Immigrant Health Care Affirmative JV

1AC 1-7

Health Care Advantage

AT: Backlash 8

Bioterrorism Advantage

AT: Attack Not Likely 9

Solvency

AT: Illegal Immigration 10

1 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 1/7

Immigrant Health Care Affirmative 1AC

Immigrant Health Care 1AC

Problem One: Lack of Health Care is Immoral

A. Illegal immigrants living in poverty in the United States don’t have the

ability or willingness to receive health care as a result of federal restrictions.

Park, 04 – J.D. Candidate, Florida State University College of Law (Seam, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, ―Substantial Barriers in Illegal Immigrant Access to Publicly-

Funded Health Care: Reasons and Recommendations for Change,‖ Spring 2004, 18 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 567, JMP)

Federal legislation, particularly the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and sections of the Immigration Reform Law, have placed illegal immigrants in a helpless situation. The

Welfare Reform Act took away all federally funded preventative health care for illegal immigrants, while providing access only for emergency services and treatment for communicable diseases. Illegal immigrants, therefore, have not officially been denied

access to every form of health care. These remaining services are arguably undesirable to illegal immigrants because Section 434 of the Welfare Reform Act and Section 632 of the

Immigration Reform Law ban states from providing illegal immigrant patients with security against having their undocumented status reported to the Immigration and Naturalization

Service ("INS"), thus creating a fear of potential deportation. Under the Welfare Reform Act, states have been granted the option of passing affirmative legislation to provide state-funded health care for illegal immigrants. Some states have

decided to take advantage of this option, while others have not. The combined effect of Section 434 of the Welfare Reform Act and Section 632 of the Immigration Reform Law,

however, nullifies the potential effectiveness of this provision because even if states decide to make state-funded preventive health care available, illegal immigrants must remain fearful of having their immigration status reported to the INS. Therefore, federal

legislation leaves an often impoverished and uninsured portion of the population without reasonable access to any health care, whether it is state-funded preventative care,

federally-funded emergency services, or treatment for communicable disease.

2 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 2/7

Immigrant Health Care Affirmative 1AC

Immigrant Health Care 1AC

B. Undocumented immigrants that are denied public benefits are subject to

racism and an endless cycle of poverty

Meehan, 97 – J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center (Paul, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, ―Combating Restrictions on Immigrant Access to Public Benefits: a Human Rights Perspective,‖ 1997, Westlaw)

Compounding the difficulties for today's poorer immigrants in opposing immigration

policies like those in the Welfare Reform Act that seek to deny them public benefits is the fact that those in need of public benefit programs stand at the intersection of alienage, race/ethnicity and class. As aliens they are politically powerless and subject to the

―historical cycle of nativism roughly correlated with the ups-and-downs of a market economy.‖ As aliens of a particular racial or ethnic group they may be stereotyped

according to the prevailing media image of the welfare recipient as a lazy and undeserving person of color. Finally, as members of the less advantaged socio-economic class they have fewer resources to call upon in contesting such measures.

When one considers the demographics of the current wave of immigration and the rhetoric surrounding proposals to restrict immigration, H.R. 3734's immigration provisions

look increasingly like a racially restrictive immigration policy dressed up in a new outfit. Moreover, to the extent that it fails to reduce immigration it punishes those immigrants who have the misfortune to need welfare or other public assistance. Since the United

States last passed discriminatory immigration legislation, however, the international community has undergone dramatic changes in the way it views the treatment of

individuals by nation states. It is to these changes that I will now turn.

C. We have a moral obligation to extend healthcare to noncitizens

Marietta 06 Melissa Marietta, International Social Science Review, 2006 (―Undocumented immigrants should receive social services.‖

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IMR/is_1-2_81/ai_n16599310/pg_4/ //ZE) The denial of healthcare is not only bad policy, it is unrealistic, cruel, and violates medical

ethics. Should an undocumented worker involved in an accident be denied healthcare and left in front of a hospital to die? Most physicians have ignored the laws and treated

patients regardless of their immigration status. America has the moral obligation to care for those who reside here. Americans pride themselves on providing a moral compass for the rest of the world. They believe that every human life is precious and important.

Denying any individual healthcare based on citizenship contradicts that belief.

3 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 3/7 Immigrant Health Care Affirmative

1AC

Immigrant Health Care 1AC

Problem Two: Lack of Immigrant Health Care Undermines our Bioterror Defense

A. Immigrant access to health care is critical to an effective defense against a bioterror attack

Green, 04 – PhD, Director, Outreach and Lead GE3LS Advisor, Ontario Genomics Institute (Shane, American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, May, Vol. 6, No. 5,

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2004/05/pfor2-0405.html) Consider the threat of bioterrorism: the potential use of biological weapons against this

country raises the specter of a unique kind of war in which battles will be fought not against soldiers and artillery but against epidemics. Without significant reform to ensure

access to health care for all Americans, the US will be unable to fight such battles effectively. Why Access?

Using infectious diseases as weapons, bioterrorism threatens to weaken the civilian workforce and, hence, a nation's ability to go about its daily business. Moreover, in the

case of diseases that are transmissible person to person, each infected individual becomes a human weapon, infecting others, who then infect others, and so on, tying up medical responders and overwhelming medical resources.

A nation's greatest defense against bioterrorism, both in preparation for and in response to an attack, is a population in which an introduced biological agent cannot get a foothold,

ie, healthy people with easy access to health care. Yet, in spite of spending significantly more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, the US is peppered with communities in which many people have little or no access to health care. This may be

due to a lack of adequate health insurance—a fact of life for over million demographically diverse Americans—or to cultural barriers that inhibit proper utilization of available

services, or to inadequate distribution of health professionals and services. These communities are more vulnerable to infectious diseases and therefore might be considered the nation's Achilles' heal in a bioterrorism attack. Take, for example, vaccination. A lack

of access to health care among US citizens, particularly immigrant populations and those living in poverty, is associated with a failure to be vaccinated. This can have a serious

impact on the spread of contagion, as evidenced by a rubella outbreak in 1997 in Westchester County, New York, in which a readily containable virus managed to infect a

community composed largely of immigrants who had not been immunized.

4 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 4/7

Immigrant Health Care Affirmative 1AC

Immigrant Health Care 1AC

B. Convincing immigrants to see preventive care from the government is

critical to limit the number of deaths from a disease outbreak or bioterrorist attack

Murguia, 05 –President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of La Raza, the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

(Janet, The Washington Post, ―Injustice for Immigrants,‖ October 24th, Lexis-Nexis Academic)

No matter what you believe about the nation's failed immigration policies and the presence of undocumented immigrants in the United States, you should be alarmed that

the federal government is willing to breach the promise of safe harbor offered by its own agencies and those run by private charities. Not only does it offend every basic

humanitarian principle to round up those who have sought help out of desperation, but it does grave damage to the larger public health and safety. The success of disaster preparedness and relief depends on the ability to reach everyone

who is at risk, to urge them to seek shelter, medical care and other lifesaving services. If there were an outbreak of communicable disease in Katrina's wake -- which is not

unthinkable under the circumstances -- the last thing you want to do is convince a segment of the nation's largest minority that the government is not a safe source of preventive care and treatment. If, God forbid, the next crisis involves a biological weapon

or an influenza outbreak, the government has just undermined its ability to keep us all safe. Lives are on the line, and not just the lives of the immigrants we too often find

expendable.

5 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 5/7

Immigrant Health Care Affirmative 1AC

Immigrant Health Care 1AC

C. Minimizing the death toll is critical to avoid public backlash that forces

nuclear retaliation and nuclear war Conley 03 – Chief of the Systems Analysis Branch, Directorate of Requirements,

(Lt. Col Harry W. Headquarters Air Combat Command (ACC), Langley AFB, Virginia. Air & Space Power Journal,

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/conley.html)

World War II provides perhaps the best examples for the kind of event or circumstance that would have to take place to trigger a nuclear response. A CBW event that produced a shock and death toll roughly equivalent to those arising from the attack on Pearl Harbor

might be sufficient to prompt a nuclear retaliation. President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki- based upon a calculation that up to one

million casualties might be incurred in an invasion of the Japanese homeland is an example of the kind of thought process that would have to occur prior to a nuclear response to a CBW event. Victor Utgoff suggests that ―if nuclear retaliation is seen at the

time to offer the best prospects for suppressing further CB attacks and speeding the defeat of the aggressor, and if the original attacks had caused severe damage that had

outraged American or allied publics, nuclear retaliation would be more than just a possibility, whatever promises had been made.‖Even the ―overwhelming and devastating‖ conventional response threatened by Secretary Perry would seem unlikely unless a large

number of Americans or allies died. In any event, it is imperative that policy makers and planners consider that the number and types of casualties, as well as the attendant public

opinion resulting from those casualties, will play a significant role in determining the nature of US reprisal actions.

6 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 6/7

Immigrant Health Care Affirmative 1AC

Immigrant Health Care 1AC

Thus my partner and I propose the following plan:

Plan: the United States federal government should remove Medicaid reporting

requirements and eligibility restrictions on undocumented immigrants and immigrants who have been in the country for less than five years.

7 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 7/7

Immigrant Health Care Affirmative 1AC

Immigrant Health Care 1AC

The Solution

A. Denying health care to undocumented immigrants won’t prevent their

immigration. Extending health coverage is sound U.S. policy

Derose, et. al, 07 – health policy researcher at RAND in Santa Monica

(Kathryn Pitkin Derose, Jose Escarce – professor in the Departments of Medicine-General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research at UCLA, and Nicole Lurie – senior natural

scientist and the Paul O'Neill Alcoa Professor at RAND, Health Affairs, ―Immigrants And Health Care: Sources Of Vulnerability More opportunities for immigrants to obtain legal residency and citizenship may be the best route to expanded access to care,‖

September/October 2007, vol. 26, no. 5, EBSCO, JMP)

The immigrant provisions of PRWORA, which restrict access to government-sponsored or -subsidized health insurance, should be reconsidered. These policies were put in place to discourage future immigrants from coming to the United States; however, several studies

have suggested that this end will not be achieved—that is, the largest driver of immigration and where immigrants settle within the United States is in fact the availability

of jobs, not health and social services. Moreover, continuing to restrict immigrants' access to Medicaid for primary care, while allowing their access to Medicaid for emergency services, creates perverse incentives for providers and patients alike.

B. Federal reporting requirements chill immigrant participation in health

care—repealing these laws is essential to guarantee health care access to

undocumented immigrants.

Park 04 (Seam, J.D. Canidate at Florida State University College of Law in May 2005, ―Note: Substantial Barriers in Illegal Immigrant Access to Publicly-Funded Health Care: Reasons and Recommendations for Change‖, Spring, Lexis)

The first and most essential step of the recommendation process requires Congress to

repeal Section 434 of the Welfare Reform Act and Section 642 of the Immigration Reform Law. This step is of vital importance because these sections have created an indirect roadblock for illegal immigrants accessing federally or state funded health care because

they are not shielded from having their immigration status reported to the INS by health care officials. Repealing this legislation is the touchstone of providing illegal immigrants

with undeterred publicly funded health care because if these sections remain in existence, states will not have the ability to provide illegal immigrants with security when they

choose to access the available federally funded care and nor will states be effectively granted the power to provide illegal immigrants with preventive care. Congress should not have a problem repealing these sections because the objectives behind this legislation are

unjustifiable. Legislation proposing the reporting of immigration status of illegal immigrants when they attempt to access public, social services has a myriad of objectives.

8 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 1/1 Immigrant Health Care Affirmative

Health Care Advantage Extensions

AT: Backlash

(___)

(___) Anti – immigrant sentiment inevitable, Aff solves root cause of escalating

effects

Brotherton and Kretsedemas 08, (David C., Professor Sociology Department, John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Philip, Professor Sociology, UMass Boston, Keeping Out the

Other, A Critical Introduction to Immigration Enforcement Today, p. 74, AD: 7-3-09 CS The elimination of the current anti-immigrant sentiment will only occur when citizens

are not being pitted against immigrants to divert public attention from the current economic transformation concerning the depletion of the middle class. Polls repeatedly

indicate that most Americans are aware of the facts of their own circumstances and that they are far more progressive than the leadership in Congress. In 2005, public opinion polls demonstrated that the people of the United States, despite the lack of

progressive leadership, are far ahead of the politicians who purport to lead us. In May 2005, a Pew Research Center survey demonstrated that 65 percent of respondents

favor providing health insurance to all Americans, even if it means raising taxes; that 86 percent said they favor raising the minimum wage; and that 77 percent said they believe the country "should do whatever it takes to protect the environment."

Numerous polls now say that a solid majority of Americans consider the war in Iraq a mistake and that U.S. forces should be partially or completely withdrawn." These

sentiments need to be directed toward those responsible, not toward hapless immigrants who share the same values as citizens. Political participation needs to be directed toward the root causes of the conflict between middle-class citizens and

undocumented immigrants—the inequality of wealth, the lack of meaningful political choices as a result of redistricting, and the busting of media monopolies in the United

States.

9 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 1/1

Immigrant Health Care Affirmative Bioterrorism Advantage Extensions

AT: Bioterror Attack Not Likely

(___)

(___) Risk of bioterrorism is high and it outweighs nuclear use – prefer our

evidence- it is from a bipartisan government report

St Petersburg Times, 08 [―GRAHAM: THREAT OF BIOLOGICAL, NUCLEAR TERROR STRIKE IS HIGH‖, p. lexis]

The chances are better than 50-50 that terrorists will deploy nuclear

or biological weapons somewhere in the world in the next five years, according to a bipartisan commission's report released Wednesday. Former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, the Democratic co-chairman of the commission to

study the risk of terrorists attacks with weapons of mass destruction, briefed officials this week, including President Bush, Vice President-elect Joe Biden and Gov. Janet

Napolitano, President-elect Obama's designee for homeland security secretary. The Times spoke with Graham in Washington on Wednesday about what the Russians are doing right, why al-Qaida is more like McDonald's than General Motors, whether we are

safer now than before 9/11, and what made his work more personal. What’s the first thing the Obama administration should do about terrorism and WMDs? The first thing it

should do is to have President Obama restate what he said as candidate Obama, that this is the most serious security challenge to the United States - the worst people gaining access to the worst weapons - and that he will personally commit himself and

his administration to take those steps to increase the safety and security of America and the world.

The commission says that a biological attack is more likely than a nuclear attack. Why? Basically, it's hard to get access to nuclear materials. It's easy to access and to

compound the items that would be in a pathogen. Many of them are available in nature itself. Others can be constructed in the lab. ... We need to do everything we can to lock down the biological materials in the same way that in the last 15 years we've been

attempting to do with nuclear. One of the best parts of this story is what we've been able to do with the Russian and former Soviet Union states' nuclear stockpiles. They are

under substantially greater security than they have ever been, and the risk of terrorists gaining access to those materials - which represents almost half the nuclear material in the world - is much reduced.

10 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 1/1

Immigrant Health Care Affirmative Solvency Extensions

AT: Illegal Immigration

(___)

(___) N/U-Immigration to the U.S. is increasing now

Downs 09 (Susan Whitelaw, Professor of Social Work @ Wayne State University, Child Welfare and Family Services: Policies and Practices, 8th ed., 60.)

In the past thirty-five years, the number of immigrants in the United States has tripled, as has the number of immigrant children. The foreign-born population passed 35 million in

2005. This total consists of roughly equal numbers of undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and naturalized citizens (about 30 percent each) and another 10 percent who are refugees or are here on a temporary basis, such as students.

(___) No Link- Immigrants come for jobs- not social services Houston Journal of International Law, 97 (Shari B. Fallek, ―Health Care for Illegal

Aliens: Why it is a Necessity,‖ Spring 1997, Westlaw, JMP)

The problem is that these anti-immigrant activists are misguided. Proposition 187 and other anti-immigrant measures will not prevent immigrants from coming to this country. According to many immigrants, free education, health care, and other social

services are not the factors that ―pull‖ them to this country. Instead, it is the drive to find a job, work hard, and to make a better life for themselves that convinces immigrants to

illegally cross the border. Illegal immigrants ―come here for jobs or to escape onerous conditions in their own countries . . . and until we fix that, we're not going to fix our

problem.‖ Proposition 187 does not directly address jobs, which are ―considered by scholars and other authorities to be the principal *968 lure‖ for illegal immigrants. Even some proponents of Proposition 187 agree that jobs are the magnet for illegal immigrants.

Immigrant Health Care Negative JV

Health Care Advantage Answers 1-3

Bioterrorism Advantage Answers 4-6

Solvency Answers 7-9

1 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 1/3

Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to Problem One: Lack of Health Care

(___)

(___)

(___) Plan is anti-democratic- it is wrong to force tax-paying American citizens to

pay for health care for people who don’t pay taxes and send money they earn out of the country

Allen 04, News Staff Writer [Jeffery, "Illegal Immigration – Not Racism", The Stanford Review, February 12, 2004,

What about illegal immigrants free-riding off American social programs, do you call this constitutional? People who do not pay a dime in taxes to the American government and

reap the benefits of medical care, education, and social services -- do you call this democratic? The State of California continues to allow hundreds of thousands of

immigrants to cross illegally into the United States from Mexico. Meanwhile, thousands of immigrants from India, the Far East, and other areas around the world wait patiently for five years or more to become legally valid naturalized citizens. Economists and

statisticians have shown that illegal immigrants cost the United States over $40 billion a year. If this figure is subtracted from the $25 billion that liberal economists claim illegal

immigrants bring in to the United States in revenue per year, there is a net loss of at least $15 billion. The Los Angeles County Health Department has estimated that it spends $340

million annually on illegal immigrants who seek emergency or follow-up-care in county hospitals.

2 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 2/3

Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to Problem One: Lack of Health Care

(___) Plan triggers anti-immigrant backlash that is a net-negative from the status quo.

Okie, 07 (Susan, M.D., New England Journal of Medicine, ―Immigrants and Health Care — At the Intersection of Two Broken Systems,‖ Volume 357: 525-529, Number 6)

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/6/525

Although anti-immigrant sentiment is fueled by the belief that immigrants can obtain federal benefits, 1996 welfare-reform legislation greatly restricted immigrants' access to programs such as Medicaid, shifting most health care responsibility to state and local

governments. The law requires that immigrants wait 5 years after obtaining lawful permanent residency (a "green card") to apply for federal benefits. In response, some

states and localities — for instance, Illinois, New York, the District of Columbia, and certain California counties — have used their own funds to expand health insurance

coverage even for undocumented immigrant children and pregnant women with low

incomes. Other states, however, such as Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, and Virginia, have passed laws making it even more difficult for noncitizens to gain access to health services.

3 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 3/3

Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to Problem One: Lack of Health Care

(___) Naturalization

A. Eligibility restrictions create an incentive for naturalization

Cooper, 04 – J.D. Candidate at Georgetown University Law Center

(Emilie, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, ―Embedded Immigrant Exceptionalism: An Examination of California's Proposition 187, the 1996 Welfare Reforms and the Anti-

Immigrant Sentiment Expressed Therein,‖ Winter 2004, 18 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 345, JMP) Given the distinct differences between eligibility for citizens and non-citizens, current

welfare policies may encourage naturalization of immigrants to retain benefits. Following the 1996 federal welfare reforms, citizenship applications by qualified lawful permanent

residents rose to record numbers. Though the incentive to naturalize can be explained by factors beyond welfare reform, there was a concurrent increase post-PRWORA in the number of naturalized families receiving some means-tested benefits. However, it should

be noted that increased naturalizations do not account for the overall decline in immigrant use of welfare programs -- the number of immigrants who naturalized between 1994 and

1999 greatly exceeded the rise in the number of naturalized citizens receiving welfare during the same period.

B. Naturalization can help immigrants overcome the effects of welfare cuts- not just health care

Cooper, 04 – J.D. Candidate at Georgetown University Law Center (Emilie, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, ―Embedded Immigrant Exceptionalism: An

Examination of California's Proposition 187, the 1996 Welfare Reforms and the Anti-Immigrant Sentiment Expressed Therein,‖ Winter 2004, 18 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 345, JMP)

Finally, immigrants should be educated about their choice to naturalize. While it has been

argued that the naturalization incentives accompanying welfare reform are at odds "with loyalty and other nation-building goals,‖ it nevertheless can be the best option for eligible immigrants who are otherwise in dire straights. After the announcement of the changes to

welfare reform in 1996, some made naturalization the first priority in order to lessen the impact of the cuts on the immigrant community.

4 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 1/3

Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to ProblemTwo: Bioterrorism (___)

(___)

(___) Experts say bioterror attack is not likely

Mbugua 04 (December 2, Martin, ―Bioterrorism in U.S. not likely, expert says‖ U daily)

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/dec/bioterror120204.html

The risk of a devastating bioterrorism attack on U.S. soil has been exaggerated, Col. Ted Cieslak, a bioterrorism expert and doctor who recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, said at the University of Delaware. Cieslak, who delivered a lecture on ―Biowarfare

and Bioterrorism: A Primer‖ Tuesday, Nov. 30, said too much money was being spent on unnecessary measures against possible bioterrorism.

―I don’t want people to think it’s more of a threat than it is, and I think billions and billions of dollars have been wasted already in this country, wasted on biodefense that wasn’t necessary,‖ Cieslak said after the lecture. ―I think it is a threat, something we need to

know about, prepare against, but also it’s very easy to go overboard. ―Right now, other forms of terrorism are still bigger threats. If you look at threats you can draw a graph:

You can have a high-consequence, low-risk, and the low-consequence, high risk. Biological threats are low risk, It’s unlikely that any of this is going to happen in the next 10 years and kill a million people,‖ he said.

5 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 2/3

Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to ProblemTwo: Bioterrorism

(___) And prefer our evidence- Ciselak is the most qualified source

Mbugua 04 (December 2, Martin, ―Bioterrorism in U.S. not likely, expert says‖ U daily)

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/dec/bioterror120204.html

Cieslak served as a practicing pediatrician for five years before entering a fellowship in pediatric infectious diseases at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. During his fellowship, Cieslak did research in the field of pathogenesis. After a tour as the

infectious disease consultant at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, Cieslak was appointed chief of field operations and then chief of the operational medicine

division at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Md. He joined the San Antonio Military Pediatric Center in 2001. Cieslak remains active in biowarfare and bioterrorism defense and serves as consultant to

the U.S. Surgeon General. He has lectured widely on biodefense and disaster response and has worked with the Department of Defense, the CIA, the FBI and various state

health departments. He holds clinical associate professorships at the Uniformed Services University and the University of Texas Health Science Center and also serves as a military flight surgeon.

(___) Bioweapons spending by other countries has significantly decreased Leitenberg, 06 – Senior research scholar at the University of Maryland (Milton,

―Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat‖, LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/17/opinion/oe-leitenberg17)

The first threat is declining. U.S. intelligence estimates say the number of countries that conduct offensive bioweapons programs has fallen in the last 15 years from 13 to nine, as

South Africa, Libya, Iraq and Cuba were dropped. There is no publicly available evidence that even the most hostile of the nine remaining countries -- Syria and Iran -- are

ramping up their programs. And, despite the fear that a hostile nation could help terrorists get biological weapons, no country has ever done so -- even nations known to have trained terrorists.

6 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 3/3

Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to ProblemTwo: Bioterrorism (___) No impact- we are prepared for a bioterror attack

MedScape Today, 04 (―Billions for Biodefense: Federal Agency Biodefense Funding:

Civilian Biodefense Spending by Federal Agency,‖ Available Online at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/482307_3)

After 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, HHS received a steep increase in funding to address these areas. The majority of these funds have gone to the various subagencies of HHS,

many of which have seen a dramatic increase in funding for civilian biodefense (Figs. 3, 4). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) received one of the largest increases, from $291 million in FY2002 to $1.5 billion in FY2003, followed by a similar allocation of about

$1.6 billion for FY2004; it is budgeted for a comparable amount in FY2005 for biodefense countermeasure re-search. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also

received substantial capacity upgrades, with overall CDC civilian biodefense funding increasing from $128 million in FY2001 to $1.1 billion in FY2002. CDC will continue to

receive funding of more than $1 billion for the years FY2003-FY2005. It is important to note that a number of programs have moved between HHS and DHS. The Strategic National Stockpile, for example, was located within HHS from its creation in 1999,[6]

moved to DHS in FY2004, and is scheduled to move back to HHS in FY2005. Programs such as the National Disaster Medical Service and the Metropolitan Medical Response

System were also in HHS prior to the creation of DHS in 2003. Based on the information available, by FY2005 HHS will have spent approximately $15 billion on civilian biodefense efforts since FY2001

(___) No risk of nuclear retaliation.

Spring 01 (Baker, Research Fellow at Heritage Foundation, Heritage Backgrounder 1477, Sept 20, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1477.cfm)

Nuclear retaliation is not appropriate for every kind of attack against America. Some

opponents of missile defense believe that the United States has an effective nuclear deterrent that, if necessary, could be used to respond to attacks on the homeland. But no responsible U.S. official is suggesting that the United States consider the use of nuclear

weapons in response to the horrific September 11 attacks. In most cases of attack on the United States, the nuclear option would not be appropriate, but a defense response will

almost always be appropriate. The United States needs to be able to resort to defensive options.

7 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 1/3 Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to The Solution

(___)

(___)

(___) Denial of benefits will encourage immigrants to become more self sufficient and not rely on the government

Dawson, 97 (Steven M. Dawson, Saint Louis University Law Journal, ―The Promise of

Opportunity - And Very Little More: An Analysis of the New Welfare Law's Denial of Federal Public Benefits to Most Legal Immigrants,‖ Summer 1997, 41 St. Louis L.J. 1053, JMP)

In addition, many argue that for many recipients of public benefits, welfare, which was

intended to be a "safety net," has instead become a way of life. U.S. welfare programs, it is said, should not be "a global retirement system." Congress intended the new welfare law to motivate current and future immigrants to become more self-sufficient, and to rely

more on their own capabilities, their family, and their sponsors, rather than on the government.

(___) There are lots of barriers blocking immigrants from receiving care

Berdion, 07 – J.D. Candidate at SMU School of Law (Marcella X. Berdion, SMU Law Review, ―The Right to Health Care in the United States:

Local Answers to Global Responsibilities,‖ Fall 2007, 60 SMU L. Rev. 1633, JMP) n56. Although a myriad of other barriers to receiving health care exist in the immigrant

population, such as differing cultural attitudes to medicine and care, racial and ethnic prejudices of providers, the undocumented individuals' fear of discovery and deportation,

and the fear of those who are documented of losing their status by becoming a 'public charge' if they use public funding, this Article principally examines the explicit government policies which limit immigrants' access to care.

8 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 2/3

Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to The Solution

(___) Language barriers cause problems in preventative care

Katz, et. Al, 06 – Senior Lecturer in the Department of Human Services, Doctor at Columbia University. (Aaron, Center for Studying Health System Change, ―Stretching the Safety Net to Serve Undocumented Immigrants: Community Responses to Heath Needs,‖

February 2006, Issue Brief Number 104, http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/818/)

Language and cultural barriers can impact access to and quality of care. Problems discussing symptoms or treatment regimens can lead to misdiagnoses, as well as patient noncompliance with suggested therapy. These problems are reportedly magnified for

undocumented immigrants. Market observers noted that it is common for undocumented immigrants to withhold basic contact information and medical histories, which can hinder

provider assessments. Health care providers and others consistently said that undocumented immigrants delay seeking care because they fear being detained or

deported by immigration officials. Thus, when they do show up for care, they often are in more serious condition.

9 | P a g e

BDL 2009-2010 3/3

Immigrant Health Care Negative

Answers to The Solution

(___) Illegal Immigration

A. Providing health care to undocumented immigrants dramatically increases illegal immigration.

Borjas 02 (George, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University and Research

Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/borjas.htm)

Congress instead chose PRWORA as the vehicle through which to reduce immigrant use of public assistance programs. In general terms, the legislation, as signed by President

Clinton, contained two key provisions: Most non-citizens who arrived in the country before August 22, 1996 were to be kicked off of the SSI and food stamp rolls within a year. (This provision of the legislation, however, was never fully enforced). Immigrants

who entered the United States after August 22, 1996 are prohibited from receiving most types of public assistance. The ban is lifted when the immigrant becomes an American

citizen. By setting up a five-year waiting period before newly arrived immigrants qualify for many types of assistance, the welfare reform legislation presumably further discourages the immigration of potential public charges. And by tightening the eligibility

requirements for immigrants already living in the United States, the legislation presumably increases the incentives for potential public charges to return to their home

countries.

B. Illegal immigration kills the US economy.

Allen 04, News Staff Writer, [Jeffery, "Illegal Immigration – Not Racism", The Stanford Review, February 12, 2004, http://stanfordreview.org/old_archives/Archive/Volume_XXXII/Issue_1/Opinions/opinions

2.shtml]

What about illegal immigrants free-riding off American social programs, do you call this constitutional? People who do not pay a dime in taxes to the American government and reap the benefits of medical care, education, and social services -- do you call this

democratic? The State of California continues to allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants to cross illegally into the United States from Mexico. Meanwhile, thousands of

immigrants from India, the Far East, and other areas around the world wait patiently for five years or more to become legally valid naturalized citizens. Economists and statisticians have shown that illegal immigrants cost the United States over $40 billion a

year. If this figure is subtracted from the $25 billion that liberal economists claim illegal immigrants bring in to the United States in revenue per year, there is a net loss of at least

$15 billion. The Los Angeles County Health Department has estimated that it spends $340 million annually on illegal immigrants who seek emergency or follow-up-care in county hospitals.