Notes

Hello friends.

So, the turn on number 6 straight turns and is better than 5—generally. Watch out for 2 if they
have evidence against it (make them prove it).

Try to run a couple no links and one of the turns .

 [SPEC] – COVID DA - Laf
1. No Link: Their Rappaport 20 evidence mentions “these problems”—
referring to overall immigration problems, not Covid. The card does
not mention my case. There is no link between my case and the
“immigration problems” that would have these “serious financial
difficulties.”

2. No Link: Their Rappaport 20 evidence does not assert there WILL be

another COVID spending package. There have been talks of another
COVID-19 package since the beginning of the summer and it hasn’t
happened yet. NEG must prove a new spending package is needed
AND WILL BE passed.

3. No link: Removing restrictions doesn’t increase costs. They don’t do

any articulation of how the AFF would increase funding. Don’t allow
new link argumentation in the NR. The rebuttal is for rebutting, not
finishing your DA.

4. No Link/No Brink: I could only trade off as much as COVID-19

legislation costs. NEG must prove that my plan costs as much or
more than all COVID response spending to access the DA’s impacts.

5. No Link: USCIS is funded mainly via fees—not cuts on other

legislation.
Tracy Renaud, Acting Deputy Director Tracy Renaud, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, May 9,
2019, [“Hearing on "A Review of the FY 2020 Budget Request for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services", Accessed 10/26/20,
https://www.uscis.gov/hearing-on-a-review-of-the-fy-2020-budget-request-for-us-customs-and-border-protection-us]
ES

USCIS is nearly 97 percent fee-funded. The USCIS budget for FY 2020 provides funding to support our critical
mission. The budget allocates $4.8 billion in funding, of which $4.7 billion would be financed
through mandatory fee revenue, and $122 million would be funded with discretionary
appropriations. The appropriated funding supports the operation and maintenance of the E-Verify program. The fee-funded
portion of the budget, which supports all other USCIS operations, includes $25 million and the required language to enter into an
interagency agreement for the construction of a USCIS Academy Training Center at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
(FLETC) in Charleston, South Carolina.
 6. Turn – AFF solves CIS processing delays by increasing application
fee revenue.
Miriam Jordan, national correspondent covering legal and illegal immigration, New York Times, May 17, 2020.
[“Immigration Agency That Issues Visas, Green Cards Struggles to Stay Afloat”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/17/us/immigration-agency-uscis-budget.html] JB

A precipitous drop in applications for green cards, citizenship and other programs has threatened the
solvency of the federal agency that administers the country’s lawful immigration system, prompting it to seek a $1.2 billion cash
infusion from Congress as well as fee hikes to stay afloat. The United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, which relies on the fees that it charges applicants to fund its operations, said that it could
run out of money by the summer because the coronavirus pandemic had resulted in far fewer people applying for visas and other
benefits. “Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, U.S.C.I.S. has seen a dramatic decrease in revenue,” said a spokesman for the agency,
noting that its receipts could plummet by more than 60 percent by the close of the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Without
the $1.2 billion injection from Congress, the agency, he said, would be unable to fund its operations in a
matter of months. The agency plans to impose a 10 percent “surcharge” on applications, on top of previously proposed
increases, that it is expecting to implement in the coming months. Critics blamed the Trump administration’s stringent
policies, which have caused backlogs, red tape and application denials to skyrocket, for dissuading an untold number of
people from applying for visas and other immigration benefits.

7. Turn – AFF improves economy by giving more people legal status –

this specifically increases expenditures.
Robert Lynch and Patrick Oakford, Press Contact and Government Affairs Contact for the Center for American
Progress, Center for American Progress, March 20, 2013. [“The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and
Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants”, Accessed 10/26/20,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-
legal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/] ES

But legal status and citizenship are also about the economic health of the nation as a whole. As our study demonstrates, legal
status and a road map to citizenship for the unauthorized will bring about significant
economic gains in terms of growth, earnings, tax revenues, and jobs—all of which will not occur in the
absence of immigration reform or with reform that creates a permanent sub-citizen class of residents. We also show that the timing
of reform matters: The
sooner we provide legal status and citizenship, the greater the economic benefits
are for the nation. The logic behind these economic gains is straightforward. As discussed below, legal status and
citizenship enable undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more than they
do when they are on the economic sidelines. The resulting productivity and wage gains ripple
through the economy because immigrants are not just workers—they are also consumers and
taxpayers. They will spend their increased earnings on the purchase of food, clothing, housing, cars, and
computers. That spending, in turn, will stimulate demand in the economy for more products and
services, which creates jobs and expands the economy.