Immigration Politics – Cal 2013 – Starter Packet

AT//Employer Abuse Turn

Doesn’t cause employee abuse

Nowrasteh 3-6

[Alex. Immigration at CATO. “Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform” 3/6/13 Real Clear Politics //GBS-JV]

At the time, the leaders of the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, and other unions all wrote letters opposing the guest-worker program. James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters opposed a guest-worker program because it would “[force] workers to toil in a truly temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and abuse by those seeking cheap labor.”¶ But the employer abuse issue is a straw man. There is a rather simple remedy: visa portability, which would allow guest workers to easily switch jobs. The ability to quit a job without the legal risk of deportation would give guest workers the ability to effectively enforce their own labor standards: They could depart an abusive employer without fear of deportation.

AT//Overburdens Health Care

The new bill constrains immigrant health care access in the near term

Moody 4-10

[Chris. Politics for TalkingPointsMemo. “Rubio seeks to assure GOP that immigration overhaul will create toughest enforcement laws in U.S. history” http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rubio-seeks-convince-gop-immigration-overhaul-create-toughest-093049158--election.html 4/10/13 //GBS-JV]

If passed, the law ultimately would cost billions of dollars in new spending for border security measures, while creating a visa-exit system to track when people overstay their visa and a program that would enforce workplace compliance laws. There also is language in the bill that would prohibit those currently in the country illegally to receive government-subsidized health insurance benefits tied to the 2010 federal health care law for up to 15 years.

AT//Rector (CIR Hurts Growth)

Rector concludes high skilled immigrants generate growth

Rector ‘7

[Robert. Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at Heritage. And Christine Kim. “Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the US Taxpayer” Heritage Special Report #14, 5/22/7 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-low-skill-immigrants-to-the-us-taxpayer //GBS-JV]

Finally, it is important to remember that, in contrast to low-skill immigrants, immigrants with a college degree¶ become positive fiscal contributors from the outset; the taxes they pay will exceed the benefits their families receive.¶ Unlike low-skill immigrants, high-skill immigrants will not produce a generation of sharp fiscal losses, and their¶ children are far more likely to do well in school and be strong fiscal contributors themselves when compared to the¶ children of low-skill immigrants.

The 2007 study from which all your math originates is a joke – disregard every claim made in their evidence

Nowrasteh 4-4

[Alex. Economist Analyst for CATO. “Heritage Immigration Study Fatally Flawed” 4/4/13 http://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immigration-study-fatally-flawed //GBS-JV]

There are indications that The Heritage Foundation may soon release an updated version of its 2007 report, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer,” by Robert Rector. That 2007 report’s flawed methodology produced a grossly exaggerated cost to federal taxpayers of legalizing unauthorized immigrants while undercounting or discounting their positive tax and economic contributions – greatly affecting the 2007 immigration reform debate.¶ Before releasing its updated report, I urge the Heritage Foundation to avoid the same serious errors that so undermined Mr. Rector’s 2007 study. Here is a list of some of its major errors:¶ Count individuals, not households.[1] Heritage counts household use of government benefits, not individual immigrant use. Many unauthorized immigrants are married to U.S. citizens and have U.S. citizen children who live in the same households. Counting the fiscal costs of those native-born U.S. citizens massively overstates the fiscal costs of immigration. ¶ Employ dynamic scoring rather than static scoring. [2] Heritage’s report relies on static scoring rather than dynamic scoring, making the same mistake in evaluating the impact of increased immigration on welfare costs that the Joint Committee on Taxation makes when scoring the impact of tax cuts. Instead, Heritage should use dynamic scoring techniques to evaluate the fiscal effects of immigration reform. For example, Heritage should assume that wages and gross domestic product are altered considerably because of immigration policy reforms. In contrast to that economic reality, immigrant wages, gross domestic product, and government welfare programs are unrealistically static in Mr. Rector’s study. His study largely ignores the wage increases experienced by immigrants and their descendants over the course of their working lives, how those wages would alter after legalization, and the huge gains in education amongst the second and third generation of Hispanics.[3] Heritage is devoted to dynamic scoring in other policy areas – it should be so devoted to it here too.[4]¶ Factor in known indirect fiscal effects.[5] The consensus among economists is that the economic gains from immigration vastly outweigh the costs.[6] In 2007, Mr. Rector incorrectly noted that, “there is little evidence to suggest that low-skill immigrants increase the incomes of non-immigrants.” Immigrants boost the supply and demand sides of the American economy, increasing productivity through labor and capital market complementarities with a net positive impact on American wages.[7] Heritage should adjust its estimates to take account of the positive spill-overs of low-skilled immigration.¶ Assume that wages for legalized immigrants would increase – dramatically.[8] Heritage did not assume large wage gains for unauthorized immigrants after legalization. In the wake of the 1986 Reagan amnesty, wages for legalized immigrants increased – sometimes by as much as 15 percent – because legal workers are more productive and can command higher wages than illegal workers. Heritage should adopt similar wage increases to estimate the economic effects of immigration reform if it were to happen today.[9] ¶ Assume realistic levels of welfare use.[10] Vast numbers of immigrants will return to their home countries before collecting entitlements,[11] the “chilling effect” whereby immigrants are afraid of using welfare reduces their usage of it, and immigrants use less welfare across the board.[12] 100 native-born adults eligible for Medicaid will cost the taxpayers about $98,000 a year. A comparable number of poor non-citizen immigrants cost approximately $57,000 a year – a 42 percent lower bill than for natives. For children, citizens cost $67,000 and non-citizens cost $22,700 a year – a whopping 66 percent lower cost. Heritage should adjust its estimates of future immigrant welfare use downward. [13] ¶ Use latest legislation as benchmark.[14] The current immigration plan, if rumors are to be believed, would stretch a path to citizenship out for 13 years.[15] Most welfare benefits will be inaccessible until then, so Heritage’s report must take that timeline into account.¶ Remittances do not decrease long term consumption.[16] Remittances sent home by immigrants will eventually return to the U.S. economy in the form of increased exports or capital account surpluses. Heritage should recognize this aspect of economic reality rather than assuming remittances are merely a short-term economic cost. ¶ Factor in immigration enforcement costs.[17] Heritage did not compare costs of legalization and guest workers to the costs of the policy status quo or increases in enforcement. The government spends nearly $18,000 per illegal immigrant apprehension while the economic distortions caused by forcing millions of consumers, renters, and workers out of the U.S. would adversely affect income and profitability.[18]¶ Use transparent methodology.[19] Heritage’s methodology should replicate that of the National Research Council’s authoritative and highly praised – even by immigration restrictionists – study entitled The New Americans.[20] That study is the benchmark against which all efforts at generational fiscal accounting – including Heritage’s 2007 report – are measured. If Heritage deviates from their methods, it should explain its methodology in a clear and accessible way that states why they altered practice.[21]¶ Don’t count citizen spouses.[22] Heritage counted U.S.-born spouses of unauthorized immigrants as fiscal costs. Counting the net immigrant fiscal impact means counting immigrants and perhaps their children at most,[23] not native-born spouses who would be on the entitlement roles regardless of whether they married an immigrant or a native-born American.¶ Suggest changes to the welfare state. Heritage has elsewhere called low-skill migrant workers “a net positive and a leading cause of economic growth”[24] and accurately reported that “[t]he consensus of the vast majority of economists is that the broad economic gains from openness to trade and immigration far outweigh the isolated cases of economic loss.”[25] Instead of arguing against low-skill immigration, Mr. Rector should instead suggest reforms that would, in the words of Cato’s late Chairman Bill Niskanen, “build a wall around the welfare state, not around the country.”[26]¶ It is imperative that the economic costs and benefits of increased immigration be studied using proper methods and the most recent data. A previous report by the Heritage Foundation in 2006 entitled, “The Real Problem with Immigration … and the Real Solution,” by Tim Kane and Kirk Johnson roundly rejected the negative economic assessments of Mr. Rector’s 2007 study.[27] Not only does Mr. Rector not speak for the broad conservative movement; it appears that economists who have worked for the Heritage Foundation also disagree with Mr. Rector’s conclusions. ¶ For decades, the Heritage Foundation has been an influential intellectual force in conservative circles. Its economic analyses have been predicated on consideration of the dynamic effects of policy changes as opposed to static effects. Unfortunately, Mr. Rector’s past work has not been consistent in this regard, employing the same static scoring conservatives have traditionally distrusted in other policy areas. ¶ Many conservatives rely on the Heritage Foundation for accurate research about immigration’s impact on the economy. Before releasing another study assessing the net fiscal impacts of immigration reform, Heritage should correct the errors outlined above to guarantee the most accurate information on this important topic is available.

The deal’s key to skilled workers – comparatively bigger internal link to growth

Basu 2-6

Basu 2/6, Rekha Basu is a staff writer. (“Immigration reform has plenty of positives”, (http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20130206/OPINION02/302060026/Immigration-reform-has-plenty-positives-, 2/6/2013) Kerwin

It’s starting to look as if meaningful immigration reform finally has a chance of becoming law. If it does, it could bring to an end one of the country’s most self-defeating standoffs. It won’t necessarily be because politicians suddenly found God or awoke to the value of immigrants. More likely it will be out of pragmatic self-interest. The Latino voting population is growing rapidly, and immigration reform is very important to its members. Senate Republicans know what it could mean for them that Democrat Barack Obama trounced Republican Mitt Romney among Hispanics, 71 percent to 27 percent in November. But regardless of why our broken immigration system ultimately gets fixed, the implications for America’s future are boundless if it does. From a community standpoint, it will mean an end to a two-tiered society in which 11 million people don’t even exist on paper. The meat packer, the construction worker, the people who mow our lawns, clean our homes or care for our kids won’t need to be paid under the table or by using fake documents. The roads will be safer as people who aren’t legally eligible to drive get licenses and insurance. More license fees mean more money for strapped public services. Neighborhoods will become more stable, as people who couldn’t get bank loans or credit cards or Social Security numbers are eligible to buy instead of rent. People not forced underground can play more active roles in their children’s schools, in neighborhood and civic organizations. As crime victims, they will be freer to call police on criminals who might prey on others. It will be harder for employers and managers to exploit, rape, withhold wages from, and force overtime on workers, because workers won’t be silenced by their immigration status. And there are the economic benefits. New jobs will be created and filled, new patents will be granted and employers will be better able to fill medical, engineering, computer and other high-tech jobs for which there is a skills shortage. That will allow U.S. companies to stay productive. This isn’t just conjecture. High-skilled immigrants contribute more than their share as inventors, employers and consumers. Studies show immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to get patents on new inventions or processes. Immigrants from India, for example, are only 1 percent of the U.S. population, yet one-third of the engineers in Silicon Valley. And 71 percent of Indians in America have a bachelor’s degree compared to 28 percent of the overall U.S. population. One in four high-tech start-ups is started by an immigrant. In fact, for every 100 H1B visas (temporary visas for high-skilled immigrants), 183 American jobs are created. But there aren’t enough visas. With the right kind of immigration reform, there won’t be a 25-or-more year wait for a permanent residence visa (for Indian professionals, the wait can be up to 70 years), or a yearly limit of 140,000, or a 25,000 cap per country. The line to become a citizen will move faster. Families will not be separated for decades, with those here sending half their paychecks back to members who can’t legally join them. More money will stay in this economy. The skills of many graduates of our top universities won’t be lost when they are forced to leave the country. More people are not just employees but customers for businesses. On the downside, it’s possible that some U.S. workers will be competing with immigrants for low-wage jobs. Then again, if employers can’t pay people less for being undocumented, then the playing field will be more level. But studies also find that American workers don’t want the jobs undocumented immigrants have taken, or don’t want to move to underpopulated areas for them, as immigrants do. Before this can happen, the White House and Congress need to reach agreement on some issues. Meanwhile, expect an uptick in immigrant-bashing and baseless claims and stereotypes.

Turns economy/competitiveness

Hinojosa-Ojeda 12

[Founding Director of the North American Integration and Development Center at UCLA Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1 Winter 2012]

The historical experience of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act indicates that comprehensive immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue. Even though IRCA was implemented during a period that included a recession and high unemployment (1990–91), it still helped raise wages and spurred increases in educational, home, and small business investments by newly legalized immigrants. Taking the experience of IRCA as a starting point, we estimate that comprehensive immigration reform would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years. 1 This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current “vicious cycle” where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a “virtuous cycle” of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages.