2018-2019 Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) ***How To Section*** What is ? Policy debate is a type of debate competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the federal government, this format tests a student’s research, analytical, and delivery skills. It involves the proposal of a plan by the affirmative team to enact a policy, while the negative team offers reasons to reject that proposal. Throughout the debate, students have the opportunity to cross-examine one another. A judge or panel of judges determines the winner based on the arguments presented.

3

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) Speeches and Speech Order There are eight total speeches in a debate round. Each debater gives two speeches: one “constructive” and one “rebuttal.” The speech order looks like this: Middle School Middle Middle School High School & High School School Junior Varsity Open Novice Varsity 1AC (1st Affirmative Constructive) – Read the 4 minutes 4 minutes 5 minutes 6 minutes affirmative and the plan CX (Cross-Examination) – 2nd Negative Speaker asks 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes the questions 1NC (1st Negative Constructive) – Makes all the major negative arguments (, case 4 minutes 4 minutes 5 minutes 6 minutes arguments, etc.) CX – 1st Affirmative Speaker asks the questions 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2AC (2nd Affirmative Constructive) – Answer ALL negative arguments. Rebuild and strengthen the case. Point out arguments that the negative has not 4 minutes 4 minutes 5 minutes 6 minutes attacked. CX – 1st Negative Speaker asks the questions 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2NC (2nd Negative Constructive) – Present any additional case arguments not covered by the 1NC. Remember to take only part of the negative 4 minutes 4 minutes 5 minutes 6 minutes arguments—leave some for the 1NR speech. Answer affirmative arguments. Rebuild and strengthen the negative side. CX – 2nd Affirmative Speaker asks the questions 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 1NR (1st Negative Rebuttal) – Present all other negative arguments not covered in the 2NC. Answer affirmative arguments. Rebuild and strengthen the 2 minutes 2 minutes 3 minutes 4 minutes negative side. Do not present the same arguments as your partner. 1AR (1st Affirmative Rebuttal) – Answer ALL of the 2 minutes 2 minutes 3 minutes 4 minutes negative arguments from both the 2NC & 1NR. 2NR (2nd Negative Rebuttal) – Pick a few arguments that you think the negative side is winning & concentrate on those. Tell the judge exactly why to 2 minutes 2 minutes 3 minutes 4 minutes vote for you. Tell the judge why the negative arguments outweigh the aff arguments. 2AR (2nd Affirmative Rebuttal) – Respond to negative arguments. Point out any arguments that have been 2 minutes 2 minutes 3 minutes 4 minutes dropped by the neg team. Tell the judge why the affirmative wins. The debater who gives the 1AC also gives the 1AR, and the debater who gives the 1NC gives the 1NR. So, each debater can think of themselves as the 1A (the person who gives the 1AC and 1AR), the 1N, the 2A, or the 2N, depending on their position in the debate.

Because the 2nd speaker (2A or 2N) gives the last speech, they're generally considered to be the “expert” for their side. Most teams have one partner give the 2A and the other partner give the 2N, so that each debater can focus on becoming an expert on one side of the debate.

For more information on speech order and responsibilities, visit www.atlantadebate.org

4

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) The Constructive Speeches Why have constructives?

At the end of the debate, the judge makes a decision based on which of the final speeches are more persuasive: the 2NR and the 2AR. So you might ask: if only the last two speeches matter, why have the other six? There are at least three answers to this question.

First, for an argument to be made in the 2NR or 2AR, it must have been present in the previous speeches (judges will discount 2NR or 2AR arguments that are “new.”)

Second, the constructives are an opportunity to read evidence that can then be referenced in later speeches. While it isn't always necessary to cite evidence, doing so can often increase the credibility of your arguments.

Third, debaters can use the constructives to make a wide variety of arguments. To understand why this is valuable, consider the different approaches of two hypothetical affirmative teams: Team Minnie Mouse and Goofy.

Hypothetical Scenario #1: Team Minnie Mouse, in the 2AC, makes six arguments against the . The negative answers four of these arguments very well, but answers two of the arguments poorly. In the rebuttals, Team Minnie Mouse takes advantage of this mistake by only talking about the arguments that were answered poorly.

Hypothetical Scenario #2: In the 2AC, Team Goofy makes two arguments against the disadvantage. Because the negative has less arguments to worry about, they answer both very well; since only two arguments were made in the 2AC, Team Goofy is only able to talk about these two arguments in the rebuttals.

Team Minnie Mouse and Team Goofy may end up talking about the same two arguments in the 2AR, but because Team Minnie Mouse made diverse arguments in the constructives, they've put the negative in a more difficult position, and their 2AR arguments are likely to be much more persuasive to the judge.

Roles of debaters during constructive speeches

The 1AC The primary job of the 1AC is to read the entire affirmative case. That means reading the plan, harms, inherency, and solvency in your first speech. This also includes having the first speech highlighted so you know what and where to read.

The 1NC Read all off-case positions and make arguments directly against the case (what the affirmative read in the 1AC). All parts of every off-case position should be read. For example, if you are reading the Appeasement DA you should read the uniqueness, link, (internal link if applicable) and impact. The 1NC should have analytical arguments (arguments without cards) for the case debate and should have highlighted all off-case positions. The 1NC sets the format for how arguments will be addressed on the case. For example, the 1NC makes an argument that says Aladdin is not the best Disney movie ever. The 2AC will reference that argument first before making their own arguments (off 1NC #1: etc., etc., etc.).

5

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) The 2AC The 2AC’s job begins before the debate. All 2AC’s should have some prepared speeches against commonly heard arguments both on case and off case. This is called a block or writing blocks (see the section “how to write a block”). The 2AC sets the structure for how arguments are for off case positions. For example, the 2NC will say, “off 2AC #1,” when responding to arguments. Offer point-by-point refutation of your opponent’s arguments (line-by-line debating).

The 2NC The 2NC extends your teams arguments made in the 1NC. You should be making 1 to 2 point answers to your opponent’s arguments they made in the 2AC. You can use the 3-point style of referencing arguments (they said, we say, why we win). For example, “off 2AC #1, they say Aladdin is the best Disney movie of all time.,“ 1st- That movie was made a long time ago and there have been many better Disney movies made since then, and 2nd- Aladdin teaches a lot of bad behavior—lying, stealing, and deception. He is no role model for young people.

The 2NC should have prepared blocks to the most common types of affirmative arguments. 2NC’s should also point out any and all dropped arguments, extend those arguments, and tell the judge why this means the negative side wins this part of the debate.

6

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) The Rebuttal Speeches Debating is Clashing

What's the difference between giving a speech and debating? Giving a speech is mostly about building a relationship between you and your audience: being likable, clear, and persuasive to the person or people to whom you're speaking. Debate is about that, too, but it also adds a third element: the other team. Good debaters engage with, or “clash,” with what the other team says.

In day-to-day life “clash” is often viewed as a bad thing: directly criticizing another person’s ideas can seem rude or inconsiderate. In debate, though, where both sides usually have an okay point, clash is better viewed as a sign of respect. Clashing with another team’s argument means that you’ve listened to it, understood it, and tried to respond to it. For example, the affirmative team is running a case that Students should have more time in P.E. classes during the school day. Let’s consider two ways for a negative team to make the argument that schools should not add more time spent in P.E.:

1. “If you vote for the affirmative, which advocates for more P.E. classes, then students will not have as much time in academic classes. The school day is not going to be extended, so that means that students will learn less information that will help them later on in life if they have less time taking academic courses because of P.E.”

2. “The affirmative says that we need to improve the overall health of the nation and the only way to do that is by teaching people early in life how to exercise and live healthier & active lifestyles. School is not the right place for students to learn about how to live an active lifestyle—that is better taught in the home by students’ families. Schools should primarily be focused on teaching students information and skills required to build successful careers when they get older.

Clash is important in every speech, but especially in the rebuttal speeches, which are primarily about extending your best arguments and comparing them to arguments the other team has made.

Extending Arguments

When you make a good argument early in the debate, chances are you'll want to bring it back up again later in the debate. An “extended” argument is an argument made earlier in a debate that's made again in a team's next speech. An argument can be extended from the 1AC to the 2AC, the 2AC to the 1AR, the 1AR to the 2AR, the 1NC to the 2NC/1NR, or the 2NC/1NR to the 2NR.

How is extending an argument different from repeating yourself? Good extensions contain three elements: an explanation, an impact, and a refutation of the other team's arguments.

Explanations are a summary of a previous argument you've made. The best explanations include both a claim (what is our argument?) and a warrant (how do we know that argument is true?)

“Impacting” an argument means explaining how that argument affects the debate as a whole. When impacting an argument, ask yourself: if we're right about this argument, how does it tie back to our central point?

Refuting the other team's arguments can take several forms, as follows: 7

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) - Challenging the date of the evidence (has the world changed since their evidence was produced?) - Challenging qualifications of the author (is this person qualified to speak on this subject or does this piece of evidence come from a qualified source?) - Challenging the warrants/reasoning made by your opponent (explain why your evidence is good and why the other team's evidence is flawed. You can also argue that the other team's argument or evidence doesn't apply to your original argument)

Impact analysis

“Impact analysis,” also known as “impact comparison,” is the process of comparing reasons why the plan is good with reasons why the plan is bad. For instance, the affirmative might argue that the plan is that increased P.E. is good for students and the country in the long-run. At the same time, the negative might argue that the plan would be bad for the country in the long-run because students don’t learn academics and are less prepared to start a career. Which is more important: a healthy country or staying competitive in the global job market? Since whoever wins this argument will have a big advantage in the debate, impact analysis is a vital part of rebuttals.

There are four general reasons why one impact might be more important than other:

1. Magnitude – how big is an impact? This includes both how many people an impact affects and the way in which it affects them.

2. Risk – how likely is the impact to occur? Do we know that the impact is going to happen (maybe because it's already happening), or is a hypothetical future problem?

3. Timeframe – in how long will the impact occur? Impacts that happen further into the future may be less likely to occur, since it's often more difficult to make predictions over the long term.

4. Turns the impact/solves the impact – how does your impact interact with the other team's impact? For instance: the affirmative might say: “without a healthy lifestyle, preparing for a long career is pointless since life expectancy will continue decrease.”

The acronym Mr. T can help you to remember impact analysis: Magnitude, Risk, and Timeframe.

8

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) Role of debaters during Rebuttal Speeches The 1AR The 1AR is a difficult speech in debate–it follows the negative block, which means it has to extend the affirmative’s arguments while answering a lot of negative arguments, all in a short period of time. A 1AR should begin by doing (reading Mr. T)–but the sheet in the packet encourages you to pick your strongest argument out of M, R, or T and to concentrate on that instead of extending all three.

While it’s important you answer every negative argument against your affirmative, it’s not essential that you extend every argument you’ve made against the negative. You can pick and choose which ones you think are most strategic.

The 2NR The primary jobs of the 2NR are similar to the 1AR’s–debaters must extend their best arguments while answering the defense posed by the 1AR. A way to think about the 2NR is “writing the ballot for the judge.” Writing the ballot for the judge means explaining, in a big-picture way, why you win the debate. One way to force yourself to do this is to start every 2NR with the words “the most important thing in the debate is...” and then explain which issues the judge should look to first in deciding the debate. Impact calculus (Mr. T) is often the best place to direct a judge's attention in the 2NR, and the sheet in the packet for this speech also encourages you to pick your strongest argument out of M, R, or T.

After that, the 2NR needs to answer the 1AR's arguments. Make sure you not only answer the 1AR arguments but also think about what arguments the 2AR could make and answer those arguments too. Below is a brief example of what a 2NR would look like using our Affirmative case that schools should have more time in P.E. classes during the school day.

2NR EXAMPLE: The future careers of America’s young people is the most important thing in this debate. It outweighs the affirmative on magnitude…. if U.S. students do not have high-level skill sets to tackle the challenges we are facing in the 21st century, then the good jobs will be taken by people from other countries who are focusing more on academic classes than P.E. The affirmative claims that the biggest impact is an increase in health and lifespan. It won’t matter how healthy and strong people are in the U.S. if they are unable to get jobs.

Now, the line by line debate – The 1AR says there is no link. First, extend the Roland evidence, U.S. schools are being out-ranked by other nations because of too many extra-curriculars. The affirmative, by increasing time in P.E., directly trades-off time with academics. Students will have less time learning things important to career development. The aff definitely links to the academic trade-off disadvantage.

Lastly, they will say that affirming physical fitness in school matters. But, if physical fitness matters because it makes people better, what’s worse…people maybe not being as healthy but having a good job or being very physically fit but having no job and therefore no food, or house, or future?

The 2AR As in the 2NR, the 2AR should attempt to “write the ballot for the judge.” The 2AR should start out with impact calculus (Mr. T, extending whichever part the 1AR also extended), explanations of other important arguments, and finally it should answer 2NR arguments.

9

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) How to write a block and why? What are blocks? Are they really important?

To answer the second question: yes, blocks are really, really, really, important.

To answer the first question: blocks are pre-written and pre-organized responses to common arguments. Since there are only a few big arguments in the packet, you'll be debating the same arguments again and again: and since you'll be debating the same arguments again and again, it's important to think through how you'll respond to them.

Good blocks include both evidence from articles and analytical arguments. For instance: a 1NC block against the increase time in P.E. affirmative might include evidence from two news articles, along with several analytical arguments that you come up with on your own. Similarly, a 2AC block against the Academic Trade-Off disadvantage might include several articles and several analytics.

Once a block is written, you can use it in every debate where you face a given argument. Every time the 1NC reads an academic trade-off disadvantage, you can read your 2AC trade-off block in response. This saves preparation time in the debate, ensures that you know your arguments well, and gives you time to choose the best arguments against the disadvantage.

Blocks are most important for the 1NC and 2AC, but you can make blocks for any speech other than the 1AC. For instance, there are only so many possible affirmative answers to the academic trade-off disadvantage, so it's reasonable to write out a 2NC/1NR block to each in advance to each argument.

Finally, blocks can make it easy to adapt and improve your arguments based on experience and judge commentary. If a judge has a comment about a particular argument you made, it's easy to adjust that argument in the block so that it can be made more effectively in future debates.

What would a block look like?

Let's say the 1AC argues that schools should devote more time and resources to P.E. class, because more time in gym would improve students' health. The 1NC responds with a Math Disadvantage that says that more gym class would trade off with time in math class, decreasing how much students learn.

On the next page, there's a sample 2AC block that could be used to respond to the disadvantage. Then, any time the affirmative team hears the Math Disadvantage, they can pull out their block and immediately have access to their best arguments. Later, if they think of new or better arguments, they can add them to the block in the future.

10

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) Sample 2AC block — Math Block

Here let’s assume that the negative has made an argument that Math class is more important Health class. Below is a 2AC block to that argument:

Sample 2AC Block

1. Our advantage is more important than their disadvantage, because better health means that students live longer and better lives.

2. You have to be healthy before you can learn – more gym class means that students will do more with the limited time they have in math class. They'll have more of an opportunity to clear their minds and more energy in general.

3. Quality over quantity – high-quality math instruction is far more impactful than just spending a few more minutes in class. According to Elena Silver, a senior policy analyst at Education Sector, “Research reveals a complicated relationship between time and learning and suggests that improving the quality of instructional time is at least as important as increasing the quantity of time in school.” They haven't proven that there's any relationship between spending more time in class and students performing better in math.

4. Math's boring, anyway. Who uses that stuff in the real world?

5. [More arguments, or evidence]

6. [More arguments, or evidence]

Now let’s write a 2NC block to one of the arguments.

Sample 2NC block

AT: 2AC - Math is boring AT (meaning answer to): 2AC – Math is boring (so at the top of the page write this so you know what you are answering)

1. Math is not boring. It is the cornerstone of our economy if we cannot do math we can never properly balance budgets and then we’d run out of money.

2. Math is fun. You can play games on your laptop, computer, or phone. Trivia games on Facebook about math prove this is true.

See, it’s that easy!!

11

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) Judge Adaptation Some of your judges may have coached debate for many years, or debated themselves in high school or college. Other judges may be at their first-ever debate tournament. Still other judges may have been judging debates casually for several months, but never coached or participated in the activity themselves.

Whatever judge you have, it's up to you to make your case in a way that's persuasive to them. Keep in mind that everyone has different ideas about what counts as a good or bad argument. As a debater, your goal isn't to make the argument that's most persuasive to you (although believing that your arguments are good ones is important). The real goal is to make the argument that's most persuasive to your audience: in this case, your judge.

Here's a few ideas for adapting to your judge:

1. Talk to your judge. Before the debate, it's fine to ask the judge how much experience they have with debate, and if they have any strong feelings about what you do or shouldn't or do in-round. Most judges will be happy to answer you: you're demonstrating that you respect their time, and that you want to debate in a way they'll enjoy.

2. Watch your judge. Some judges will smile, frown, nod or shake their head, look bored or engaged, or give you other non-verbal signals that they like or don't like the argument you're making. If it seems like they like your argument – remember to watch the judge and have your partner watch the judge to see what they like and dislike. Focus on that argument in later speeches, and you'll have a good chance to win the debate. If it seems like they don't like your argument, it's not a big deal – now you can be pretty sure that particular argument won't win you the debate, and you can move onto another argument that might be more effective.

3. Work on your argument skills and your speaking skills. All judges appreciate a good, logical argument, and all judges appreciate polished speaking skills. How much they care about each, though, might depend on their approach to the activity. The easiest solution is to get good at both: otherwise, you'll find yourself able to win debates only in front of certain kinds of judges.

4. Be respectful to your opponents. Again, all judges want this, but some might care so much about it that they'll decide the debate on that alone.

5. Ask how you can do better. After the debate, ask the judge what you could work on for next time. Whether you won or lost, chances are that your judge will have some ideas on how you can improve. And, if you end up debating in front of that judge again, you can keep their comments in mind to build a case that's uniquely appealing to them.

12

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) ***Open Borders Affirmative Case + Case Neg*** Intro to the Affirmative The affirmative part of the packet includes the Case (a plan, inherency, solvency, and harms) and answers to the Disadvantage for the affirmative to use. The purpose of the affirmative is to increase immigration to the United States by removing barriers to it. The plan calls for the United States federal government to remove any and all restrictions on anyone who attempts to enter the United States, or an open border policy. An open border policy could be defined as a policy to enable the free movement of people between different jurisdictions with limited or no restrictions on movement, that is to say lacking substantive border control. This would mean things like increased military personnel, border walls, and increased attempts to block individuals from other countries to enter the US would end and be declared unlawful. Immigration deals with a host of issues, especially moral and financial. The novice affirmative uses the economic discussion of immigration as a case study to discuss the issue. There are, of course, still moral nuances to this economic conversation, as is made apparent in the negative responses. The economy advantage details the importance of immigration for continued U.S. economic growth. The first piece of evidence details how the aging U.S. population has put the country’s economic growth at risk, while also arguing that a more inclusive immigration policy would correct that problem. The second piece of evidence details how U.S. economic growth is important for economic growth around the world, and the last card explains how that economic growth is necessary to prevent conflicts inside of and between different countries. Aside from their own arguments, the negative has a pair of cards to respond to the affirmative case. The first is the Johnson evidence, which argues that immigrants will just be exploited within the secondary labor market (see definitions). This means that, while they will receive jobs, the companies that hire them will find legal loopholes so they don’t have to pay immigrants as much as they would pay regular employees, hurting both groups in the process and creating inequality. The second is the Drezner evidence, which argues that since the Great Recession (see definitions) did not increase rates of conflict across the world, the argument that economic decline can cause war is not backed up by historical evidence.

13

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) Intro to the Negative The negative is provided with a disadvantage in this packet, the Wages Disadvantage. It argues that an open border policy would adversely impact wage growth in the United States, increasing income inequality.

When breaking it down by each part of the disadvantage, it looks like this:

Uniqueness: Wages in the United States are currently trending upward, but the rate of growth for what sociologists consider low-skilled workers is decreasing. Though wages are still growing, the declining rate of growth is concerning to many people and suggests that the wage growth is very vulnerable to changes in the market.

Link: A large influx of immigrants, something to be expected if the United States opened its borders, would actually lower wages for low-skilled American workers. This is because many (but importantly, not all) immigrants come to the United States without the same levels of education that many Americans have been able to receive. This means that while many skilled or educated American workers don’t receive much new competition for their jobs, the amount of workers competing for low-skill work increases massively. When this happens, companies often try to maximize profits by hiring workers at lower rates of pay or by using the secondary labor market to get around legal employment rules and pay them less than minimum wage.

Impact: The result of this process is an increase in the wealth gap in the United States. A pair professors that study public health argue that high inequality can cause many problems for people living in these countries, since it creates divisions between people while subjecting some to worse conditions than others. Problems include the spread of health problems, including mental health and stress, as well as higher rates of violence as there is less trust and more competition between the members of society.

The affirmative is given one card to answer the disadvantage along with their own arguments. This card argues that immigration actually increases wages across the board because of the benefits of having diverse people working in different parts of the economy. To make this argument, it uses a study that examines correlations between immigrant diversity and wage growth in metropolitan areas, which shows an upward relationship between the two.

14

2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) Definitions Debate Vocabulary Affirmative–the side that supports the resolution, which calls for fewer limits on immigration. Plan–the policy proposed by the affirmative team in the 1AC. Inherency– a fact that proves the affirmative plan is not happening already. Solvency–how the plan resolves the 1AC’s harms. Advantage–also called a HARM, a reason why the plan is good or why it prevents something bad. Negative–the side that opposes the resolution by arguing against the affirmative plan. Disadvantage–a reason why the plan is bad, consisting of these three parts: Uniqueness– a positive or negative fact about the world. Link– how the plan changes that fact. Additional links, called internal links, may be necessary to connect that change to the impact. Impact–the result of that fact being changed. Packet Vocabulary Arms Race–an unstable situation in which one state acquires weapons that lead another state to do the same, which often escalates as each state seeks an advantage through new weapons Asylee & Refugee–a person seeking protection from persecution in their home country. A person is considered an asylee if they apply for status after arriving in the United States, they are considered a refugee if they apply for status before their arrival. Asylum–the protection granted to a person who has left their native country to seek refuge from persecution. Business Cycles–the cycles between growth and contraction that business experience. Citizen–the “right to have rights” in a specific country. In the United States, it is given to all persons born or naturalized within our borders. Diaspora–the community of people who live in lands far from their natural homelands. For example, Syrians fleeing the Syrian Civil War have created diasporic communities across the world. Diversionary Wars–wars that unpopular leaders start to distract the public from the problems that are making the leader unpopular. Some believe that economic struggles are a cause of diversionary wars. Emigration–the act of leaving one’s own country to live permanently in another. Great Recession–the economic downturn that began in 2008 after the U.S. housing market crashed. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)–the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year. Immigration–the act of coming to live permanently in a foreign country. Innovation–the process of developing new ideas, products, or methods. Mariel Boatlift & Supply Shock–the Mariel boatlift was a mass migration of Cuban citizens to in an effort to flee Cuban economic struggles. It’s often cited by economists and sociologists as an example of a mass influx of immigrants, used to study the economic effects of immigrants. Nationalism–extreme patriotism, marked by a feeling of superiority of one’s nation over all others. Nativism–the policy of protecting the interests of native-born individuals or citizens from immigrants. Naturalization–the process through which someone from one country becomes a citizen of another. Open Borders–a border between countries that allows free movement of people without restriction. Primary & Secondary Labor Markets–the primary labor market is the traditional system of hiring employees for salary pay while the secondary labor market includes “gigs” like Uber driving which pay its workers (who are not legally considered employees) via contract. This legal designation keeps secondary laborers from receiving the same benefits and protections as employees do. Xenophobia–intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

15