1AC

I Affirm Resolved: The United States Federal Government should should

include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living
in the United States.

Plan

A) Mandates
The plan is to pass the Section 744 immigration reform bill. All of its mandates are
stated below.
(Kaplan, 2013)
Under the Senate bill,
[undocumented immigrants] would have to spend 10 years as a registered
provisional immigrant and be subject to a host of requirements. If they are
continuously employed; speak or are learning English; study U.S. history;
pay a processing fee, a fine, and back taxes [to make up for the cost of
granting citizenship]; and pass a background check, they can apply for a
green cardprovided the backlog has been cleared.
(PolicyMic, 2013)
President Obama and the current legislation in the works call for illegal
immigrants to get in line behind those who are already applying for
permanent legal residence (i.e., a green card) and citizenship.
Any pathway to citizenship passed by Congress will not be easy.

(Center of American Progress, 2013)

When senators question whether we have learned from IRCA, the evidence
is clear: 2013 is not 1986. S. 744 provides a road map to earned
citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in America,
improves our border security, and provides flexible paths for future
migrants to enter the country with legal status. This bipartisan
immigration-reform plan learns from the past and places our nation on a
strong footing to meet the challenges of the 21st century while still
recognizing our heritage as a nation of immigrants.
(Huffington Post, 2013)
The Senate bill calls for 20,000 more border guards, 350 miles of
additional fencing
along the Southern border, increased surveillance equipment, and a new
electronic
system to monitor people entering the U.S. via airports and seaports.

B) Funding
Funded by usual federal budget funds; paid back by the massive GDP increases and
other economic benefits.

C) Administration
Stated in the resolution. (The USFG)

D) Enforcement
The USFG and the CIS.
The Aff assumes legislative intent and reserves the right to clarify.

Theory Spikes
Aff Outweighs
If the aff and neg both have offense on a particular layer of the debate, grant that
the aff offense outweighs to compensate for neg side bias. If the neg can prove that
this spike is abusive (preferably with shelled theory), the drop this argument.

Evidence Checking
1. PRESSES AVOID EVIDENCE ABUSE
Doug Sigel, (NATIONAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT BOOKLET OF JUDGES, 1987)
I predict a return of evidence misuse once we can't look at evidence. How can
anyone ethically support the no reading of evidence rules.
2. EVIDENCE CHALLENGES ARE VOTING ISSUES
Of the 133 judging philosophies that appeared in the 1987 Nat. Debate Tournament
Booklet of Judges, fortyfive made direct statements that they considered evidentiary
challenges to be a Voting Issue.
3. DEMOCRACY DEMANDS ETHICAL DEBATING
We must continue to concern ourselves with ethics in debate if we honestly believe
that argumentation and debate will continue to be a powerful instrument for the
preservation of our free and democratic society for the continuation of such a
society does demand ethical conduct of its members.
4. EVIDENCE CHALLENGES INCREASES DEBATABILITY
By looking at the piece of evidence or the author it increases clash and encourages
better debating.
5. AVOIDS GENERIC RESPONSES
By using specific card attacks you head away from having the same round each
time. Rather you develop good picks and presses.

CX Theory Checking
All theory arguments must be checked in cross- examination to prevent frivolous theory
arguments and to ensure fairness.

Obligations
Affirming means to prove an obligation. There are many ethical and political theories
that justify different things. Having to prove an obligation under all of them would be an
infinite burden, so I only need to prove the existence of one, be it economic, moral,
existential, et cetera.

Solvency Advocate
All neg. counterplans must have a solvency advocate.

1. Education

a. Unpredictable texts without a solvency advocate, the neg can

fiat anything which kills real world education because they can
just create an artificial counterplan which is bad for debate
because they fiat competitiveness.

b. Not real world the cp would never be presented before

congress if no one agreed it was a good idea.

2. Ground

a. Moving target without a stable plan text the neg can always
shift advocacies by the 2NR which kills aff strategy from the
2AC.

b. Steals aff answers we cant indict their solvency evidence

because there is none specific to their counterplan which is
key to impact calc and determining whether the counterplan
solves.

3. Not reciprocal aff is forced to present a plan steeped in the

literature base of the resolution. Not forcing the neg to present a
counterplan with a solvency advocate is unfair to the aff.

4. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of
the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.

5. Voter for fairness, education, and ground.

Best Option Available

Subpoint A) Deportation
is not financially realistic.
(Think Progress Organization, 2013)

It costs $23,148 for each person to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and transported out of the
country. A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for every man, woman, and child in this

mass
deportation would reduce the countrys GDP by 1.46 percent, which would
amount to $2.6 trillion in cumulative losses over 10 years.
country an exorbitant price tag for the satisfaction of appearing tough on immigrants. Furthermore,

Subpoint B) Legalization
does not provide the maximum economic benefits that citizenship does, and in
structurally inherent.
(White House, 2013)
The Lynch and Oakford study found that the economic benefits of citizenship are nearly
70 percent greater than the economic benefits of legalization alone. While the
scenario in which immigrants are granted legal status only would increase cumulative GDP by $832 billion, increase
cumulative personal income by $470 billion, result in $109 billion in additional state and federal taxes paid by
currently undocumented workers, and lead to 1.2 million in new jobs granting citizenship was estimated to
increase cumulative GDP by $1.4 trillion, increase cumulative personal income by $791 billion, result in $184 billion
in additional state and federal taxes paid by currently undocumented workers, and lead to 2 million new jobs
compared to the status quo.

(NBC News)
Supporters of the reform effort want a humane and pragmatic way to allow undocumented immigrants to stay in
the United States to contribute to the economy and keep their families together. Almost everyone professes to want
those in the country illegally out of the shadows. OK, so what might a middle ground between legalization and
citizenship look like? What does legalization even mean? And would it be constitutional or fair? Or politically

When asked about the idea of legalization

without citizenship after a meeting with House Democrats, key Senate
leader Chuck Schumer bluntly called such an idea not American and said
flatly it will not happen.
feasible? On that last count, very probably not.

Subpoint C) Greatest Economic Benefit

is generated by a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
(CATO Journal, 2012)
The CGE model shows that comprehensive immigration reform [Section 744]
produces the greatest economic benefits: Comprehensive immigration
reform generates an annual increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent.
This amounts to $1.5 trillion in additional GDP over 10 years. It also boosts
wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers. The
temporary worker program generates an annual increase in U.S. GDP of
0.44 percent. This amounts to $792 billion of additional GDP over 10
years. Moreover, wages decline for both native-born and newly legalized
immigrant workers. Mass deportation reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent
annually. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in lost GDP over 10 years, not
including the actual cost of deportation.

Uniting Families
To divide families harms util; Minimizing the amount of suffering is an impact of a
path to citizenship.
(Center for American Progress, 2013)
Today 16.6 million people belong to mixed-status families with at least one
U.S. citizen and one undocumented member, many of whom are parents or
heads of household. These families endure heartaches unthinkable to
most Americans: They are divided when undocumented parents and
siblings are detained and deported. Family ties are strained when children
and spouses are forced to wait for yearsor even decadesto enter the
country. Even worse, entire families are disrupted when both parents are
deported, forcing children into foster and adoption services. A clear
pathway to citizenship, unlike a work permit or lesser legal status, will
help end these kinds of separations and ensure family stability and unity.

Economic Inherency
(FairUS, 2010)
113 billion dollars are lost annually in state and federal taxes directly due
to the illegal status of undocumented immigrants.

Economic Advantage
An article released by the White House affirms the economic benefits of
Section 744.
(White House, 2013)
[G]ranting citizenship was estimated to increase cumulative GDP by $1.4
trillion, increase cumulative personal income by $791 billion, result in
$184 billion in additional state and federal taxes paid by currently
undocumented workers, and lead to 2 million new jobs compared to the
status quo.
Another empirical study shows an economic boost in the form of increased
earnings and the creation of additional jobs.
(Center for American Progress, 2013)
The increased earnings from the newly legalized immigrants [Section 744] will boost the U.S.
economy by more than $800 billion and increase the earnings of all
Americans by $470 billion over 10 years. This additional spending will also
support the creation of 121,000 additional jobs on average each year over
10 years.

Democratic Advantage

Uniqueness
Global democracy is under threatthe international image of
democracy is the crucial variable.
(Walker, 15)

- Christopher Walker is Executive Director of the National Endowment for Democracys International Forum for
Democratic Studies, a leading center for the analysis and discussion of the theory and practice of democratic development. (The
Authoritarian Resurgence, Journal of Democracy, Volume 26, Number 2, p. 21, Project Muse, April 2015) STRYKER

NEDs International Forum for Democratic

Studies is engaged in a study of what we have varyingly labeled the world
movement against democracy or the authoritarian resurgence. This
project is divided into two partsone focusing on the countries that have been
leading this resurgence, and a second examining some of the key soft-power
arenas in which they have been seeking to weaken democracy. The first article generated
Attentive readers of this journal will have already noticed that

by this project, Andrew J. Nathan on Chinas Challenge, appeared in our January 2015 issue. In the pages that follow, we offer

four other major authoritarian countriesRussia, Venezuela, Iran, and

Saudi Arabiathat are seeking both to gain ascendancy in their respective regions
and to undercut the rules-based institutions that have been instrumental in setting
global democratic norms. These regimes may disagree on many things, but they share the objective of obstructing the
readers essays on

advance of democracy and weakening the influence of democratic principles in the world. Lilia Shevtsova analyzes the
transformation of Russias kleptocratic regime into something far more belligerent and dangerous, and explains how Vladimir Putins
new foreign policy is raising the stakes and reshaping the landscape in Europe and Eurasia. Javier Corrales shows that Venezuela
under Hugo Chvezs successor Nicols Maduro has seen a turn toward greater autocracy . Abbas
Milani evaluates the underpinnings of the clerical authoritarian regime in Iran, and in a companion piece Alex Vatanka looks at how

Tehran is actively projecting its influence throughout its neighborhood . Frederic Wehrey
examines Saudi Arabia, Irans great regional rival, and the negative impact of Saudi
policies on democracy. Over the past decade, these regimes have proven adept at refining
their techniques of repression and control. But all four of them have been buoyed by
high oil revenues, and it remains to be seen how they will fare if the price of oil remains at sharply lower levels over an
extended period of time. The authors of these essays explain the threat posed by these resurgent
authoritarians, but also identify their inherent political and economic weaknesses, including rampant corruption. The
established democracies have been slow to recognize the increasingly determined
challenge from todays authoritarians, perhaps because they hope that these regimes will be undone by their
flaws. But given the resilience that the authoritarians have displayed so far , it
would be rash for the democracies to underestimate the seriousness of the dangers
that they pose.

Link
The plan upholds democracy by giving the people what they
want.
(Fiscal Times, 2015)

The survey asked, How should the immigration system deal with immigrants who are currently living in the U.S.
illegally? Respondents were given three options: Allow them a way to become citizens provided they meet certain
requirements, Allow them to become permanent legal resident, but not citizens, or Identify and deport them.

Across the U.S., 77 percent of people chose either the [to grant
undocumented immigrants] citizenship or permanent residency option, with
a majority of 60 percent choosing citizenship. [All data was based on
approximately 50,000 bilingual telephone interviews conducted over a
period of 52 weeks across a single calendar year. The survey also includes
a set of issue questions comprising a subset of the total sample (roughly
40,000 interviews) covering a variety of topics.]
(Politico, 2012)
A new Politico/George Washington University Battleground poll finds that
62 percent of those surveyed support an immigration reform proposal that
would allow illegal or undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship over a
period of several years. Thirty-five percent oppose it. The national poll, conducted last
week, finds more Republicans 49 percent support a path to citizenship than oppose it 45 percent.
Democrats favor this approach 3-to-1, 74 percent to 24 percent. And independents back it by a 26-point margin, 61
percent to 35 percent.

Only domestic policy changes can make democracy promotion

effective.
(Al-Rodhan 14) - Nayef Al-Rodhan is director of the Centre for the Geopolitics of Globalization and Transnational Security
at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. (Reforming Democracy and the Future of History: To spread Democracy,
democratic nations must look inward first. http://www.theglobalist.com/reforming-democracy-andthe-future-of-history/ 6/14/2014) STRYKER

In 1975, a report prepared by the Trilateral Commission, The Crisis of Democracy, signaled the
pessimism and defeatism prevailing in Western democracies at the time about the
future and sustainability of democracy . The report reflected a deep economic downturn, as well as social and
political turmoil. This crisis of democracy was tightly connected with concerns about monopoly capitalism, rampant materialism

Four decades later, democracy is again in a state of crisis. This

comes as somewhat of a surprise, given that successive waves of democratization
have touched every region of the world over the past 40 years. What is becoming evident
now is that an opposite trend has emerged . Democracy has in fact been in retreat
for years, as many repressive governments became even more repressive, civil
liberties were dropped and the military was empowered in many countries. The state of
and corruption.

democracy today In the early 1990s, the end of the Cold War had brought the revalidation of democracy with great vigour as the
most representative form of government. Yet this exuberance has been counterbalanced with criticism of its failings and

Democracies guarantee political freedom, the rule of law, human rights

and a platform for citizens to engage in the political process. Yet, in practice,
democracies feature numerous inadequacies . Inequality, economic disparity, disempowerment, lack of
shortcomings.

opportunity, infringements of civil liberties, ethnic, social and cultural discrimination, corruption and opaque honor titles systems are
all present, and apparently not antagonistic to democracies. Globally, democracies have also acted in ways that suggest an outright

Irresponsible conduct, including unwarranted

invasions, toleration of brutality, genocide, misuse of the UN veto system at the expense of global harmony and peace, as
well geopolitical machinations or meddling in the affairs of weaker states these are all traits that have characterized
renunciation of their principles at home.

the foreign conduct of major democratic states at some point . Inequality alienates Western
democracies like the United States, United Kingdom or France traditionally considered advanced
democracies experience acute inequalities, and even cases of abject poverty. In 2009, a U.S. government report
pointed to the dramatic increase in hunger and food insecurity. About 50 million people were identified as having suffered food
insecurity at some point during the previous year. One in five people in the United Kingdom are also identified as falling below the
poverty line. Growing inequality is at times reinforced by, and an enabler of, shrinking opportunity. This fuels disillusionment and low
political participation. As Joseph Stiglitz has noted, The rich dont need to rely on government for parks or education or medical
care or personal security they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary
people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. Corporate financing of political campaigns have reinforced this,
hijacking the democratic process. It further alienates voters who feel they are excluded from a process that is beyond their control.
The role of money in politics is worth singling out as a major problem with democratic governance. Its effects are truly worrisome,
especially when there is little transparency and regulatory mechanisms to limit the distorting role of money in politics. A check is
worth a thousand words The U.S. Supreme Courts 2010 decision in the Citizens United case openly enshrined the right of
unlimited campaign spending, giving corporations, associations and billionaire donors the freedom to heavily and undemocratically
influence government, perversely as an expression of their free speech. The super PACs have blurred the line between the
personal and the political. They reinforce and perpetuate the rotation of policymakers in the U.S. Congress and the executive
branch, many of whom are already part of the wealthiest 1% (and, under any circumstance, remain kept in office by money from the
top 1%). Whatever constraints existed to this practice, they were expunged earlier in 2014 when the Supreme Court opened the
door to even more money in politics by striking down the aggregate contribution limits for campaigns. The decision means, in very
practical terms, that one single donor can contribute millions of dollars to political candidates or campaigns and thereby dim the

the sense of disillusionment with

democracy in its current form has been reinforced with disclosures of largescale government surveillance, violations of privacy and civil liberties . The
claim of sweeping authority over the right to collect personal data is harmful to core
liberties. Overseeing the overseers and keeping states need to know in balance
with the safeguard of privacy and civil liberties remains a challenge . Reforming democracy
Opinion polls across many continents reflect this current dissatisfaction with
democracy. These forms of disillusionment indicate the need to embrace a
paradigm that goes beyond political freedom and addresses the basic human need
for dignity. Democracy guarantees political freedom and rights. Yet it is not incompatible with marginalization, exclusion,
prospect of new entrants, ideas or challengers to the political arena. Finally,

poverty, disempowerment or disrespect. The triumph of a liberal democratic order as a final destination of history and historical

A greater emphasis on human

dignity and a governance model that places dignity at the center can halt
the current disenchantment with democracy. A more feasible paradigm is an approach I call
ideas, as once predicted by the end of history, needs a serious re-evaluation.

Sustainable History. It focuses on dignity rather than just freedom. And it allows for reconciling accountable governance with various
political cultures.

Democracy promotion is effectivethe US model is crucial.

(Fukuyama and McFaul, 7)

- Francis Fukuyama is a professor of international political economy and director of

the International Development Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. Michael
McFaul is a Hoover Senior Fellow, a professor of political science, and director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule
of Law at Stanford University. He is also a nonresident associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a member
of TWQ's editorial board. (Should Democracy Be Promoted or Demoted?
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v031/31.1fukuyama.html 2007) STRYKER

Restoring the U.S. Example Inspiration for democrats struggling against

autocracy and a model for leaders in new democracies are two U.S. exports now
in short supply. Since the beginning of the republic, the U.S. experiment with democracy has
provided hope, ideas, and technologies for others working to build
democratic institutions. Foreign visitors to the United States have been impressed by what they have seen, and
U.S. diplomats, religious missionaries, and businesspeople traveling abroad have inspired others by telling the story of U.S.

In the second half of the twentieth century, during which the United States
developed more intentional means for promoting democracy abroad, the
preservation and advertisement of the U.S. democratic model remained a core
instrument.
democracy.

Impact
Democracy checks state repression.
Davenport 14 (Christian Davenport, Political Science Professor at the University of
Michigan, August 22 2014, Stopping State Repression: An Examination of Spells,
1976-2004, Social Science Research Network //MV)
In contrast, we find that democratization significantly contributes to the termination of
repressive spells. If one is trying to stop state repression, therefore, then they
should consider how best to move the government toward full democracy. These
findings on democratization reinforce the general interest with democracy that has
been put forward throughout history as a resolution to state repression. The
democratization finding is consistent with our argument that it takes something
major and connected with core reasons for repression, such as regime-change, to
terminate repression 35 spells that are underway. Taken together, the results
suggest the importance of identifying and preventing the onset of repressive
behavior, given that challenges to terminating repression. This work should reorient not just
scholarship on the relevant topic but also public policy, advocacy, activism as well
as discussion. Implications for researchers. Influenced by the current study, scholars interested in stopping
state repression should incorporate regime change into their standard repertoire of resolutions. There is some
discussion of the level of democracy and state repression but there needs to be
more discussion of movement toward democracy as a solution to ongoing
repressive action. Our research also suggests that there should be greater discussion of preferential trade
agreements and their influence on state repression. Again, there is genera discussion of the topic but this
relationship should specifically be raised in the context of ongoing repressive spells. In contrast ,

discussions of
economic sanctions, military intervention, naming and shaming and
signing/ratifying international treaties standard topics whenever any repressive
spells are being discussed, should be reduced.

Democracies check political violence.

Timmerman 14 (Ashley M. Timmerman, BA at University of Central Florida,
Summer 2014, WHEN LEADERS REPRESS: A STUDY OF AFRICAN STATE,
http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0005428/Masters_thesis_final.pdf //MV)
Several alternate causal mechanisms are proposed to explain this finding. Joseph Young
(2009) argues that norms such as nonviolent conflict resolution (including voting) and the
institutions of formal political participation reduce the likelihood that competing
actors will resort to violence. Others argue that democratic institutions are associated
with less repression because they serve to create political consequences for the
policymaker. Since the masses can participate in the political system, repression
can alienate potential political support (Henderson 1991: Poe and Tate 1994; Davenport 1999). A
policymakers perception of the consequence of repression as compared to the
perceived benefits is important. The type of political system and the level of openness in the
political culture have an effect on the definition of the cost-benefit assessment that
policymakers make (Poe et. al. 1999), and the socialization process inherent in
democratic politics guides citizens and policymakers to prefer nonviolent means to
resolving conflicts, which is a key tenet of the democratic peace literature (Kant 1996).
However, the relationship between respect for human rights and democracy does not appear to be linear. Christian
Davenport and David Armstrong (2004) argue that while it is generally the case that democratic systems inhibit the
willingness and capacity of policymakers 5 to violate human rights the constraining effect of democracy is not

below a certain level of democracy

there is little improvement in human rights. States ranked on the Polity IV scale at a 7 or below
perceptible until the highest level of democracy is reached. That is,

are shown to have no improvement on personal integrity rights. States ranked at either an 8 or 9 were shown to

states ranked at a 10 (the

highest level of democracy) were associated with a strong curtailing of state
repression. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita , George W. Downs, Alastair Smith and Ferayal Marie Cherif (2005)
have a small degree of improvement in human right practices. While

support the threshold argument explaining that it takes a full-fledged democracy with a multiparty system before
a significant improvement in human rights practices is achieved

Global democratic consolidation checks inevitable extinction

Diamond 95

(Larry, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, December,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/fr.htm)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia
nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through
increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly

Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons

continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem,
appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are
associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for
corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones.

legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century

Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not

go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize
themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their
own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.
Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another . They do not build
weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more
offers important lessons.

reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They

are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest
the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal
obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their

and the rule of law, democracies are the only

reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be
built.
own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights,