goal —
on the contrary, the nativists are first and foremost about radically restricting immigration.
Environmentalists should not fall for their rhetoric.
( ) This is more than impact defense. We also Kritik their population claims – they’re a
false and violent distortion. It displaces blame away from US consumers and fosters
unacceptable, anti-immigrant agendas.
Levinson ‘10
et al; Jenny Levison is Interim Senior Vice President of Development & Partnerships at the new Race Forward. The new Race
Forward is the union of two leading racial justice non-profit organizations: Race Forward and Center for Social Inclusion (CSI).
She has written and edited articles, white papers, blogs, and reports for some of the country’s leading racial justice
organizations. Jenny has worked for over 20 years at the nexus of the arts, media, justice, and equity. “APPLY THE BRAKES:
ANTI-IMMIGRANT CO-OPTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT” - Center for New Community – 2010 - #CutWithRJ -
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/ATB_shortreport.pdf
The discussion that ATB seeks to broadcast is essentially neo-Malthusian. The theory was born when Thomas Malthus
published “An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798” in which he stated that the discrepancy between the rate of
population and the rate of food growth would lead to a permanent food shortage for humans. Malthus’
works gained influence in rapidly transforming 19th Century England and, combined with later Social Darwinism, were used to
justify ideologies that essentially blamed the victims of early industrial development — a development that
swallowed up, displaced and destroyed populations, and which was itself highly artificial and environmentally destructive — for their own
misfortune.
Specifically, anti-immigrant activists belonging to the neo-Malthusian tradition claim that populations are
constrained by the carrying capacity of the environment, and that population growth causes
environmental degradation. They argue that immigrants contribute to the degradation of the
environment by urban sprawl, congestion, pollution, waste generation, water consumption, land conversion, depletion
of natural resources, and biodiversity loss, and have gone so far as to create a formula (change in pollution multiplied by change
in population) to demonstrate these relationships.5,6 Neo-Malthusian doctrine has been invoked over the years by these individuals and
organizations to argue that compassion for those starving and destroyed eventually backfires, leading to
greater future catastrophe.
ATB arguments on immigrants and population pull directly from the neo-Malthusian stance — displacing
blame from the negative influence of economic globalization onto populations that are the worst impacted.
This push by ATB to distort “cause and effect” serves to intentionally transform a holistic environmental philosophy
based on greater care towards the world and each other, into misanthropy. Ecological thinking based on dynamic and
interconnected natural systems turns into a philosophy that treats national and state borders as unchallengeable nature. People become
pollutants, with all the racial overtones of such a social construction.
( ) US not key. US overpopulation claims are wrong – it’s very unlikely that our narrow
domestic plan will be the cause of a global tipping point.
Stone ‘17
Lyman Stone is a regional population economics researcher that specializes in migration. The author is also an agricultural
economist at The USDA. “Why you shouldn’t obsess about “overpopulation”” – Vox - Dec 12, 2017 - #CutWithRJ -
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change
But the truth is that overpopulation in the United States is not even close to a serious problem. Even
globally, overpopulation is an overstated problem.
It’s simplest to start with just the United States. How many people can the country support? Because I
am an agricultural economist by profession, my bias is to first think about food. One simple question is how many
people can the United States feed? Well, our net agricultural exports account for about 25 percent of the physical volume of agricultural
production, which suggests that if we redirected those exports internally, the US could probably support approximately 25 percent more
people. That’s assuming current technology and current diets and current land use.
In short, we could feed more than 400 million people, total, merely by consuming locally what we now
export.
If you assume that a growing population induces more land to be shifted to food production (because farming becomes more profitable), that
food imports can rise, and that agricultural innovation continues apace, it becomes clear that our land can physically support even more people
than that — I estimate as much as double our current population. And given that agricultural yields are far lower in the developing world today
than in the United States, thanks to the much lower level of technological advancement and managerial expertise in those countries, the truth
is that the rest of the world has plenty of potential for increased food production: more than enough to feed itself and provide imports for a
more populous United States. Merely tweaking foreign land use rules could unlock large gains in agricultural production.
I also approach this problem as a regional economist specializing in migration, so I also think of the American
population issue through the lens of population density comparisons. Consider that the European Union has approximately 300 people per
square mile, making it as dense as the ninth-densest US state (that is, similar to Pennsylvania or Florida). The continental United States on the
whole has about 110 people per square mile (excluding Alaska, an outlier), making the US less than one-third as densely peopled as the EU. Yet
the European Union, too, has roughly balanced or even slightly positive agricultural trade. That suggests that Europe, too, has no trouble
feeding itself despite being three times as densely settled as the United States.
If the continental United States were as heavily settled as the EU, the US would have nearly a billion people living in it. Granted, the Western US
is extremely dry and thus might not support an EU-density population. (Again, I assume we aren’t going to populate remote Alaska.)
Nonetheless, if just the states east of the Mississippi had European-style population density, and the other states maintained current
population, then the United States would still have more than 400 million people.
Every time I show Americans these calculations, they respond with surprise, but the truth is that getting European-style densities wouldn’t
require technological change. It wouldn’t even require any non-voluntary lifestyle changes or new regulations: Simple deregulation of the
housing industry would do the trick. Reducing parking requirements for new apartment buildings, removing height limits, altering restrictive lot
sizes (namely lot minimums), and generally just allowing landowners to build freely on their property would greatly reduce the cost of living and
boost population growth and density. It would prompt Americans to move to denser areas while also lowering housing prices and easing family
budgets — which would itself increase fertility. (Recall that many American families wish they could afford more children.)
The concern with overpopulation, naturally, often dovetails with concerns about climate change. Won’t higher population
devastate the environment? We can answer that question fairly easily, making use of forecasts of population, GDP per capita, and
emissions intensity per dollar by country. We can come up with some scenarios and then compare them to estimates of emissions needed to
keep global warming manageable.
I show a daunting number of scenarios above, but they’re color-coded to make following them easier. The greenish lines show emissions under
different population scenarios. The most steeply climbing line assumes only a modest decline in global fertility rates, while the lowest (green)
scenario assumes a very rapid decline in total fertility rates — frankly, an unattainable decline.
The teal line assumes that fertility rates in every country go directly to replacement rate in 2016 (down for most poor countries, up for rich
ones), and stay there. The central green line assumes fertility declines in the future following the historic trend. As you can see from these
crude extrapolations, fertility rates do have substantial long-run effects on emissions.
But note those two gray lines. They’re important: They show
where emissions need to go in order to prevent sharp
rises in global temperatures. The paler of the two shows emissions required for less than 2 degree Celsius increase,
broadly seen as the benchmark for a “serious” global warming solution. The darker gray line would get us
down to a 2.5 to 2.7 degree increase, which is more or less what the Paris climate agreement committed participating countries
to strive for. No amount of population control achieves those goals.
One complication is that fertility decline tends to increase GDP per capita, as families invest more in human capital for each child. What
happens if GDP growth is much faster than in my baseline scenario? That sharply rising purple line shows emissions if we retain baseline fertility
but global GDP per capita rises to $100,000 real dollars. (It is under $12,000 today.) The much lower pink line shows what happens if we retain
current fertility but global GDP per capita peaks in 2050 at about $20,000, then declines. Emissions are much lower, but they’re still far above
the levels necessary to prevent extreme warming.
Finally, the red and orange lines show different assumptions about technology and society. The red line assumes that the amount of CO2 it
takes to produce $1 of GDP declines much slower than it has in the past 25 years. The orange line assumes it declines substantially faster.
Achieving either scenario requires a global economy that is substantially less dependent on fossil fuels than it is today in either case, but
reaching the most optimistic scenario requires a near-total elimination of fossil fuel power generation on developed countries (as France has
done, with its commitment to nuclear power).
Either scenario is technologically possible, though we would need big breakthroughs in cost-effectiveness of alternative energy for the best-
case outcomes. But compared to the “cost” involved, these tech and social measures have the biggest bang.
But unfortunately, even if we combine lower fertility, more efficient technology, and lower economic growth (the brown line), by the 2030s we
are once again overshooting necessary emissions. In other words, this entire exercise is hopeless within current technological constraints. The
only hope for the climate is a quantum-leap breakthrough in carbon efficiency — beyond what we observe in even very carbon-efficient
economies. Fertility on its own won’t make a serious dent.
And it gets worse: Fertility declines may offset themselves even when couples have zero children. An American couple that forgoes a child
might take an extra vacation, say, a road trip across Peru — burning extra fossil fuel for airfares and extra driving. The couple’s plane ticket
alone to Peru would produce between 3 and 7 metric-ton equivalents of CO2. Add in the couple’s double consumption of housing (their home
is vacant while they travel), their increase in driving (it’s a road trip), their increase in eating and other consumption (it’s vacation, after all), and
that single vacation has about the same carbon impact as a baby in its first year (some 10 tons of carbon, let’s estimate).
Because of this higher-intensity consumption by childless couples, while lower fertility could reduce long-run emissions, it probably has no net
impact on short-run emissions — or even increases them. And short-run emissions have the largest impact on future temperatures (because
there is a time delay between carbon emissions and climate impact).
But this is all moot when considering the United States ! The US has lower carbon intensity per dollar of GDP than
average for the world, and US population growth is an extremely small component of global emissions
forecasts . And since US population and GDP growth are already extremely low in comparison to the rest of the world, marginally raising
fertility will have an infinitesimally small impact on the growth path of carbon emissions. Virtually the entire determinative calculation for
future carbon emissions can be summed up in the pace of shifts away from fossil fuels in the largest economies, and the population and
economic growth trajectories in developing countries.
even if US population stopped growing at around 325 million people in 2017 and flatlined out,
As you can see,
it would produce at best a marginal change in global emissions. Plus, accomplishing that trend would
require draconian anti-fertility policies and extremely strict immigration laws. On the other hand, even if US population
rises over 500 million people, the impact on the world is barely noticeable. Meanwhile, lowering US
carbon intensity by about a third, to around the level of manufacturing-superpower Germany today, has a bigger effect than
preventing 100 million Americans from existing.
( ) US population impacts can be fully offset by full-scale use of renewables. Critics

underestimate that this transition is coming and will be viable.
Jacobson ‘15
Mark Zachary Jacobson is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and director of its
Atmosphere/Energy Program - “Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind,
water, and solar for all purposes” Proceedings of the National Academies of Science - December 8, 2015. #CutWithRJ -
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15060?ijkey=88324167c821045c2031dbbaff6c594fd866e131&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
The large-scale conversion to 100% wind, water, and solar (WWS) power for all purposes ( electricity ,
transportation , heating/cooling , and industry) is currently inhibited by a fear of grid instability and high
cost due to the variability and uncertainty of wind and solar. This paper couples numerical simulation of time- and
space-dependent weather with simulation of time-dependent power demand, storage, and demand response to
provide low-cost
solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS across all energy sectors in the
continental United States between 2050 and 2055. Solutions are obtained without higher-cost stationary battery storage by
prioritizing storage of heat in soil and water; cold in water and ice; and electricity in phase-change materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and
hydrogen.
This study addresses the greatest concern facing the large-scale integration of wind, water, and solar
(WWS) into a power grid: the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by WWS variability and uncertainty. It uses a new grid integration model
and finds low-cost, no-load-loss, nonunique solutions to this problem on electrification of all US energy sectors (electricity, transportation,
heating/cooling, and industry) while accounting for wind and solar time series data from a 3D global weather model that simulates extreme
events and competition among wind turbines for available kinetic energy. Solutions are obtained by prioritizing storage for heat (in soil and
water); cold (in ice and water); and electricity (in phase-change materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and hydrogen), and using demand
response. No natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed. The resulting 2050–2055 US
electricity social cost for a full system is much less than for fossil fuels . These results hold for many conditions, suggesting
that low-cost, reliable 100% WWS systems should work many places worldwide.
Worldwide, the development of wind, water, and solar (WWS) energy is expanding rapidly because it is
sustainable, clean, safe, widely available, and, in many cases, already economical. However, utilities and grid operators often argue
that today’s power systems cannot accommodate significant variable wind and solar supplies without failure (1). Several studies have
addressed some of the grid reliability issues with high WWS penetrations, but no study has analyzed a system that provides the maximum
possible long-term environmental and social benefits, namely supplying all energy end uses with only WWS power (no natural gas, biofuels, or
nuclear power), with no load loss at reasonable cost. This
paper fills this gap. It describes the ability of WWS installations,
determined consistently over each of the 48 contiguous United States (CONUS) and with wind and solar power output
predicted in time and space with a 3D climate/weather model, accounting for extreme variability, to provide time-dependent load reliably and
at low cost when combined with storage and demand response (DR) for the period 2050–2055, when a 100% WWS world
may exist .
1AR Extensions
Immigration up now – 1AR
Extend that immigration is up now.

Our ev cites Customs and Border Protection stats which prove that immigration has
risen for three straight months and are at much higher levels than a year ago.
Illegal migration rates have not dropped. Their ev assumes declines in Mexican
emigration – which have been overwhelmed by increases from other nations.
Masferrer ‘18
(et al - “Connecting the Dots: Emerging Migration Trends and Policy Questions in North and Central America” MARCH 7, 2018
Claudia Masferrer is Assistant Professor at the Center for Demographic, Urban, and Environmental Studies at El Colegio de
México (CEDUA-COLMEX), where she coordinates a seminar on migration, inequality, and public policy. She holds a PhD in
sociology from McGill University. Víctor M. García-Guerrero is Professor at CEDUA-COLMEX. He holds a PhD in population
studies from CEDUA-COLMEX. Silvia Giorguli is President of El Colegio de México. She joined the faculty of CEDUA-COLMEX in
2003, and is Co-Director of the Mexican Migration Project. She holds a PhD in sociology from Brown University.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/connecting-dots-emerging-migration-trends-and-policy-questions-north-and-central-
america)
Since 2009, the unauthorized population has remained stable at roughly 11 million, with a decline in the
number of Mexicans (from 6.9 million to 5.8 million) and an increase in immigrants from elsewhere (from
5 million to 5.3 million), according to Pew Research Center estimates. The latter increase has been driven by
the rise in arrivals from Central America, Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa . Though the exact number of annual
unauthorized entries is unknown, in fiscal year (FY) 2017, there were just 128,000 apprehensions of Mexicans at the Southwest border—a far
cry from the 1.6 million in 2000. This is consistent with data on northbound migration from the Survey of Migration at Mexico’s Northern
Border (EMIF Norte, for its Spanish acronym).
Subsequent Family-Based Migration link = wrong – 1AR
DREAMers won’t cause subsequent family-based migration – Neg links assume old
stats and ignore that DREAMers have fewer relatives abroad.
Gelatt ‘17
NOVEMBER 2017 - #CutWithRJ - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/legalization-dreamers-realistic-appraisal-potential-
chain-migration
Limited Family Sponsorship Possibilities
Under current law, upon getting a green card, LPRs can sponsor their spouses, minor children, and adult unmarried children.
U.S. citizens can additionally sponsor parents, siblings, and adult children, whether married or single.
But the family immigration sponsorship prospects for DREAMers are more limited than these possibilities, and
narrower than for earlier cohorts of immigrants. First, newer immigrants have more limited ability to help family members
obtain green cards than earlier arrivals because U.S. immigration policy has changed significantly since implementation of
the only prior broad-based legalization program, which dates to 1986. Congress in 1996 restricted the ability
of most immigrants staying in the United States unlawfully for a period of months or more to legalize
their status. They are now required to leave the country and wait for three or ten years before applying for
immigrant visas to re-enter. This provision would severely limit the ability of many qualifying family members
of DREAM Act recipients to obtain green cards, because many are currently living in the United States
without authorization.
Further, DREAMers entered the country when they were young and thus are highly unlikely to have
children they left abroad whom they could eventually sponsor for immigration. Having arrived as children, it is
also quite likely that they will have met their spouse inside the United States, meaning that most of
these spouses are already either U.S. citizens, green-card holders, or are themselves DREAMers. For the
small share who might be unauthorized immigrants ineligible for the DREAM Act, most would need to wait three or ten years outside the
country before they could immigrate legally—a significant barrier most would be unlikely to contemplate.
DREAM Act recipients could also eventually sponsor their parents, but as most parents are likely already
in the United States without authorization, they too would also face three- or ten-year bars on legal re-
entry. Realistically, only parents who overstayed legal visas or those residing outside of the country would likely be able to obtain a green
card. Moreover, most parents of DREAMers also have U.S.-citizen children, who as a result could sponsor them under current law once 21 or
older. Thus, legalization of DREAMers would have little effect on the ability of most of their parents to gain legal status.
DREAMers won’t cause a wave of subsequent family-based migration.

Brown ‘17
Theresa Cardinal Brown is BPC’s director of immigration and cross-border policy. She previously served in immigration and
border policy positions at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and under
Secretaries Chertoff and Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security. “Chain Migration and DACA: An Explainer” –
Bipartisan Policy Center - December 15, 2017 - #CutWithRJ – Modification for language that may offend -
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/chain-migration-and-daca-an-explainer/
What is the issue with “chain migration” and DACA legislation?
There is broad support among members of Congress, President Trump, and the public for legislation that would provide a permanent status to
so-called DREAMers, undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. Many of these individuals held work authorization
under the Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Some have raised concerns
that allowing
DREAMers to sponsor their parents to get green cards would generate “chain migration” (subsequent family-
based migration) since the legalization would extend beyond this population.
How many individuals could DREAMers sponsor for green cards under DREAMer Legislation?
The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that DREAMers could sponsor an average of 0.65 to 1.03 family members under the parameters
set by the Recognizing America’s Children (RAC) Act, the 2017 DREAM Act, the Hope Act, the SUCCEED Act, and the Border Security and
Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act. While other organizations have made claims that these individuals would sponsor as many as six family
members, these analyses assume that DREAMers are similar to other green card holders, but DREAMers are less likely to have
non-U.S. family members than other immigrants .
First, MPI notes that DREAMers arrived

in the United States as children, making it less likely that they would have
children living outside the United States to be sponsored; their children would more likely be born in the United States,
making them U.S. citizens. Because DREAMers grew up in the United States, it is also more likely that those who are married met their spouses
in the United States, and that their spouses are U.S. citizens, green card holders, or fellow DREAMers. The undocumented parents of DREAMers
may also have other U.S.-born citizen children who could sponsor them once they turn 21, meaning that the parent, if they were eligible, might
be sponsored by someone other than the DREAMer. The most likely family members for DREAMers to sponsor would
be siblings who reside out of the country–a category that has extremely large backlogs and decades-long
wait times, especially for Mexico, where the most DREAMers are from. In short, demographic profiles of this population would likely lead
them to sponsor fewer family members over time.
Could undocumented parents of legalized DREAMers get green cards under DREAMer legislation?
Even if DREAMers were to sponsor family members, many of them might not be eligible for green cards.
None of the bills currently pending in Congress for DREAMers would provide a direct path to a green card for their undocumented parents.
However, the bills would allow DREAMers to eventually apply for citizenship. As noted above, it is more likely that DREAMers would sponsor
siblings that live outside the country than their parents. However, even if a naturalized DREAMer over the age of 21 filed a petition to sponsor
their parent, realistically the parent would not be able to get a green card in this way. As described above, in order to get a green card, the
parent would have to either adjust status or apply outside of the United States and prove that they are “admissible” as an immigrant. This is the
part that would keep most parents of DREAMers from getting a green card. Most parents of DREAMers are likely to have entered the United
States illegally. Under current immigration law, individuals who enter the United States illegally are not eligible to adjust status in the United
States at all. They would have to leave the United States and apply from abroad.
However, if
the parent has been undocumented in the United States for at least 6 months, they would not
be able to get an immigrant visa abroad unless they stay out of the country for at least 3 years. That bar
increases to 10 years if they have been undocumented for an aggregate of one year-no matter how many different visits they had in the United
States. If they returned illegally, after having been deported or after a previous unauthorized stay of a year or more, they are permanently
barred from an immigrant visa. In practice, these bars would establish significant delays or complete barriers for qualifying undocumented
family members of newly-legalized DREAMers to get green cards.
Vaughn is specifically wrong
Vaughn’s link claims are based on faulty data.

S.P.L.C. ‘17
public interest litigation. It is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate
groups and other extremist organizations, and for promoting tolerance education programs. “Center for Immigration Studies
hypes chain migration to fit narrative” - October 02, 2017 - #CutWithRJ – Modified for language that may offend -
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/02/center-immigration-studies-hypes-chain-migration-fit-narrative
Amnesty for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, CIS claims in its most recent report, would result in
an increase in chain migration (the immigration of relatives after the initiating immigrant gains legal
permanent status). Author Jessica Vaughn believes an additional 700,000 immigrants would arrive via chain
migration, as DACA recipients would be able to sponsor a visa for their parent, child or spouse. Vaughn arrives at
this number on the assumption that all 700,000 DACA recipients would file a petition for a parent. This is false.
DACA recipients do not currently have a path to obtain legal permanent resident status. If
undocumented immigrant youth were
to be granted amnesty, they would still have to wait at least eight years to become permanent
residents, during that time they would not be able to sponsor any relatives. Even after gaining legal
permanent resident status, they would only be able to sponsor spouses, minor children and unmarried adult children —
not parents — under the Dream Act, RAC Act, and SUCCEED Act. Moreover, long backlogs for visa applicants would add, on
average, seven years of wait time.
Vaughn claims that Mexico has the highest rate of chain migration (subsequent family-based migration).
This analysis is based on outdated data from 1996 through 2000. In fact, Mexican immigrants encompass the
largest percentage of Dreamers and would face the longest wait times. U.S. citizens petitioning for a visa for an adult
child from Mexico, on average, wait at least 18 years. The National Foundation on American Policy additionally determined that if a U.S. citizen
filed a petition for a child from Mexico in 1992, it would take 41 years for the child to be granted entry. In addition, the State Department
reported a waitlist of more than 4 million close relatives of U.S. citizens and lawful residents as of November 2016. This is 3.75 million more
than the available number of visas for family reunification. Chain migration, especially for Dreamers, is a myth.
Vaughn attempts to stigmatize family reunification by referring to these immigrants as “not path breakers.” However, immigrants arriving
through chain migration have as much of a right to immigrate as the initiating immigrant. The goal here is two-fold: keep families apart, and
prevent the latest legislation to get Dreamers a pathway to citizenship.
Chain migration, or family reunification, is based on a preferential system. Preference is first given to children, spouses, parents and finally
siblings. Vaughn
claims these are unlimited categories, however, they are actually capped cumulatively at less
then 250,000 visas a year. For frame of reference, less than 70,000 people immigrate through the sibling category and they comprise
only 6% of documented immigrants, or 0.02% of the U.S. population.
A-to Signal Link – 1AR
( ) Their “signal” link is illogical and empirically false on its own terms.
The decision to emigrate is complex and not likely based on the perception of an
“amnesty softline”. If it were, that signal’s already muddled. Trump has sometimes
said he wants to help DREAMers and Obama did.
( ) Signal link is nonsense.

Fitz ‘10
Marshall Fitz is a senior fellow at American Progress. He previously served as vice president of Immigration Policy, during which
time he directed the organization’s research and analysis of the economic, political, legal, and social impacts of immigration
policy in America. Fitz has been one of the key legislative strategists in support of comprehensive immigration reform and has
also been a leader in national coalitions that advance progressive immigration policies. He regularly advises members of
Congress on immigration policy, politics, and strategy and has helped draft major legislation. “Myth vs. Fact: The DREAM Act” –
Center For American Progress - December 7, 2010 - #CutWithRJ -
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2010/12/07/8781/myth-vs-fact-the-dream-act/
The far stronger argument is: “America can’t afford not to pass the DREAM Act.”
Myth: The DREAM Act would reward illegal behavior.
Fact: This isn’t amnesty. Eligible youth who had no say in the decision to come to the United States would
have to work hard to earn permanent residence, and the earliest they could gain citizenship would be 13 years.
Opponents grasp for the moral high ground with this feeble contention. The
dubious claim that providing a path to legal
status somehow violates our commitment to the rule of law is standard fare for opponents of
immigration reform. But this tired “anti-amnesty” argument lacks all resonance when applied to this
population.
These kids were brought to the United States before they had a say in their life circumstances. Denying them hope and
opportunity is punishment for an act beyond their control. Enabling them to work hard and earn the privilege of citizenship is hardly
“rewarding” illegal behavior.
Moreover, the hypocrisy of some of the elected officials who would condemn these kids to marginalization is shameful. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA),
who has confessed to moral waywardness, complains with a straight face that these kids are subverting the rule of law.
Myth: Passing the DREAM Act would encourage more illegal immigration.
Fact: The bill has strict requirements that make only a discrete one-time universe of individuals eligible for relief.
When immigration reform of any sort is under consideration the “magnet” excuse returns to vogue like
clockwork. To be sure, this bill is not a solution to the problem of illegal immigration. But neither is it a magnet for more undocumented
migration. And according to the secretary of homeland security the DREAM Act will enable DHS to better focus its resources on criminals and
security threats.
To be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act an individual must have come to the United States before
they were 16 years old, and they must have been in the United States for more than five years on the date of
enactment. In addition, they must be under 30 years old on the date of enactment and they must prove that they have possessed good moral
character from the time they arrived in the United States. Those
types of strict requirements—particularly the mandatory
number of years in the United States—ensure there will be no surge of undocumented immigrants at the
border.
Plan helps the economy – 1AR
Aff – general econ arg
Immigration boosts the economy---net-job creators and exporters

Wadhwa 17 (Opinion: Why Trump’s immigration order could spark a brain drain that hurts the U.S.
economy, Published: Jan 31, 2017 8:07 a.m. ET, By VIVEK WADHWA, is a Distinguished Fellow and
professor at Carnegie Mellon University Engineering at Silicon Valley,
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-trumps-immigration-order-could-spark-a-brain-drain-that-
hurts-the-us-economy-2017-01-30)
Immigrants are more likely to start job-creating businesses across the economy, not just in tech Silicon
Valley exports technology and imports the world’s best talent. That is how it has helped grow America’s
economy and boosted its competitive advantage. President Trump’s executive order banning immigrants from some Muslim
countries sent shock waves through the tech industry over the weekend because it was a loud and clear message to the world that America’s
doors are now closed, and xenophobia and bigotry are the new rules of law. It is no wonder that executives at almost
every major
technology company, including Alphabet GOOG, -2.03% GOOGL, -2.34% Facebook FB, -2.38% and Apple AAPL, -0.77% have made
statements defending immigrants and distancing their companies from the president. These companies
are worried about their survival and the future of the country. Let there be no doubt that immigrants are
essential to our economic present and future. These newcomers start a disproportionate number of U.S. businesses,
particularly in advanced technologies. Immigrants and foreign-passport holders occupy a growing majority of
places in graduate education programs in computer science, mathematics, physics and other hard
sciences. They play an outsize role in U.S. research and innovation. A 2012 research paper I co-authored, “America’s
New Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Then and Now,” documented that 24.3% of U.S. engineering and technology start-up companies and 43.9% of
those based in Silicon Valley were founded by immigrants. My research also determined that immigrants contributed to more than 60% of the
patent filings at innovative companies such as Qualcomm QCOM, -1.22% , Merck MRK, -0.49% , General Electric GE, -1.53% , and Cisco Systems
CSCO, -2.33% . And surprisingly, more than 40% of the international patent applications filed by the U.S. government had foreign-national
authors. Study after study has found that immigrants are more likely to start job-creating businesses, not
only in tech but across the economy. In 2014, 20% of the Inc. 500 companies had immigrant founders. That’s despite
immigrants accounting for less than 15% of the U.S. population. According to research by economist Robert Fairlie for
the Small Business Administration, immigrants are more than twice as likely to found businesses as non-
immigrants and 7.1% of immigrant-founded businesses export their products outside the U.S. as
compared to only 4.4% of non-immigrant-founded businesses.
Not unique - Wages low now – 1AR
Not unique – wages low. Any increase isn’t from better pay – but employees having to
work more hours.
DePillis ‘18
Lydia DePillis is a Senior Economics Writer for CNN Money - “What's really going on with wages in America” – CNN Money –
June 13th - #CutWithRJ - http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/13/news/economy/wage-growth-workers/index.html
With unemployment near historic lows, there seems to be just one missing piece in the economic recovery:
Wage growth.
Take-home pay picked up in 2015 and 2016, but it has since flattened out at annual growth rates that remain
substantially below the 5% that workers enjoyed prior to the Great Recession.
There are lots of theories for why that's the case. But there are also lots of different ways of looking at wages themselves, and each data set can
tell a different story.
Here are a few ways that the federal government measures compensation and what they show us about Americans' financial well-being.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Employment Survey publishes data on the private sector, or about 85% of
workers. Taking all of those workers and adjusting for inflation, average weekly earnings rose 0.3% in May to $928.74, from a
year earlier. But that increase is largely because the number of hours people worked went up by the same
amount.
Not unique - Wages low now.

Smith ‘18
at Noahpinion. “Immigrants Haven't Hurt Pay for Americans” – Bloomberg – Feb 14th, 2018 - #CutWithRJ-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-14/immigrants-haven-t-hurt-pay-for-americans
Second, if
the U.S. working classes were really being “empowered” as Hanson alleges, we would expect to see
robust wage growth. Instead, we’ve mostly seen the opposite. Since the end of large-scale net illegal
immigration, in fact, wages have looked pretty anemic:
During late 2014 and 2015 there was an increase in compensation, but otherwise it hasn’t increased at anything close to the rate it did during
the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s -- an age when illegal immigrants were coming in droves. And there has been no “Trump miracle” yet
when it comes to wages.
This is not to imply that illegal immigration was driving up American wages, simply that the curtailment since
2007 hasn’t given wages any noticeable boost. If the working classes had been empowered as Hanson claims,
one would think they would be able to bargain for better pay.
Wages not key to the economy – 1AR
Wages not key. Causality makes no sense – econ is up, wages are down.
Cafaro ‘18
Dan Cafaro is managing editor for Workspan magazine. “U.S. Economy in Full Swing, But Wages Remain Flat” - World At Work -
WORKSPAN DAILY - MAY 4, 2018 - #CutWithRJ - https://www.worldatwork.org/workspan/articles/u-s-economy-in-full-swing-
but-wages-remain-flat
The U.S. economy showed signs of blooming in April following a surprisingly weak March as the unemployment rate fell to
3.9% and 164,000 jobs were added, but wage growth has remained sluggish , according to today’s employment situation report
for April, released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
April marked the unprecedented 91st consecutive month of job gains, which have averaged 208,000 in the last three
months. April saw a spike in employment in professional and business services (+54,000 jobs), manufacturing (+24,000), health care (+24,000)
and mining (+8,000).
The 0.2% jobless rate decrease followed six months of stagnation (at 4.1%). Pay, however, stayed relatively flat , with a mere
0.15% increase (4 cents an hour) since March and a 2.6% increase (+67 cents hourly) over the past year, per the BLS jobs report.
“All eyes continue to be on wages which are not increasing at the rate Republicans hoped they would after tax reform,”
said Melissa Murdock, director of external affairs for WorldatWork. “If wages stay stagnant and corporations don’t take the tax savings and
reinvest it into wages and talent, it’s going to be much harder for Republicans to campaign on the successes of tax reform this fall. Businesses
that benefited from tax reform need to be aware of this. If Democrats retake control of Congress this fall, I’d expect rewards issues like an
increase to the federal minimum wage to be a top priority.”
Borjas = wrong and bias - 1AR
Reject ev from Borjas – he’s biased and wrong.

Smith ‘15
at Noahpinion. “An Immigrant Won't Steal Your Raise” – Bloomberg - December 18, 2015 - #CutWithRJ-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-18/an-immigrant-isn-t-going-to-steal-your-pay-raise
But in
2015, George Borjas of Harvard University's Kennedy School came out with a shocking claim -- the
celebrated Card result, he declared, was completely wrong. Borjas chose a different set of comparison metro areas --
Anaheim, San Jose and Anaheim in California, and Rochester and Nassau-Suffolk counties in New York -- that had employment growth trends
similar to Miami's before 1980. He also focused
on a very specific subset of low-skilled Miami workers. Unlike Card,
Borjas found that the Mariel boatlift immigration surge had a big negative effect on native wages for this
vulnerable subgroup.
Now, in relatively short order, Borjas' startling claim has been effectively debunked. Giovanni Peri and Vasil
Yasenov, in a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, use a much more robust
comparison method than either Card or Borjas. This approach is called synthetic controls, and involves using data on real cities to
construct imaginary cities that were extremely similar to Miami in 1980. Peri and Yasenov find that Card's result, not Borjas', was based on the
more robust set of comparisons.
Even more damning, Peri and Yasenov find that Borjas only got the result that he did by choosing a very
narrow, specific set of Miami workers. Borjas ignores young workers and non-Cuban Hispanics -- two groups of workers who
should have been among the most affected by competition from the Mariel immigrants. When these workers are added back in, the negative
impact that Borjas finds disappears.
But it gets worse. Borjas was so careful in choosing his arbitrary comparison group that his sample of Miami workers was extremely tiny -- only
17 to 25 workers in total. That is way too small of a sample size to draw reliable conclusions. Peri and Yasenov find that when the sample is
expanded from this tiny group, the supposed negative effect of immigration vanishes.
All of this leaves Borjas' result looking very fishy. He would have had to have searched hard to find the one
small group of workers who seemed to suffer from the Mariel influx. Borjas could well have been subject to heavy
confirmation bias -- he might have been so fundamentally certain that immigration was bad for native
workers that he searched and searched until he found one group that seemed to confirm his pre-
existing beliefs. In science terms, that is called data mining; it's a big no-no.
In debates about immigration, the anti-immigrant side inevitably cites Borjas. He has gained fame and
notoriety for being the most prestigious economist who thinks that immigration is a disaster for native workers.
All of Borjas' papers seem to arrive at this same conclusion. Participants in immigration debates really
should stop citing Borjas' research so much .
Kritik of the sustainability impact – 1AR
Our Kritik specifically applies to scholarship from PFIR. It’s both a K and impact D.
Levinson ‘10
et al; Jenny Levison is Interim Senior Vice President of Development & Partnerships at the new Race Forward. The new Race
Forward is the union of two leading racial justice non-profit organizations: Race Forward and Center for Social Inclusion (CSI).
She has written and edited articles, white papers, blogs, and reports for some of the country’s leading racial justice
organizations. Jenny has worked for over 20 years at the nexus of the arts, media, justice, and equity. “APPLY THE BRAKES:
ANTI-IMMIGRANT CO-OPTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT” - Center for New Community – 2010 - #CutWithRJ -
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/ATB_shortreport.pdf
There should be no taboo on discussing population — a topic clearly tied to environmental concerns, as in
fact is every human interaction within ecological systems. What should be rejected are racism and simplistic arguments
that over-emphasize the “numbers game” at the expense of other factors — interlocking issues of production and
consumption, patterns of land use, technology and planning, globalization and poverty , the status of women in society, as
well as wasteful cycles of boom and bust. This remains true no matter how much ecological damage we believe societies may have
produced. Such a social and ecological outlook is vitally important in overcoming “man versus nature” thinking.
Environmentalists who believe in holistic diversity need to be on guard — not just regarding Apply The Brakes, but
also regarding other anti-immigrant groups using similar rhetoric. Groups with misleading or seemingly transparent
names like Progressives for Immigration Reform, Negative Population Growth, and NumbersUSA — as well as
others in Tanton’s network of anti-immigrant organizations — all seek to inject bigotry into environmental and population
issues.
It’s not just about PFIR – more broadly, the Neg’s population arguments are
oversimplified distortions.
S.P.L.C. ‘10
public interest litigation based in Montgomery, Alabama -“Greenwash: Nativists, Environmentalism and the Hypocrisy of Hate”
- June 30, 2010 - https://www.splcenter.org/20100630/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-hypocrisy-hate
The arguments being made by the nativists today — in a nutshell, that immigration drives population increase and
that a growing population is the main driver of environmental degradation — have in the last 15 years
been rejected by the mainstream of the environmental movement as far too simplistic . The allegation that
immigrants are responsible for urban sprawl, for example, ignores the fact that most immigrants live in dense, urban neighborhoods and do not
contribute significantly to suburban or exurban sprawl. In a similar way, most
conservationists have come to believe that
many of the world's most intractable environmental problems, including global warming, can only be
solved by dealing with them on a worldwide, not a nation-by-nation, basis.
The greenwashers are wolves in sheep's clothing, right-wing nativists who are doing their best to seduce
the mainstream environmental movement in a bid for legitimacy and more followers. John Tanton, the man who originally
devised the strategy, is in fact far more concerned with the impact of Latino and other non-white immigration on a "European-American"
culture than on conservation. Most of the greenwashers are men and women of the far right, hardly "progressives."
US not key, Overpop impacts are wrong - 1AR
Extend that their overpopulation impact is wrong. It’s very unlikely that US population
will be the tipping point for a global impact.
US population is not a large variable for international green impacts.

Stone ‘17
Lyman Stone is a regional population economics researcher that specializes in migration. The author is also an agricultural
economist at The USDA. “Why you shouldn’t obsess about “overpopulation”” – Vox - Dec 12, 2017 - #CutWithRJ -
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change
Now, obviously, we should provide the resources for women to take ownership of their fertility: We should want to reduce undesired
conceptions and increase desired conceptions. We should facilitate the kind of human development that tends to reduce desired fertility from
the four- to seven-child range to the two- to four-child range as well. But we
should do these things because it is morally
good to empower individual decision-making, not because we can save the climate through Malthusian
reductions .
There is only one way to effectively prevent, alleviate, or reverse dangerous climate change: technological,
geographic, and social advancement. Population has little to do with it — especially not in the US.
Renewables can offset population Impacts – 1AR
Extend that the US can and will go fully renewable over the next 35 years – offsetting
any impact to population growth.
Renewable transition is coming and Jacobson indicts reflect the bias of the fossil fuel
sector.
Clark ‘17
Stacy Clark is an environmental geologist and is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, the National Association
of Science Writers “Denying the Truth Doesn’t Change the Facts” – Huffington Post - 12/01/2017 – #CutWithRJ -
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/denying-the-truth-doesnt-change-the-facts_us_5a20ef21e4b05072e8b567da
Try as they may, clean energy innovation naysayers can’t change a simple truth : the cost of wind and
solar power electrical power generation is plummeting and renewable energy is now cheaper than operating old coal
and nuclear power plants. It’s happening fast and there’s no stopping it.
Mark Z. Jacobson, a pioneering Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor at Stanford University, has charted a path for a
national—and even global—transition to clean power adoption. Jacobson’s models map 50 U.S. states and 139 countries for
massive build-outs of wind, solar and water-powered electrical power. The cost of conversion to a 100% electrical powered planet is
largely offset by the decrease in premature deaths caused each year by air pollution related to fossil fuel combustion.
The maps are pretty fun.
Below is quick-facts pop-up when clicking on Texas (my home). Note that by 2050, a whopping 63.9% of the electricity required by the nation’s
second largest state could come from a combination of wind and solar power.
Not surprisingly, Jacobson’s breakthrough blueprints have come under some scrutiny because to put them into
action would mean an epic and permanent shift in the way power is generated, distributed and consumed. It means that the majority
of fossil fuel reserves in the ground will likely remain in the ground.
That’s a lot of natural gas reserves that would no longer need to be fracked and burned to make electricity. It’s a
lot of coal as well. And though the value of that buried power will one day be largely diminished as renewables continue to gain
significant market share, its perceived value today is still compelling, owing to the market’s failure to calculate its myriad external costs—costs
that include over 1.5 million premature deaths worldwide, annually.
Jacobson has garnered attention of late for his filing of a lawsuit against the peer-reviewed scientific
journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) for publishing a study of his work that include errors
that he spent weeks trying to correct.
Several news and opinion articles have been written mischaracterizing the case as an effort to litigate the
science. These are naysayers that don’t want to see Jacobson’s plans become part of the national
dialogue, so they have rallied together to obstruct Jacobson’s scientific/economic findings by accusing Jacobson of suing
the PNAS because his ego is offended by the PNAS report.
But Jacobson’s lawsuit is about correcting the factual scientific record—it’s about ensuring that the process and rules that govern science are
protected.
The PNAS report states that Jacobson made incorrect assumptions in order to show that U.S. energy demand could be
met entirely by wind, water and solar power. The fact is, though, that after Jacobson’s repeated requests of the PNAS’s lead
author to correct errors that they, together, had discussed by phone and by email, Jacobson’s changes were ignored.
Jacobson’s view is that he had no other appropriate recourse than to retract the paper and file for defamation and breach of contract.
Warming Answers
Aff – warming not real
Warming not real- recent temperatures show no increase

Happer ‘12
(William is a professor of physics at Princeton. “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again”, Wall Street Journal, 3/27/12,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html)
What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years.
Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA
satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012)
monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly
less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979
Aff – warming not bad
Warming won’t cause the worst impacts - mitigation and adaptation solve
Mendelsohn ‘9
(Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale
University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online:
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf)
These statements are largely alarmist and misleading . Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves
attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic
consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few
decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or
two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little
adaptation . The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more
severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these
“ potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that
immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks . What is needed
are long‐run balanced responses.
No warming impact -- their science is wrong

-- ipcc predicted warming at 4x the rate it actually happened at from 1998-2002
-- warming has stopped, based on actual data, as opposed to models
-- correlation between ghgs and warming is suspect at best: the warming rate in degrees/decade from
1951-2002 = 0.11, and from 1998-2012 = 0.04, despite actual ghg use being 25% more than what the
ipcc assumed when it made predictions about warming
Goklany ‘15
Indur Goklany, science and technology policy analyst at the DoI, former delegate to the IPCC, and author of multiple books on
climate science with a PhD in electrical engineering from MSU (September 2015, “CARBON DIOXIDE: The good news,”
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits.pdf
the global climate has not been warming as rapidly as projected in the IPCC assessment reports. Figure
Firstly,
5 compares observed global surface temperature data from 1986 through 2012 versus modelled results. It confirms that models have
been running hotter than reality. But these are the projections that governments have relied on to justify
global warming policies, including subsidies for biofuels and renewable energy while increasing the overall cost of energy to the general
consumer – costs that disproportionately burden those that are poorer. A comparison of performance of 117 simulations using 37 models
versus empirical data from the HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set indicates that the vast majority of the simulations/models have
overestimated warming.143 The models indicated that the average global temperature would increase by
0.30±0.02◦Cper decade during the period from 1993 to 2012 but empirical data show an increase of only 0.14±0.06◦C
per decade.144 Model performance was even worse for the more recent 15-year period of 1998–2012.
Here the average modelled trend was 0.21±0.03◦C per decade, quadruple the observed trend of
0.05±0.08◦C. Considering the confidence interval, the observed trend is indistinguishable from no trend
at all; that is, warming has, for practical purposes, halted. Even the IPCC acknowledges the existence of this
‘hiatus’.145 Moreover, the HadCRUT4 temperature database indicates that the global warming rate declined from 0.11◦C
per decade from 1951–2012 to 0.04◦C per decade from 1998–2012.146 This is despite the fact that, per
the IPCC, the anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing for 2010 (2.25 W/m2) exceeded what was used in
the models for 2010 (1.78–1.84 W/m2) by around 25%. 147 Some have argued that satellite temperature data should be
preferred over surface datasets. In fact, satellite coverage is more comprehensive and more representative of the Earth’s surface than is
achievable using surface stations, even if the latter were to number in the thousands. A recent review paper notes that satellites can provide
‘unparalleled global- and fine-scale spatial coverage’ presumably because of ‘more frequent and repetitive coverage over a large area than
other observation means’.148 In addition, surface measurements are influenced by the measuring stations’ microenvironments, which will vary
not only from station to station at any given time, but also over time at the very same station, as vegetation and man-made structures in their
vicinity spring up, evolve and change.149 Satellite temperature data indicates that the globe has been warming at
the rate of 0.12–0.14◦C per decade since 1979;150 by contrast, the IPCC assessments over the last 25
years have been projecting a warming trend of 0.2–0.4◦C per decade.151,152 The differences between modelled
trends and those from satellites and weather balloons are shown in Figures 6 and 7.153 Nevertheless, based on these chains of
unvalidated computer models, orthodox thinkers on climate change claim that global warming will, among
other things, lower food production, increase hunger, cause more extreme weather, increase disease, and
threaten water supplies. The cumulative impact will, they claim, diminish living standards and threaten species, and if
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not curbed soon, pose an existential threat to humanity and the rest of nature.
Some claim it may already be too late.154 The group 350.org, for instance, agitates for reducing atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels, currently at 400 ppm, to 350 ppm, a level the earth last experienced in 1988.155 But since
then, global GDP per capita has increased 60%, infant mortality has declined 48%, life expectancy has
increased by 5.5 years, and the poverty headcount has dropped from 43% to 17% despite a population
increase of 40%. Nostalgia for a 350 ppm world seems somewhat misplaced, if not downright
perverse. 156,157
No impact to warming
Hart ‘15
Michael Hart, Simon Reisman Chair at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa,
Former Fulbright-Woodrow Wilson Center Visiting Research, Former Scholar-in-Residence in the School of International Service
and Senior Fellow in the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, a former official in Canada’s
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, where he Specialized in trade policy and trade negotiations, MA from
the University of Toronto, “Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics, and Politics of Climate Change”, p. 242-246
As already noted, the IPCC scenarios themselves are wildly alarmist , not only on the basic science but also on the underlying
economic assumptions , which in turn drive the alarmist impacts. The result cannot withstand critical analysis . Economists Ian
Castles and David Henderson, for example, show the extent to which the analysis is driven by the desire to reach predetermined outcomes.50 Other economists
have similarly wondered what purpose was served by pursuing such unrealistic scenarios. It is hard to credit the defense put forward by Mike Hulme, one of the
creators of the scenarios, that the IPCC is not engaged in forecasting the future but in creating “plausible” story lines of what might happen under various
scenarios.51 Each scare scenario is based on linear projections without any reference to technological
developments or adaptation . If, on a similar linear basis, our Victorian ancestors in the UK, worried about rapid urbanization and population
growth in London, had made similar projections, they would have pointed to the looming crisis arising from reliance on horse-drawn carriages and omnibuses; they
would have concluded that by the middle of the 20th century, London would be knee-deep in horse manure, and all of the southern counties would be required to
grow the oats and hay to feed and bed the required number of horses. Technology progressed and London adapted. Why should the rest of
humanity not be able to do likewise in the face of a trivial rise in temperature over the course of more
than a century ? The work on physical impacts is equally over the top . All the scenarios assume only
negative impacts , ignore the reality of adaptation , and attribute any and all things bad to global
warming. Assuming the GHG theory to be correct means that its impact would be most evident at night
and during the winter in reducing atmospheric heat loss to outer space.52 It would have greater impact in increasing minimum temperatures than in
increasing maximum temperatures. Secondary studies, however, generally ignore this facet of the hypothesis. The IPCC believes that a
warmer world will harm human health due, for example, to increased disease, malnutrition, heat-waves,
floods, storms, and cardiovascular incidents. As already noted there is no basis for the claim about severe-
weather-related threats or malnutrition . The claim about heat-related deaths gained a boost during the summer of 2003 because of the
tragedy of some 15,000 alleged heat-related deaths in France as elderly people stayed behind in city apartments without air conditioning while their children
enjoyed the heat at the sea shore during the August vacation. Epidemiological studies of so-called "excess" deaths resulting from heat waves are abused to get the
desired results. Similar studies of the impact of cold spells show that they are far more lethal than heat waves and that it is much easier to adapt to heat than to
cold.53 More fundamentally, this, like most of the alarmist literature, ignores the basics of the AGW hypothesis: the world will not see an exponential increase in
summer, daytime heat (and thus more heat waves), but a decrease in night-time and winter cooling, particularly at higher latitudes and altitudes. Based on the
AGW hypothesis, Canada, China, Korea, Northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, and Argentina will see warmer winters and warmer nights.
There are clear benefits to such a development, even if there may also be problems, but the AGW industry tends to ignore the positive aspects of their alarmist
scenarios. The feared spread
of malaria, a much repeated claim, is largely unrelated to climate. Malaria’s worst recorded
outbreak was in Siberia long before there was any discussion of AGW . Similarly, the building of the Rideau Canal in Ottawa
in the 1820s was severely hampered by outbreaks of malaria due to the proximity of mosquito-infested wetlands in the area. Malaria remains widespread in tropical
countries today in part because of the UN’s lengthy embargo on the use of DDT, the legacy of an earlier alarmist disaster. Temperature is but one factor, and a
minor one at that, in the multiple factors that affect the rise or decline in the presence of disease-spreading mosquitoes. Wealthier western countries have pursued
public health strategies that have reduced the incidence of the disease in their countries. Entomologist Paul Reiter, widely recognized as the leading specialist on
malaria vectors and a contributor to some of the early work of the IPCC, was aghast to learn how his careful and systematic analysis of the potential impacts had
been twisted in ways that he could not endorse. In a recent paper, he concludes: “Simplistic reasoning on the future prevalence of malaria is ill-founded; malaria is
not limited by climate in most temperate regions, nor in the tropics, and in nearly all cases, ’new' malaria at high altitudes is well below the maximum altitudinal
limits for transmission. Future changes in climate may alter the prevalence and incidence of the disease, but obsessive emphasis on ’global warming' as a dominant
parameter is indefensible; the principal determinants are linked to ecological and societal change, politics and economics.”54 Catastrophic species
loss similarly has little foundation in past experience .55 Even if the GHG hypothesis were to be correct,
its impact would be slow , providing significant scope and opportunity for adaptation , including by
ﬂora and fauna. One of the more irresponsible claims was made by a group of UK modelers who fed wildly improbable scenarios
and data into their computers and produced the much-touted claim of massive species loss by the end of the
century. There are literally thousands of websites devoted to spreading alarm about species loss and
biodiversity. Global warming is but one of many claimed human threats to the planet’s biodiversity . The
claims, fortunately, are largely hype, based on computer models and the estimate by Harvard naturalist Edward O. Wilson that 27,000 to 100,000
species are lost annually - a figure he advanced purely hypothetically but which has become one of the most persistent of environmental urban myths. The fact is
that scientists have no idea of the extent of the world's ﬂora and fauna , with estimates ranging from five million to 100
million species, and that there are no reliable data about the rate of loss. By some estimates, 95 per cent of the species
that ever existed have been lost over the eons, most before humans became major players in altering their environment. A much more
credible estimate of recent species loss comes from a surprising source, the UN Environmental Program. It reports that known species loss is slowing
reaching its lowest level in 500 years in the last three decades of the 20th century, with some 20 reported extinctions despite increasing
pressure on the biosphere from growing human population and industrialization.57 The alarmist community has also introduced the scientifically unknown concept
of "locally extinct,” often meaning little more than that a
species of plant or animal has responded to adverse conditions by
moving to more hospitable circumstances, e.g., birds or butterflies becoming more numerous north of their range and disappearing at its
extreme southern extent. Idso et al. conclude: “Many species have shown the ability to adapt rapidly to changes in climate .
Claims that global warming threatens large numbers of species with extinction typically rest on a false definition of extinction
(the loss of a particular population rather than entire species) and speculation rather than real-world evidence . The world’s
species have proven very resilient , having survived past natural climate cycles that involved much
greater warming and higher C02 concentrations than exist today or are likely to exist in the coming
centuries?“

Immigration DAs - Packet - SDI 2018

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Immigration DAs - Packet - SDI 2018

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Immigration Disad – Aff and Neg

Resisting the true “free-for-all” approach:

The rhetoric of “chain migration”:

Next off is the Wages Disad:

On that basis, CBO

(Note: “S.1615” is the title of The DREAM Act of 2017)

Wages are the key to the US economy.

Next off is the Green Sustainability disad

On that basis, CBO

(Note: “S.1615” is the title of The DREAM Act of 2017)

Immigration is the lone variable counteracting this “baby bust” trend

The impact is green sustainability. More immigration drives-up US population rates.

How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?

Legal immigration down now

There are net decreases in illegal migration now.

The study found: The undocumented population fell below

Illegal migration decreasing---best metrics prove

Research on previous amnesties confirms our link.

Encourage more illegal immigration, or discourage it?

Uphold the rule of law or weaken it?

Amnesty as Incentive for More Illegal Immigration. An

Neg studies aren’t inaccurate – here is a pro-dict:

Wages are up in the status quo.

Wages are improving now.

Wages up – both small and large firms are boosting pay.

More Immigration will cause a net reduction in wages

A little over a century ago, Henry

The investment piece is key.

Wages are key to the economy

On balance, Immigration hurts wages – this outweighs any economic gains to

Prefer Borjas – he’s got the best qualifications:

Extend our green sustainability impact.

be perfectly poised to take over more government

The Impact of Population Size to the Environment

Amid all the name-calling, a

Population claims aren’t anti-immigrant. Sustainability impacts can critique US

A Sustainable Demographic Future

No link – it’s a mischaracterization to claim sustainability impacts are anti-immigrant.

Population Growth, Reproduction, Immigration, and the Role of Congress.

But, although its

US population growth is the key to global green impacts.

Jacobson is wrong – US can’t switch to full renewables.

We noted here back in June that Jacobson’s flim-flam

US can’t go full renewable - Jacobson is wrong.

As highlighted below, our liberal

Can’t adapt to warming – rates likely to be too fast to ensure resilience.

Consensus is on our side

Neg authors are worse- they’re just special interest hacks

Warming causes extinction---experts agree

Tipping points and positive feedbacks confirm our impacts.

( ) Not unique - immigration is up now

( ) Their Subsequent Family-Based Migration link is wrong.

The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that by

( ) Immigration doesn’t hurt wages – Borjas is wrong.

Hanson is also correct that U.S. unemployment is very low:

First of all, research

It’s now safe to say that the U.S. economy is in a boom.

( ) Not unique - immigration is up now

( ) Their Subsequent Family-Based Migration link is wrong.

The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that by

( ) PFIR’s impact claims are inaccurate. It is a cover for violent nativism.

( ) US population impacts can be fully offset by full-scale use of renewables. Critics

Extend that immigration is up now.