Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Magic

Need Help For Aff And Neg

Recommended Posts

I am running an aff that gives citizenship to illegal immigrants who work in the military for 4 years.

 

Advantages = Heg & Linguists

 

I need help finding some solid evidence saying that military recruitment is very low now or military readiness very low now. I tried finding some evidence (It is all from 2008). Also, if anybody has good answers to the Immigration Magnet DA, basically saying that if you provide social services to immigrant more will want to come illegally. All my evidence refuting it says that immigrants come illegally, not for social services, but for jobs. And my plan sadly does provide them with jobs. Also, I get hit with T a lot, about how we are not helping US citizens. We never get actual flow judges, just mommy judges. So how much ever I talk about how we are in the debate resolution because we are helping poverty in the United States, nobody buys it. Any analogies would be great and helpful.

Anybody who actually took time to read it, thanks! I seriously need help.

 

On the Neg Side,

 

I really need some evidence on Medical Waivers, Sex Trafficking, and Urban Gardens. The first one would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For recruitment:

There are not enough troops in the SQ

Washington Post 7/3, 2009(“On the Offensive: Can commanders in Afghanistan tell the president the truth about troop shortages?”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070203283.html, 3-3-09)

 

AS U.S. MARINES launched a major offensive in Afghanistan's Taliban-infested Helmand province yesterday, one problem was already apparent: There are not enough troops to properly carry out the Pentagon's new counterinsurgency strategy. The force is "a little light," Marine Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, its commander, told national security adviser James L. Jones in a meeting reported by The Post's Bob Woodward. "We don't have enough force to go everywhere." Those comments will come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the attempts by U.S. commanders to turn around the Afghan war. The idea is to replicate the strategy that finally reversed American fortunes in Iraq: protecting the population rather than seeking out insurgents, while building the economy and political institutions. Though the Bush and Obama administrations approved new troop deployments that will double the U.S. force, the ratio of American and allied Afghan soldiers to the population is still well below that mandated by the Army's new counterinsurgency doctrine.

 

Non unique – recruitment levels are low and the army has already abandoned quality - their evidence takes into account non binding contracts

Smith and Comerford 2009 *Research director, executive director (Suzanne and Jo, January 21st, Report shows gap in Army’s 2008 recruitment quantity and quality goals”, http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=1176)

 

While the army claims 80,517 new army recruits this year, surpassing its goal of 80,000, in actuality, its figures reflect the number of individuals with whom they have some form of - often non-binding - contract. The number of accessions, or actual recruits who reported for duty in 2008, was 69,357.

The percent of Tier 1 recruits, at 74% is 16 percentage points below the army’s goal of 90%. This is the fourth year running that the army has missed its “quality” goal.

The highest recruitment rates - defined as the number of recruits per thousand of 15-24 year-old population - were found in the south with Texas, Florida and Georgia ranking in the top five states.

Jo Comerford, NPP’s Executive Director adds, “Four years of missed recruiting quantity and quality goals, combined with dramatic increases in the recruitment budget, raise important questions which must be tackled. Not only are education rates down but evidence shows increases in physical and felony waivers, the latter having doubled from 2006 to 2007. It stands to reason that we must ask whether the Army has exhausted its potential supply of new quality recruits. Its announced intent to increase its base by 65,000 additional recruits, should signal a clarion call for a new look at the realities of an ever-expanding military. A new approach to national security is what is needed. Clearly, we are being called to a new strategy - for this new day.”

 

Immigration Magnet DA:

No link – immigrants don’t care about social services

Ortega, 9

(Adrianne, J.D. Boston University School of Law, M.P.H. Boston University School of Public Health, 35 Am. J. L. and Med. 185)

 

The United States Congress's goals of excluding immigrants from federally funded non-emergency health services are to deter illegal immigration and lower federal health care expenditures. 18 When excluding non-citizens from obtaining health care coverage under the Welfare Reform Act, Congress stated that "it is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits." Studies show, however, that undocumented immigrants come to the United States for jobs more than any other reason. In a sampling of four Latino populations of immigrants from Texas and California, three out of four populations cited work as the number one reason for immigration. The fourth population cited family and friends, followed by work. Less than one percent of undocumented immigrants cited "obtaining social services" as the primary reason for immigrating to the United States. Further, undocumented immigrants actually use less ambulatory care than the national average. The same study found that undocumented immigrants had "fewer ambulatory physician visits [and] rates of hospital admission" than native citizens -- except for hospitalizations related to childbirth, which were roughly the same. One can, therefore, argue that the current ban on health care services for non-citizens may not deter immigration.

 

Immigrants don’t use social services

Fix, 6

(Michael Fix, Vice President and Director of Studies, “’Immigrants’ Costs and Contributions: The Effects of Reform’ Testimony Prepared for the Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on the Impacts of Border Security and Immigration on Ways and Means Programs,” Migration Policy Institute National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, July 26, 2006, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FixTestimony072606.pdf)

 

DECLINE IN BENEFIT USE BY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS Research by MPI and the Urban Institute suggests two other trends in the use of public assistance among immigrants that have been downplayed in the current debate over immigration reform’s impacts on the social welfare system. One is the decline in the use of most public benefits by legal immigrants in the wake of welfare reform’s 1996 enactment. As Figure 1 indicates, following reform, we see sharp drops in TANF use among immigrant families. Immigrant use of TANF was lower than that of citizens both before and after welfare reform, falling from 19 percent in 1994 to 4.5 percent in 2004. (Our analysis focuses on low-income, legal noncitizen-headed families with children. We contrast them with low-income, citizen-headed families with children.) Similar patterns emerge through 2002 when we examine Food Stamps. There is a slight up-tick in use from 2002 through 2004, perhaps reflecting policy changes in the program introduced by the 2002 Farm Bill, which restored eligibility to working age adults who had been in “qualified status” in the United States for five or more years, and to legal, noncitizen children regardless of date of entry. Finally, we see declines in SSI use among legal, noncitizen-headed families for the period 1996 – 2004; in fact, noncitizens’ usage levels in 2004 are just over half those of citizens. For each program, then, benefit use among immigrant families has fallen since welfare reform and is substantially lower than that of citizens. This is not the image of immigrants and social welfare reliance that is commonly conveyed. We do, however, see different patterns when it comes to Medicaid – with use among noncitizen families exceeding that of natives and rising since 1999. Generally higher levels of Medicaid use among legal, noncitizen families may reflect the introduction of the 1997 SCHIP program, broad outreach in the late 1990s to boost enrollment, and a reduction in private insurance coverage among low-wage immigrant workers and low-wage workers more generally.

 

 

A different (yet defensive) way of answering it would be saying that immigration is high how.

Something like

 

Immigration on the accent now

Pew Center 2008 (Jeffrey Passel and D'Vera Cohn, Pew Research Center, February 11, 2008, “Immigration to Play Lead Role In Future U.S. Growth” accessed 7/6/09 http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections aes)

If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center. Of the 117 million people added to the population during this period due to the effect of new immigration, 67 million will be the immigrants themselves and 50 million will be their U.S.-born children or grandchildren.

Among the other key population projections: Nearly one in five Americans (19%) will be an immigrant in 2050, compared with one in eight (12%) in 2005. By 2025, the immigrant, or foreign-born, share of the population will surpass the peak during the last great wave of immigration a century ago. The major role of immigration in national growth builds on the pattern of recent decades, during which immigrants and their U.S.-born children and grandchildren accounted for most population increase. Immigration's importance increased as the average number of births to U.S.-born women dropped sharply before leveling off. The Latino population, already the nation's largest minority group, will triple in size and will account for most of the nation's population growth from 2005 through 2050. Hispanics will make up 29% of the U.S. population in 2050, compared with 14% in 2005. Births in the United States will play a growing role in Hispanic and Asian population growth; as a result, a smaller proportion of both groups will be foreign-born in 2050 than is the case now. The non-Hispanic white population will increase more slowly than other racial and ethnic groups; whites will become a minority (47%) by 2050. The nation's elderly population will more than double in size from 2005 through 2050, as the baby boom generation enters the traditional retirement years. The number of working-age Americans and children will grow more slowly than the elderly population, and will shrink as a share of the total population.

 

Or you can make an impact turn maybe saying that immigration actually helps the US.

like maybe:

 

Immigrants key to the US economy and is increasing now

Powell 2005 (Benjamin, is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute ,assistant professor of economics at Suffolk University and a Senior Economist with the Beacon Hill Institute, The Independent Institute, “The Pseudo Economic Problems of Immigration” accessed 7/3/09 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1641 aes)

During the past five years more new immigrants came to the United States than ever before in our history -- nearly 8 million, according to a new study by the Center for Immigration Studies. This influx has stirred much public debate. But before we adopt new policies, politicians need to distinguish clearly between the real problems caused by immigration and non-problems based on popular myths. Probably the number one misconception about immigration is that it harms our economy. In reality, conservative estimates put the net gain to the U.S. economy from current immigration at about $20 billion. Instead of recognizing this overall gain, immigration critics typically claim that immigrants take away American jobs, depress wages and drain our tax dollars by consuming social services. A fundamental truth about our economy is that as long as we desire more goods and services than we have, the number of jobs is practically unlimited. In fact, when we have more workers, we create more jobs. Total employment and the size of the labor force have tracked each other fairly closely over the past 50 years despite dramatic changes in immigration flows. It’s a well-known fact that many of the jobs immigrants come here to fill are jobs Americans are not taking. And when we prevent immigrants from taking those jobs, American producers and consumers suffer the consequences. For example, due to labor shortages caused in part by increased border controls, only 30 percent of last fall’s lettuce crop in Arizona was harvested. Losses were nearly one billion dollars. There simply were not enough U.S. workers willing to pick the crops at prices that would have made it profitable.

 

T:

Well you can have a counter-interp saying that "persons living in poverty" doesn't necessarily have to be citizens.

So if the T was

Interp: must be citizens

Violation: plan for immigrants

Voters: blahblahblah

 

then you would say:

1. Counter-interp: the rez doesn't mention US citizens; just for persons in poverty. (this is a bad def. but maybe something like Persons are limited to humans

Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persons

 

A living, self conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being, a man, woman or child)

 

2. We meet that because we solve poverty by ________.

3. Their def bad-- overlimits, etc

4. Our def. good-- ground, limits, etc.

5. T not a voting issue/RVI

 

Neg:

Sorry, not much I can do. Maybe if you specify a bit more?

But for sex trafficking try http://www.mediafire.com/?iokixyozy2r

 

Hope it was helpful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For recruitment:

There are not enough troops in the SQ

Washington Post 7/3, 2009(“On the Offensive: Can commanders in Afghanistan tell the president the truth about troop shortages?”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070203283.html, 3-3-09)

 

AS U.S. MARINES launched a major offensive in Afghanistan's Taliban-infested Helmand province yesterday, one problem was already apparent: There are not enough troops to properly carry out the Pentagon's new counterinsurgency strategy. The force is "a little light," Marine Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, its commander, told national security adviser James L. Jones in a meeting reported by The Post's Bob Woodward. "We don't have enough force to go everywhere." Those comments will come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the attempts by U.S. commanders to turn around the Afghan war. The idea is to replicate the strategy that finally reversed American fortunes in Iraq: protecting the population rather than seeking out insurgents, while building the economy and political institutions. Though the Bush and Obama administrations approved new troop deployments that will double the U.S. force, the ratio of American and allied Afghan soldiers to the population is still well below that mandated by the Army's new counterinsurgency doctrine.

 

Non unique – recruitment levels are low and the army has already abandoned quality - their evidence takes into account non binding contracts

Smith and Comerford 2009 *Research director, executive director (Suzanne and Jo, January 21st, Report shows gap in Army’s 2008 recruitment quantity and quality goals”, http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=1176)

 

While the army claims 80,517 new army recruits this year, surpassing its goal of 80,000, in actuality, its figures reflect the number of individuals with whom they have some form of - often non-binding - contract. The number of accessions, or actual recruits who reported for duty in 2008, was 69,357.

The percent of Tier 1 recruits, at 74% is 16 percentage points below the army’s goal of 90%. This is the fourth year running that the army has missed its “quality” goal.

The highest recruitment rates - defined as the number of recruits per thousand of 15-24 year-old population - were found in the south with Texas, Florida and Georgia ranking in the top five states.

Jo Comerford, NPP’s Executive Director adds, “Four years of missed recruiting quantity and quality goals, combined with dramatic increases in the recruitment budget, raise important questions which must be tackled. Not only are education rates down but evidence shows increases in physical and felony waivers, the latter having doubled from 2006 to 2007. It stands to reason that we must ask whether the Army has exhausted its potential supply of new quality recruits. Its announced intent to increase its base by 65,000 additional recruits, should signal a clarion call for a new look at the realities of an ever-expanding military. A new approach to national security is what is needed. Clearly, we are being called to a new strategy - for this new day.”

 

Immigration Magnet DA:

No link – immigrants don’t care about social services

Ortega, 9

(Adrianne, J.D. Boston University School of Law, M.P.H. Boston University School of Public Health, 35 Am. J. L. and Med. 185)

 

The United States Congress's goals of excluding immigrants from federally funded non-emergency health services are to deter illegal immigration and lower federal health care expenditures. 18 When excluding non-citizens from obtaining health care coverage under the Welfare Reform Act, Congress stated that "it is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits." Studies show, however, that undocumented immigrants come to the United States for jobs more than any other reason. In a sampling of four Latino populations of immigrants from Texas and California, three out of four populations cited work as the number one reason for immigration. The fourth population cited family and friends, followed by work. Less than one percent of undocumented immigrants cited "obtaining social services" as the primary reason for immigrating to the United States. Further, undocumented immigrants actually use less ambulatory care than the national average. The same study found that undocumented immigrants had "fewer ambulatory physician visits [and] rates of hospital admission" than native citizens -- except for hospitalizations related to childbirth, which were roughly the same. One can, therefore, argue that the current ban on health care services for non-citizens may not deter immigration.

 

Immigrants don’t use social services

Fix, 6

(Michael Fix, Vice President and Director of Studies, “’Immigrants’ Costs and Contributions: The Effects of Reform’ Testimony Prepared for the Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on the Impacts of Border Security and Immigration on Ways and Means Programs,” Migration Policy Institute National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, July 26, 2006, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FixTestimony072606.pdf)

 

DECLINE IN BENEFIT USE BY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS Research by MPI and the Urban Institute suggests two other trends in the use of public assistance among immigrants that have been downplayed in the current debate over immigration reform’s impacts on the social welfare system. One is the decline in the use of most public benefits by legal immigrants in the wake of welfare reform’s 1996 enactment. As Figure 1 indicates, following reform, we see sharp drops in TANF use among immigrant families. Immigrant use of TANF was lower than that of citizens both before and after welfare reform, falling from 19 percent in 1994 to 4.5 percent in 2004. (Our analysis focuses on low-income, legal noncitizen-headed families with children. We contrast them with low-income, citizen-headed families with children.) Similar patterns emerge through 2002 when we examine Food Stamps. There is a slight up-tick in use from 2002 through 2004, perhaps reflecting policy changes in the program introduced by the 2002 Farm Bill, which restored eligibility to working age adults who had been in “qualified status” in the United States for five or more years, and to legal, noncitizen children regardless of date of entry. Finally, we see declines in SSI use among legal, noncitizen-headed families for the period 1996 – 2004; in fact, noncitizens’ usage levels in 2004 are just over half those of citizens. For each program, then, benefit use among immigrant families has fallen since welfare reform and is substantially lower than that of citizens. This is not the image of immigrants and social welfare reliance that is commonly conveyed. We do, however, see different patterns when it comes to Medicaid – with use among noncitizen families exceeding that of natives and rising since 1999. Generally higher levels of Medicaid use among legal, noncitizen families may reflect the introduction of the 1997 SCHIP program, broad outreach in the late 1990s to boost enrollment, and a reduction in private insurance coverage among low-wage immigrant workers and low-wage workers more generally.

 

 

A different (yet defensive) way of answering it would be saying that immigration is high how.

Something like

 

Immigration on the accent now

Pew Center 2008 (Jeffrey Passel and D'Vera Cohn, Pew Research Center, February 11, 2008, “Immigration to Play Lead Role In Future U.S. Growth” accessed 7/6/09 http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections aes)

If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center. Of the 117 million people added to the population during this period due to the effect of new immigration, 67 million will be the immigrants themselves and 50 million will be their U.S.-born children or grandchildren.

Among the other key population projections: Nearly one in five Americans (19%) will be an immigrant in 2050, compared with one in eight (12%) in 2005. By 2025, the immigrant, or foreign-born, share of the population will surpass the peak during the last great wave of immigration a century ago. The major role of immigration in national growth builds on the pattern of recent decades, during which immigrants and their U.S.-born children and grandchildren accounted for most population increase. Immigration's importance increased as the average number of births to U.S.-born women dropped sharply before leveling off. The Latino population, already the nation's largest minority group, will triple in size and will account for most of the nation's population growth from 2005 through 2050. Hispanics will make up 29% of the U.S. population in 2050, compared with 14% in 2005. Births in the United States will play a growing role in Hispanic and Asian population growth; as a result, a smaller proportion of both groups will be foreign-born in 2050 than is the case now. The non-Hispanic white population will increase more slowly than other racial and ethnic groups; whites will become a minority (47%) by 2050. The nation's elderly population will more than double in size from 2005 through 2050, as the baby boom generation enters the traditional retirement years. The number of working-age Americans and children will grow more slowly than the elderly population, and will shrink as a share of the total population.

 

Or you can make an impact turn maybe saying that immigration actually helps the US.

like maybe:

 

Immigrants key to the US economy and is increasing now

Powell 2005 (Benjamin, is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute ,assistant professor of economics at Suffolk University and a Senior Economist with the Beacon Hill Institute, The Independent Institute, “The Pseudo Economic Problems of Immigration” accessed 7/3/09 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1641 aes)

During the past five years more new immigrants came to the United States than ever before in our history -- nearly 8 million, according to a new study by the Center for Immigration Studies. This influx has stirred much public debate. But before we adopt new policies, politicians need to distinguish clearly between the real problems caused by immigration and non-problems based on popular myths. Probably the number one misconception about immigration is that it harms our economy. In reality, conservative estimates put the net gain to the U.S. economy from current immigration at about $20 billion. Instead of recognizing this overall gain, immigration critics typically claim that immigrants take away American jobs, depress wages and drain our tax dollars by consuming social services. A fundamental truth about our economy is that as long as we desire more goods and services than we have, the number of jobs is practically unlimited. In fact, when we have more workers, we create more jobs. Total employment and the size of the labor force have tracked each other fairly closely over the past 50 years despite dramatic changes in immigration flows. It’s a well-known fact that many of the jobs immigrants come here to fill are jobs Americans are not taking. And when we prevent immigrants from taking those jobs, American producers and consumers suffer the consequences. For example, due to labor shortages caused in part by increased border controls, only 30 percent of last fall’s lettuce crop in Arizona was harvested. Losses were nearly one billion dollars. There simply were not enough U.S. workers willing to pick the crops at prices that would have made it profitable.

 

T:

Well you can have a counter-interp saying that "persons living in poverty" doesn't necessarily have to be citizens.

So if the T was

Interp: must be citizens

Violation: plan for immigrants

Voters: blahblahblah

 

then you would say:

1. Counter-interp: the rez doesn't mention US citizens; just for persons in poverty. (this is a bad def. but maybe something like Persons are limited to humans

Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persons

 

A living, self conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being, a man, woman or child)

 

2. We meet that because we solve poverty by ________.

3. Their def bad-- overlimits, etc

4. Our def. good-- ground, limits, etc.

5. T not a voting issue/RVI

 

Neg:

Sorry, not much I can do. Maybe if you specify a bit more?

But for sex trafficking try http://www.mediafire.com/?iokixyozy2r

 

Hope it was helpful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would say their interpretation is racist and cross apply your intepretation as person. Its also literally dehumanizing. Because you are saying they aren't persons.

 

Also, the implications of the judge accepting those interpretations leads to further rationalizations. (ie out of round accepting their interpretation results in racism and dehumanization).

 

This is kinda cheezy...but you could say the federal government couldn't accept this definition because its a violation of the 14th amendment (the equal protection clause)--this turns their jurisdiction standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why no one thought about a perfect link takeout to magnet for this aff: what fricken immigrant is going to want to leave their country to serve in the US military? Sure, the military might have social services, but that's probably why many of these immigrants are leaving their countries for the US right now; they're not mandated to go into the military or any similar life-threatening situations in the US.

 

I do not think your link assumes military employment, so you can still use those job no link cards.

 

I think these things can be clearly explained to a mommy judge, especially a liberal anti-war mommy judge. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would not turn immigration magnet da by saying immigrants wont come cause that will just destroy ur solvency cause the reason hege would be helped is because they came, rite? don't say that, just use ur advantages as impact turns to da & u can add on econ & terrorism turns as well. or just run them as advantages in the 1ac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how about you actually do some research

 

and not just beg for files

 

lazy idiot

He actually has a point here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...