This isn't final until 8:30 but is likely the 1NC


T—Social Services
A. Interp: Social services, as defined by the federal government exclude wage payment.

Title XX of the Social Security Act 35(Section 2005, 1935, US law, accessed at
**__ ssact/title20/2000.htm__**) [Tanay]

Sec. . [42 U.S.C. 1397d] Except as provided in subsection (b), grants made under this title may not be used by the State, or by any other person with which the State makes arrangements to carry out the purposes of this title— for the purchase or improvement of land, or the purchase, construction, or permanent improvement (other than minor remodeling) of any building or other facility; for the provision of cash payments for costs of subsistence or for the provision of room and board (other than costs of subsistence during rehabilitation, room and board provided for a short term as an integral but subordinate part of a social service, or temporary emergency shelter provided as a protective service); for payment of the wages of any individual as a social service (other than payment of the wages of welfare recipients employed in the provision of child day care services); for the provision of medical care (other than family planning services, rehabilitation services, or initial detoxification of an alcoholic or drug dependent individual) unless it is an integral but subordinate part of a social service for which grants may be used under this title; for social services (except services to an alcoholic or drug dependent individual or rehabilitation services) provided in and by employees of any hospital, skilled nursing facility, intermediate care facility, or prison, to any individual living in such institution; for the provision of any educational service which the State makes generally available to its residents without cost and without regard to their income; for any child day care services unless such services meet applicable standards of State and local law; for the provision of cash payments as a service (except as otherwise provided in this section); for payment for any item or service (other than an emergency item or service) furnished— by an individual or entity during the period when such individual or entity is excluded under this title or title V, XVIII, or XIX pursuant to section **__1128__**, **__1128A__**, **__1156__**, or **__1842(j)(2)__**, or at the medical direction or on the prescription of a physician during the period when the physician is excluded under this title or title V, XVIII, or XIX pursuant to section **__1128__**, **__1128A__**,**__1156__**, or **__1842(j)(2)__** and when the person furnishing such item or service knew or had reason to know of the exclusion (after a reasonable time period after reasonable notice has been furnished to the person); or in a manner inconsistent with the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997**__[6__**].
B. Violation –the aff gives jobs to illegal immigrant which is not a social service
C. Limits – allowing affs to give jobs as a social service allows for thousands of new affs, making the neg research burden impossible.

D. Vote neg for fairness, education and jurisdiction

States CP
Text: The 50 states, District of Columbia, and all relevant U.S. federal territories should substantially increase funding for census outreach programs for the 2010 Census.

Outreach programs are crucial
Terri Ann Lowenthal; 3/18/09; Lowenthal is a Legislative and Policy Consultant and Independent Contractor; “Census and Federal Statistics” The Brookings Institute __ media/Files/events/2009/0318___ census__/20090318_census.pdf__

You’ve launched 2010 Census be counted campaigns, you’re hosting meetings, sharing information, education policy-makers, philanthropic organizations are stepping up to the plate in growing numbers, I’m pleased to report, to support public education and outreach efforts in hard to count communities, and Americans are applying for Census jobs in record numbers, perhaps not surprisingly. And I think that’s where the focus needs to stay, on these stakeholder efforts, on outreach, on promotion, on partnership for the next year and a half, on educating the public about the benefits of an accurate Census to one’s community and family, on reassuring those with a skeptical view of government that the Census is confidential, and frankly, I think that it might help to tell people that the safest way to answer the Census or to participate is to mail back the form, because then a stranger with a government badge doesn’t have to come knock on your door. And, of course, outreach and promotion through culturally appropriate avenues of communication. There’s a lot of work left to do, as always, and a lot of challenges to overcome, but I do remain hopeful that the momentum coming out of a historic election will help convince people who have been left out of this count for decade after decade that this Census, just like the election, is all about them, and that we have another chance to turn the tide of history and to be heard. So thank you very much, and I am pleased to turn this over to someone who actually has to do the job, and that’s Frank Vitrano from the Census Bureau.
States key
Terri Ann Lowenthal; 3/18/09; Lowenthal is a Legislative and Policy Consultant and Independent Contractor; “Census and Federal Statistics” The Brookings Institute __ media/Files/events/2009/0318___ census__/20090318_census.pdf__

Census data then are essential to pretty much everything we care about. Well, maybe not everything but certainly democracy, public policy, and the economy. It's a lot. So, what's it take to achieve a good census? Essentially two things are necessary. One is getting the census questionnaire into every household and group quarters in the nation; and the second is to get people to accurately complete the questionnaire. If the Census Bureau can do that, we're in good shape. But to do these things, of course, is no small matter, particularly among populations that traditionally have been harder to count, including Latinos and African-Americans. So, to obtain a good count, we need a widespread awareness of the importance of being counted; trust that being counted will not cause a problem; the act of collaboration of state and local governments to help identify addresses and promote participation; over a million capable census workers; census methods and technologies that work is intended; adherence to good plans and schedules; and, essential to all else, effective leadership.

Health Care Politics –same as generic
specific link:

Republicans hate the plan
Mark Knoller, Staff Writer for CBS. 2/12/09.
White House Denies Meddling In Census 2009/02/12/politics/ politicalhotsheet/ entry4797600.shtml

A White House spokesman denies Republican congressional charges that the White House is "taking the unprecedented step of moving control of the Census Bureau" to "political operatives on the White House staff." The charge is made in a letter House Republicans - including Minority Leader John Boehner - sent yesterday President Obama - calling on him to "reconsider and reverse this harmful course of action." In response to questions from CBS News, spokesman Ben LaBolt says the charge is not accurate. He says the Census Bureau and the agency's director will continue to work at the Commerce Department. However, the spokesman says that "White House senior management will work closely with the Census Director, given the number of decisions that will need to reach the president's desk." The White House also says the same congressional committees that had oversight of the Census Bureau during the previous administration will retain that authority. Boehner and other House Republicans also used a news conference today to express concerns that the White House will "undermine the goal of having a fair and accurate census."

Immigration DA – in generic
impact scenario:

Illegal immigration devastate the economy– low wages and competing jobs
American Chronicle 08
(Dave Gibson, American Chronicle, 6-11-08, “Jobs American’s Won’t Do?” __http://www.americanchronicle. com/articles/view/64701__)

The federal indictment read: "It was part of the conspiracy for Peabody Corp. to systematically hire citizens of Mexico and other countries who had illegally entered into the United States for purposes of employment." The Peabody Corporation operated eight trawlers used for scallop fishing. The U.S. Attorney´s sought the surrender of $6.9 million, which amounted to the profits Peabody made during the period in question. We have been constantly told by the open borders crowd that illegal aliens only do dirty low-wage jobs such as housekeeping, landscaping, and crop-picking. We have also been told that illegal aliens do not take jobs away from Americans because no American wants to do those very menial jobs. This indictment of the Peabody Corp. is a great example of just how hollow that argument really is. The fact is that illegal aliens do take jobs away from Americans. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average take home pay for a commercial fisherman is $29,000 annually. Additionally, I have been informed by some who work in this industry, that official figure is on the low-end. The U.S. Health and Human Services agency considers the poverty line for a family of four to be $20,650 and for one person to be $10,210. While it may be hard to imagine living on either of those incomes with their respective situations, it is easy to conclude that a take-home salary of $29,000 would be welcomed by many working-class Americans. The Peabody family has been able to pocket $7 million over the last few years because they have imported Third World laborers to work on their boats. They have basically eliminated their payroll. Unfortunately, they are not alone. Greedy employers all across this nation are hiring illegal aliens to provide them with the kind of dirt cheap labor on which Americans simply cannot support their families. It is impossible for American workers to compete with Third World labor.

Failure to address econ problems is the root cause of wars
Mead 09
(Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, 2-4-09, “Only Makes You Stronger,” __ story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887- 4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2__)

Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

The Moral Side Constraint [1/3]
Government welfare and social services are coercive and morally wrong
Waldron 86 Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University School of Law[Jeremy, “Welfare and the Images of Charity” The Philosophical Quarterly. Volume 36, No. 145. October 1986, pg. 463-482] mr

But Rand apart, the moral objection that must be taken most seriously is this. Charitable giving by the wealthy to the poor is not only morally permissible, it is indeed morally desirable. It is a good thing if those who have surplus wealth give it to what they regard as deserving cases. It is good not merely because generosity is a virtue and we ought to want to have as many virtues as possible: that line of thought leads in the direction of the crazy view that we should be glad there are poor people about so that we have someone to be charitable to. It is good on account of the moral force of the needs and the plight of those who are the potential recipients of our charity. It is because we care for them, and not (merely) because we care for our own moral integrity, that we ought to take note of their plight and do whatever we can to ameliorate it. Indeed, perhaps we can subject to moral criticism and moral pressure if we fail to do so. That much conceded by most all of modern opponents of state welfare provision. The mistake, they do say, is to convert moral pressure into compulsion - to force people to do what everyone agrees it would be morally desirable for them to do. Murray Rothboard's view is typical. He recognizes that charity is a good thing, but writes, " It makes all the difference in the world whether the aid is given voluntarily or is stolen by force." [I]t is hardly charity to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed this is the direct opposite of charity, which can only be an unbought, voluntary act of grace. Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the state has already taken on the task. This is another illustration of the truth that men can become more moral only through rational persuasion, not through violence, which will, in fact, have the opposite effect.4 The argument is a powerful one - the more so because, of course, the general point invoked at the end of this passage is absolutely fundamental to the entire tradition of liberal philosophy (and not merely its "new right" wing). Most liberals base their belief in toleration and civil rights in part on the irrationality and immorality of forcing people to do something merely on the ground that it is (believed to be) morally desirable. Since this is so, Rothbard and other libertarians appear to have a powerful argument against their opponents, in this tradition at any rate. The argument is that the Welfare State, with its apparatus of compulsory contribution, "poisons the springs of private charitable activity"5 just as the enforcement of a religious faith or a personal ethic or a scientific belief would, in the eyes of Locke or Kant or Mill, poison the basis of personal commitment, moral autonomy, and individual rationality. It is easy to overlook this point, and spend one's energy demonstrating that charitable giving is morally right, that everyone ought to give something to those worse off than themselves, and that those who would be the targets of coercion in a welfare state - those who would withhold charity - are morally in the wrong. But this is not necessarily in dispute. The libertarian argument is that, even if charity is morally desirable, indeed even if it is in some sense a moral duty, it is nevertheless wrong to require people by the threat of legal penalties and confiscation to give up any of their wealth for redistribution to the poor.

The Moral Side Constraint [2/3]

Coercion risks the worst atrocities
Browne 95, former Libertarian presidential candidat
(Harry, executive director of public policy at American Liberty Foundation, editor of Liberty Magazine, financial advisor and economist, Why Government Doesn’t Work, pg 66-67)
The reformers of the Cambodian revolution claimed to be building a better world. They forced people into reeducation programs to make them better citizens. Then they used force to regulate every aspect of commercial life. Then they forced office workers and intellectuals to give up their jobs and harvest rice, to round out their education. When people resisted having their lives turned upside down, the reformers had to use more and more force. By the time they were done, they had killed a third of the country’s population, destroyed the lives of almost everyone still alive, and devastated a nation. It all began with using force for the best of intentions—to create a better world. The Soviet leaders used coercion to provide economic security and to build a “New Man”—a human being who would put his fellow man ahead of himself. At least 10 million people died to help build the New Man and the Workers’ Paradise. But human nature never changed—and the workers’ lives were always Hell, not Paradise. In the 1930s many Germans gladly traded civil liberties for the economic revival and national pride Adolf Hitler promised them. But like every other grand dream to improve society by force, it ended in a nightmare of devastation and death. Professor R.J. Rummel has calculated that 119 million people have been killed by their own governments in this century. Were these people criminals? No, they were people who simply didn’t fit into the New Order—people who preferred their own dreams to those of the reformers. Every time you allow government to use force to make society better, you move another step closer to the nightmares of Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. We’ve already moved so far that our own government can perform with impunity the outrages described in the preceding chapters. These examples aren’t cases of government gone wrong; they are examples of government—period. They are what governments do—just as chasing cats is what dogs do. They are the natural consequence of letting government use force to bring about a drug-free nation, to tax someone else to better your life, to guarantee your economic security, to assure that no one can mistreat you or hurt your feelings, and to cover up the damage of all the failed government programs that came before.

The Moral Side Constraint [3/3]
Freedom comes before all other impacts
Petro ‘74, Sylvester , professor of law at Wake Forest, Spring 1974, Toledo Law Review, p480

However, one may still insist on echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no importance because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenstyn, Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.

Various Case Defense on the advantages and solvency