tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post4155224135899861486..comments2024-03-22T22:33:42.207-04:00Comments on Everyday Debate: PF December 2013 - Path to Citizenship - Con PositionJames Kellamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09983375909180219240noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post-21841855871193912352013-12-04T01:16:07.241-05:002013-12-04T01:16:07.241-05:00For your legalization question - the only reason I...For your legalization question - the only reason I could see it considered better is if it is considered more feasible to be passed by congress. Since the resolved suggests reform is necessary, con could argue that reform is only possible if the path to citizenship is scrapped because republicans wouldn't agree to it. That's all I can think of, hope this helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post-17514502917519392632013-11-24T13:52:07.553-05:002013-11-24T13:52:07.553-05:00Thank you very much for the feedback. I appreciat...Thank you very much for the feedback. I appreciate your time and ideas.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16250052473013393285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post-11035079439539330752013-11-24T13:33:12.118-05:002013-11-24T13:33:12.118-05:00@Michael First of all, I am not sure there are any...@Michael First of all, I am not sure there are any direct harms that can be isolated from granting citizenship other than playing on the arguments against the path to citizenship which primarily is a kind of emotional, slippery-slope based on rewarding illegal action thus incentivizing more illegal actions. In my opinion, the "prize" of citizenship needs to be cast as something much more beneficial than LPR. Can that be done? I can't say other than say, one may need better or additional evidence than that presented in this article. The other obvious "harm" of P2C could be a kind of politics DA where by P2C kills political capital. I am reasonably sure such evidence does exist.<br /><br />I think the start you have for the Con sounds quite good and I sense the frustration you are feeling arises because the empirical data and evidence of your first contention are not matched in your second contention.<br /><br />Every point you raise in your comments are valid. We have a holiday break coming up since the next tournament will be December. During that time, I will dig in deeper and if I find anything useful, I will consider posting it. James Kellamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09983375909180219240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post-53138824519792505112013-11-23T22:08:16.036-05:002013-11-23T22:08:16.036-05:00But are there any harms specific to citizenship bu...But are there any harms specific to citizenship but not legalization? I can see that there would be extra benefits to citizenship, but what about the harms? And what I was getting at was that legalization would be included within a path to citizenship, so the only "alternative" that con is offering is to not offer that last step of attaining citizenship. The impact calculus is a good idea, in any case.<br /><br />Right now my Con case consists of one contention essentially about solvency (P2C doesn't solve harms in the status quo) in terms of government finances (would cost trillions--mostly relies on rector's heritage study), increased illegal immigration, hopefully turning the aff link to regularization of undocumented immigrants impacts (generics about how any form of amnesty would incentivize future immigration, even if no more amnesties are passed, because of that perception; second is emperics from IRCA about increased immigration, and from Spain, which has granted amnesties in the past) and would derail immigration reform legislation (the politics disad argument, except tailored to just immigration reform legislation--Republicans oppose P2C evidence, would vote if it was taken out, etc.) The second contention is right now about the fairness argument--immigrants who have broken the law should not be rewarded with a path to citizenship. Not entirely sure about that one. Maybe I should replace it with a pseudo-counterplan of legalization or a guest worker program.<br /><br />Please let me know what you think. Thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16250052473013393285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post-17354090650944641632013-11-18T14:21:12.143-05:002013-11-18T14:21:12.143-05:00There are benefits to citizenship that LPR does no...There are benefits to citizenship that LPR does not offer. Most importantly, there is zero chance you will be deported as a citizen and if you do leave the country, you may return any time you wish (not so with LPR since the government may think you just left, never to return). Also there are voting and office holder rights not available to LPRs. While the Pro may gain the upper hand in a cost-benefit analysis, Con can at least claim parity through LPR status, and perhaps claim the benefits will be realized in a much shorter timeframe through LPR. Probability and magnitude are pretty much a wash with citizenship. As for additional disad/advantage scenarios, the political capital gained from LPR may be greater than citizenship though I did not include evidence in this analysis.James Kellamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09983375909180219240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post-1204415981387370562013-11-17T19:17:38.061-05:002013-11-17T19:17:38.061-05:00What I'm saying is that if con argues on the b...What I'm saying is that if con argues on the basis of uniqueness (benefits of citizenship vs. benefits of legalization alone; legalization as a sort of counterplan), then they also must demonstrate that THEIR harms are exclusive to citizenship as well, at least in my mind. I mean I just don't think it's possible to argue that a permanent legalization status is not a part of a path to citizenship, because how do you allow someone to become a citizen without first legalizing them? It doesn't make sense to me.<br /><br />Also, the resolution doesn't assume the solvency of a path to citizenship. It just says "should include". In my mind, if a path to citizenship undermines efforts at immigration reform and immigration reform is desirable for whatever reason, then that should be a reason to be against including a path to citizenship.<br /><br />And if a path to citizenship wouldn't work, then that is a reason to reject it as a good idea. You don't only have to argue the disadvantages and advantages of a path to citizenship, but solvency should weigh into it as well.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16250052473013393285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post-91283153715414209522013-11-17T14:38:23.952-05:002013-11-17T14:38:23.952-05:00I believe in some sense that there would be some d...I believe in some sense that there would be some discussion concerning economic benefits of legalization. I think the argument of saying that citizenship is better than LPR only encompasses the importance of voting rights, but there ay be other benefits I'm not aware of concerning citizenship versus LPR. <br /><br />The main area where the con side could have offense is the actual cost of providing a path of citizenship for all these undocumented people, along with showing the lack of benefits of providing citizenship. Other harms provided by the con could include an argument of which grating amnesty to illegal immigrants harms the strength of these laws and/or could increase immigration rates.<br /><br />I think the argument that citizenship would undermine efforts to pass immigration form wouldn't really work because the debate is assuming that a path to citizenship IS possible and that we are only debating whether it is a good idea.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2407860233068036900.post-9437803225852469902013-11-16T01:00:03.598-05:002013-11-16T01:00:03.598-05:00Thank you very much for the post, but I'm stru...Thank you very much for the post, but I'm struggling particularly with the CON position and I have a few questions:<br /><br />Would a path to citizenship not include and encompass the economic benefits of legalization? I'm not sure that I understand the argument that legalization is BETTER than a path to citizenship as they are not mutually exclusive. From my perspective, even if that terminal accession of citizenship has a harm, the benefits of the legalization that would necessarily be included in a path to citizenship must also be considered, right?<br /><br />And also, where does CON have any offense? Even if the judge bought the argument that legalization is just as good as a full path to citizenship, where does con demonstrate the harms exclusive to citizenship, if that is their argument?<br /><br />The other question I have is basically about overall strategy. It seems that this debate is pretty much a normal policy topic (policy change away from the status quo) in a public forum setting. As such, the pro is going to argue that there are harms in the status quo from illegal immigration, but that a path to citizenship solves for those harms (with such and such advantages to the economy and so on); meanwhile, con will try to turn the link most likely. I.e., a path to citizenship would exacerbate the harms of illegal immigration on taxpayers and the economy. However, one argument that comes up often is that a path to citizenship will encourage and lead to more unlawful immigration. Is it a sensible approach to then argue that these new unlawful and undocumented workers have X harms. In other words, link the path to citizenship back to the harms that pro is supposedly solving for in the status quo?<br /><br />My last question is regarding something of an immigration-reform-exclusive-politics disad: do you think it would be expedient for con to argue that including a path to citizenship is divisive and will undermine any effort to pass immigration reform?<br /><br />Hopefully those questions make sense.<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16250052473013393285noreply@blogger.com