MSDI 2015
1
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
About MSDI & Missouri State U..
For twenty years, the Missouri State Debate Institute has offered an excellent educational experience in
the middle of the high school topic. MSDI is distinct from other camps in six ways. First, our skills focus
assures that a typical 2-week debater gets nearly 80 speeches, including over 20 debates. Second, we
emphasize the largest cases on topic, with students getting both aff and neg rounds on each. Third, our
senior faculty are comparable with top lab leaders in any camp. Fourth, MSDI students can earn highly
transferable college credit in public speaking for a minimal cost. Fifth, we respect variance in home
debate circuits – our goal is to improve line by line debating in ways that will help students no matter
who judges in their home circuit. Finally, our price is below any comparable camp and far below most
camps. Our 2016 information will be available shortly at: http://debate.missouristate.edu/camp.htm.
Missouri State University is a large comprehensive university (enrollment over 24k), with nearly any
major you might want. The university has excellent academic scholarship support – most debaters
combine academic “entitlement” scholarships (guaranteed based on GPA/test scores) with debate
scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: NDT and NFALD. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. Our debaters have an average GPA over
3.5, a 97% graduation rate, and 70% complete law/grad school afterward. Our program is a high-impact
academic experience with an exceptional alumni network. Please contact Dr. Eric Morris for more
information (EricMorris@MissouriState.edu).
http://debate.missouristate.edu/
http://www.missouristate.edu/FinancialAid/scholarships/
1
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
2
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Deferred Action Neg v1.0 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
**Solvency** ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
No registration ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4
CiR turn ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Plan is illegal .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
**Economy** ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
DAPA can’t solve ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Economy growing .................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Agriculture not key .................................................................................................................................................................. 13
A2 Unions................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
US not key to global ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Economy resilient .................................................................................................................................................................... 16
1NC Economy – no war ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
2NC Economy – no war ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
1NC Econ not key to heg .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
1NC Hegemony defense .......................................................................................................................................................... 25
2NC Hegemony defense .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
**Agriculture** ........................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Agriculture turn ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Mechanization turn ................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Labor shortage inevitable ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
US not key to global ag ............................................................................................................................................................ 33
Food shortage inevitable ......................................................................................................................................................... 34
1NC No resource wars ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
2NC No resource wars ............................................................................................................................................................. 37
**State Budgets** ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39
A2 Bioterror ............................................................................................................................................................................. 40
**DA** ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Unpopular ................................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Courts link to politics ............................................................................................................................................................... 45
Terror DA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 47
2
MSDI 2015
3
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
**Solvency**
3
MSDI 2015
4
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
No registration
No solvency – people won’t sign up
Shoba S.
Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law at Penn State Law, 2015. "The History of Prosecutorial Discretion in
Immigration Law." American University Law Review 64
The political impetus to challenge the legality of the President’s executive actions stems in part from the number of people who may qualify for these actions—
especially from the creation of the DAPA program. Estimates from the White House suggest that more than 4 million people will benefit from the President’s
executive actions.73 Notably, although
the scale of President Obama’s executive actions is significant, they do not
reflect something new as a legal matter nor do they confirm that the actual number of eligible people who will apply
or may receive DAPA will even come close to 4 million. In the case of DACA, for example, just fifty-five percent of the estimated 1.2
million eligible individuals applied for the program after it had been in place for two years.74 Some of the reasons an eligible person may choose
not to apply for a program include the inability to pay the application fee, fear of deportation for oneself or a family
member(s), inability to obtain the documents necessary to prove eligibility, or lack of access to an immigration
attorney or non-profit group because of a cultural, language, and/or geographic barrier.75 Possibly, the new deferred
action programs will undergo an even larger drop in applications because of the confusion and fear
surrounding the temporary injunction issued by Judge Hanen and the ongoing removals of noncitizens
identified as enforcement priorities.76
Deferred action is perceived as vulnerable – chills participation even if the decision is
reversed
Anil
Kalhan, Associate Law Prof @ Drexel University, February 21, 2015 , Is Judge Hanen's Smackdown of Executive Action on Immigration 'Narrowly
Crafted'?. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2571079 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2571079
What exactly is at stake in whether or not Judge Hanen’s ruling is characterized as a narrow and minimalist ruling? In instrumental terms,
both critics and defenders of the Obama administration’s initiatives have incentives to characterize the decision as a narrow one. For defenders of the
administration’s initiatives, characterizing Judge Hanen’s decision as narrow might help to forestall a potential “chilling effect” in immigrant communities that could
result from any impression that Judge Hanen has dealt a fatal blow to those programs. From this perspective, if
immigrant communities perceive
DAPA and expanded DACA as vulnerable, then individuals who are eligible for DAPA and expanded DACA might be
intimidated from applying if and when the programs are reinstated . That chilling effect could also extend to
applications to renew deferred action under the original DACA program, even though that program is not affected
by Judge Hanen’s ruling.
No signup – perceived risk of rollback
Josh Gerstein and Adam B. Lerner, 5-26-2015, "Ruling puts Obama's immigration legacy in
jeopardy," POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/barack-obama-executive-actionimmigration-setback-appeals-court-118290.html, accessed 6-23-2015, jwh
One former top immigration official says that regardless of the eventual outcome of the litigation, the
delay is likely to undermine the willingness of immigrants to take the much-vaunted step out of the
shadows.
“I think the longer the program languishes the more uncertainty is going to build. That’s going to create
a reluctance for people to come forward and participate,” said Paul Virtue, a former immigration service
chief counsel now with law firm Mayer Brown.
4
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
5
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
5
MSDI 2015
6
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
CiR turn
The plan prevents comprehensive immigration reform
Geoffrey
Heeren, Associate Professor, Valparaiso University Law School, 2015 "The Status of Nonstatus." American University Law Review 64
On the other hand, nonstatus could calcify. The ability of millions of undocumented individuals to obtain
nonstatus might reduce the pressure to pass actual immigration reform. Business interests that have
historically lobbied for reform might be appeased by the existence of a large new lawful work force.322
The tenuous nature of nonstatus might prevent its holders from pushing too hard for something better
for fear of losing what they have. Even if nonstatus becomes status for the most politically popular
groups, like those with DACA, less visible and less politically connected groups will likely be left out. The
dangers of this situation need to be recognized. Those with nonstatus will contribute to the country’s
tax revenue without receiving their fair share of benefits, such as health care, and for some, social
security retirement. They will be more likely to suffer discrimination and less likely to be protected by
the courts. On the other hand, DHS will grow from nonstatus, gaining more and more officers to process
millions of work permit renewal requests.323 DHS has even claimed that it might be able to shift some
of the fees from DAPA to fund ICE’s and CBP’s enforcement efforts—growing those agencies, too.324
Although the immigration enforcement agencies may be nourished by nonstatus, nonstatus may
guarantee that the United States will never solve its problem of unauthorized immigration. The
Executive Branch justifies most of its nonstatus programs as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion in
the face of an unauthorized population that is larger than what the government is capable of deporting.
In order for it to keep granting nonstatus, therefore, the government must always be faced with a
massive undocumented population .325 Those undocumented immigrants who do not qualify for
nonstatus will likely be subject to a new regime of hyperenforcement with ever-larger levels of
resources directed against them.
6
MSDI 2015
7
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Plan is illegal
DAPA/DACA is illegal – contradicts Congress, no limiting principle, INA doesn’t justify
Ian
Smith, 5-29-2015, Obama Is Suspending the Law Designed to Deter Illegal Immigration, National Review Online,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419030/need-limiting-principle-amnesty-discretion
A key part of the Fifth Circuit’s decision to keep the freeze on President Obama’s amnesty programs was the 25-page dissenting opinion written by the panel’s lone
Obama appointee. Not only does it point to how the bloc-voting liberal justices of the Supreme Court will ultimately treat the case, it almost wholly focuses on the
threshold issue of “prosecutorial
discretion”: an executive-branch power that, if expanded to include mass grants of amnesty, would remove
the last vestige of authority that Congress and the courts have in preventing immigration anarchy at our
nation’s southern border. The “essential point of disagreement” that Judge Stephen Higginson had with Judge Hanen’s lower-court opinion has to do
with the characterization of the president’s amnesty programs. How DAPA and DACA are categorized is crucial for both sides. Obama’s attorneys contend that the
programs are mere exercises of “prosecutorial discretion” on the part of the president. The core case that “forecloses plaintiffs’ arguments” against the
administration’s use of DAPA and DACA, wrote Judge Higginson, is Heckler v. Chaney, where the Supreme Court held that “an agency’s decision not to prosecute or
enforce . . . is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” Finding that these programs were something bigger than mere decisions not to
prosecute, Judge Hanen determined that the Heckler
ruling couldn’t apply to the president’s amnesty. Higginson quotes Hanen’s
characterization of DACA and DAPA, emphasizing that he called them “announced programs of non-enforcement of the law
that contradicts Congress’s statutory goals” and an “abdication of [the government’s] statutory
responsibilities.” The descriptor “announced” is essential here, and Higginson is right to focus on Hanen’s characterization so intently. “Prosecutorial
discretion” refers to the priorities prosecutors sometimes must adopt (almost always in the context of criminal prosecutions) given the operational limits they face.
The Department of Homeland Security has appropriated this concept, asserting that by being able to prosecute illegal aliens according to its own discretion, rather
than the guidelines set forth in our immigration laws, it can save its “limited resources” and better “prioritize” cases that deserve the most attention — e.g.,
convicted felons, illegal aliens who are threats to national security, and so on. But such priorities are not usually “announced” by prosecutors. As liberal law
professor (and immigration attorney) Peter Margulies writes, the
decision to exercise discretion in dealing with wrongdoers
necessarily must be done “in the dark,” not out in the open (as in a nationwide memo). To announce such an
intention is to create “moral hazard,” the concept most commonly used to describe the unintended consequences of insurance. As
Margulies says, “moral hazard arises because individuals who know they will be held harmless for wrongdoing tend to
do more of it” (emphasis added). Letting wrongdoers, such as illegal aliens, apply in advance for a “fixed period of forbearance” (deferred action) would lead
to more of the bad behavior in question, such as overstaying a visa or crossing the border without appropriate documents. Take the case of burglary, says
Margulies. If a person charged with burglary is young and his theft was small, a judge may favor a plea bargain instead of sentencing him to prison. But “it would be
difficult to imagine,” writes Margulies, “prosecutors would solicit applications from known burglars for a ‘burglars’ holiday’ that would guarantee a specific period of
immunity.” Any
discretion that Congress allows for must have a “limiting principle” that narrowly confines the transfer of
a deterring statute. Since its original enactment in 1952, it has been continually amended to better
deter illegal immigration. By announcing an “illegal aliens’ holiday,” the president created the moral hazard of
giving a reprieve to illegal aliens, which has the result of suspending the deterring power of the INA. In a
word, then, DAPA and DACA are an “abdication,” and Judge Hanen is absolutely right. Any discretion a president may have had in
prosecuting illegal aliens and deferring deportations was taken away by the INA’s IIRIRA (Illegal Immigration
authority. The Immigration Nationality Act (INA) is
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) amendments of 1996. Even open-borders pushers like the ACLU agree that the INA as written leads to “mass
deportations”: That is the mandate given to DHS. Even Noam Chomsky agrees with this characterization. President Clinton, he says, “militarized” the border in the
mid-Nineties in anticipation of the implementation of NAFTA. According to Chomsky, because independent Mexican farmers had no way to compete with subsidized
U.S. agribusiness, the “likely consequence would be flight to the United States, joined by those fleeing the countries of Central America.” To say, as Higginson does,
that the INA could possibly forgo its deterrence factor and authorize DAPA and DACA takes some serious mental gymnastics. Any
discretion that
Congress allows for must have a “limiting principle” that narrowly confines the transfer of authority in
question, lest it simply become a runaway power grab . There is no such limitation in DAPA and DACA. Oddly, Judge Higginson inadvertently
supports this argument when he claims throughout his dissent that the “Family Fairness” deferred-action program of 1990 provides legal precedent for the president’s amnesty. That program
makes DAPA and DACA “neither new nor uncommon,” he says. Higginson, however, fails to discuss the limited applicability of that program. Family Fairness grew out of the legislative amnesty
of 1986, when a small number of the beneficiaries’ dependents (mostly children) were left out because of an oversight. Importantly, those children were able to be sponsored after the
beneficiaries became lawful permanent residents. Congress sought to correct this mistake by making provision for this class in the Immigration Act of 1990; in the interim (which lasted several
months), members of this class, despite being illegal aliens, had their deportation proceedings stayed. As law professor Josh Blackman says, the program served as a “temporary bridge from
one status to another,” with Congress granting the children legal status almost immediately after it was put in place. Beneficiaries of DAPA and DACA, by contrast, have no prospect of
obtaining proper legal status. When another Obama-appointed judge, Beryl Howell of the D.C. District Court, raised Family Fairness as “precedent” in her dismissal of Arizona sheriff Joe
Arpaio’s DACA challenge, Margulies said she “failed to acknowledge the distinction between discretion that acted as a bridge to legal status and discretion unmoored to status” (emphasis
7
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
8
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
added). Deferring prosecution for a narrowly defined group of people whose change in status is all but inevitable is the kind of temporary and limited discretion that Congress arguably can give
deferring prosecution for large groups of people is what makes Obama’s amnesty
completely unhinged and a reviewable abdication of duty.
to the president. But
8
MSDI 2015
9
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
**Economy**
9
MSDI 2015
10
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
DAPA can’t solve
Economic benefits overstated
Everett
Rosenfeld, 11-21-2014, "Obama's immigration plan risks backlash," CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102208015, accessed 6-20-2015, jwh
As for the wider U.S. economy, experts said it is unlikely that Obama's executive actions will have a
significant impact on employment or wages. Citing the U.S. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that offered amnesty to about 2.7 million
undocumented immigrants, Evercore concluded that research is mixed on employment-level changes (since many were already participating in the workforce), but
that "most economists
agree ... that new waves of immigration hurt previous immigrants." "The literature is
generally in agreement that the primary beneficiaries of legalization would be the eligible immigrants themselves, with the main benefit being an
increase in earnings as workers formerly in the shadow labor market move to better, higher-paying jobs and earn greater returns on their educations," the Evercore
note said. And
while the real economy may not change much, investors should also not expect to see
major moves in closely followed statistics, according to research from JPMorgan. "We believe it will be hard to
discern any large effects on the data," wrote Michael Feroli, the firm's chief U.S. economist, adding that "we think the
labor market data are
largely immune to changes in the legal status of workers." Even the government's coffers—which would
presumably benefit from more than 4 million expected new taxpayers—may
that about half
not see a big bump from the president's actions. Many experts predict
of undocumented immigrants with jobs have false papers, so they are already paying taxes,
said John Skrentny, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego.
10
MSDI 2015
11
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Economy growing
Economy growing – small businesses, manufacturing, stable oil prices prove
Reuters, 6-9-2015, "Job Openings and Small-Business Confidence Rise, Signaling Stronger Economy,"
New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/business/economy/job-openings-and-smallbusiness-confidence-rise-signaling-stronger-economy.html
WASHINGTON — Job openings in the United States surged to a high in April and small-business confidence
perked up in May, suggesting that the economy was regaining speed after stumbling at the start of 2015. The
increasing strength of the economy was reinforced by other data on Tuesday showing a solid rise in wholesale
inventories in April, in part as oil prices stabilized. “This is more confirmation that the economy is indeed
emerging from that soft patch in the first quarter and can still pick up even faster in the next few months,” said
Christopher Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank in New York. Job openings, a measure of
labor demand, rose 5.2 percent to a seasonally adjusted 5.4 million in April, the highest level since the
survey began in December 2000, the Labor Department said in its monthly Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Survey. Hiring slipped to five million from 5.1 million in March. Economists said the decline
suggested that employers could not find qualified workers for openings. The number of unemployed job
seekers per open job, a measure of labor market slack, fell to 1.6 in April, the lowest level since 2007
and down from 1.7 in March. Tightening labor market conditions were corroborated by a separate
report from the National Federation of Independent Business that showed confidence among small
businesses rising to a five-month high in May. The share of businesses saying they could not fill openings
also increased to 29 percent last month, matching February’s reading, which was the highest since April
2006. The economy contracted at a 0.7 percent annual pace in the first quarter and growth started
slowly in the second quarter, partly because of the lingering effects of a strong dollar and spending cuts
in the energy industry. But a surge in job growth and automobile sales and gains in May factory activity suggest
that the economy is strengthening.
Economy growing – consumer spending
Lucia Mutikani, 6-25-2015, "The Latest Sign That The Economy Is Getting Back on Track," MONEY,
http://time.com/money/3935552/consumer-spending-may-2015/
Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of US economic activity. U.S. consumer spending recorded its largest
increase in nearly six years in May on strong demand for automobiles and other big-ticket items, further
evidence that economic growth was gathering momentum in the second quarter. The Commerce Department
said on Thursday consumer spending increased 0.9% last month, the biggest gain since August 2009,
after an upwardly revised 0.1% rise in April. The sturdy increases suggested households were finally
spending some of the windfall from lower gasoline prices, and capped a month of solid economic reports.
Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, was previously
reported to have been unchanged in April. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast a 0.7% rise in
May. It was the latest sign that growth was accelerating after gross domestic product shrank at a 0.2 percent
annual rate in the first quarter as the economy battled bad weather, port disruptions, a strong dollar
and spending cuts in the energy sector. From employment to the housing market, the economic data in May
11
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
12
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
has been bullish. Even manufacturing, which is struggling with the lingering effects of dollar strength and
lower energy prices, also is starting to stabilize.
Economy stable
Chico Harlan, 5-29-2015, "U.S. economy shrinks in first quarter, raising questions about underlying
strength," Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/29/analysts-expect-decline-in-u-s-gdpin-first-quarter/
In a speech last week, Janet L. Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve, said that growth would likely be
“moderate” over the rest of the year. But she also said that the world’s largest economy remains on solid
ground, largely because of strong hiring, gains in disposable income and cheap borrowing costs. As momentum
picks up, the central bank is expected to raise interest rates, which have stayed near zero for 6½ years.
That move could come in the second half of the year. Even as the economy has slowed, the labor market
has remained fairly strong, with companies hiring at a pace well above what has been seen for much of the
recovery. Eventually, economists say, either hiring will slow to sync with GDP or the economy will catch
up with job growth.
12
MSDI 2015
13
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Agriculture not key
Ag not key to the economy.
Fran Smith 2006 (May 6) “Time to End Big Sugar's Sweet Deal” (Board Member and Adjunct Fellow at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute) < http://cei.org/news-letters-cei-planet/time-end-big-sugarssweet-deal>
But the U.S. agricultural sector has changed radically since the 1930s. Today, very large and highly
mechanized farms predominate, employing substantially fewer people. With the U.S. a highly diversified
economy in the 21st century, farming accounted for only 1.4 percent of total U.S. employment in 2001,
and only 0.7 percent of U.S. GDP.
13
MSDI 2015
14
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
A2 Unions
DAPA insufficient for unionization
E. Tammy Kim is a Features Staff Writer at Al Jazeera America, 11-21-2014, "Obama's executive action
is about labor policy, not just immigration," Al Jazeera America,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/21/executive-orderaboutlaborpolicynotjustimmigration.html
One industry-specific provision the unions pushed for — a process making it easier for high skilled,
entrepreneurial immigrants to stay — made it into Obama’s plan. But other proposals did not: There will
be no special consideration for farmworkers, a peripatetic labor force considered particularly vulnerable
by some. Nor will there be deferred action for workers complaining of wage violations or other unlawful
employer conduct, despite the efforts of advocates like Josh Stehlik, a lawyer at the National
Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles. Attorneys familiar with White House discussions believe the
deferred-action program will roll out in stages, beginning with a spring pilot, then a larger group over
the summer. The application could mimic that for DACA, which requires a fee of $465 and proof of
continuous presence. Stehlik worries that some low-wage undocumented workers will have difficulty
assembling such evidence, given their tendency to live and work in the informal economy. Alina Das, a
clinical law professor at New York University, has a more basic concern: that thousands of otherwise
eligible immigrants will be barred from applying due to past criminal convictions. With two years of
DACA applications and renewals under their belt, “DACAmented” youth and immigration lawyers are
getting ready for this next round of deferred action. They will prioritize community outreach and warn
hopeful immigrants about immigration fraudsters. “The thing with [deferred action] that we need to
make clear is that, while you get a work permit and are low priority for deportation, it’s not a status. You
can’t travel. You can’t petition for people,” said Natalia Lucak of New York Legal Assistance Group. Even
so, those who have benefited from DACA wish Obama’s executive action would go farther. “What we’re
concerned with is that our parents will be left out,” said Jeff Louie, a recent college graduate who works
as a graphic designer with DACA work authorization. “My family is different because my brother’s a
citizen and my parents are green-card holders, … but what about the [undocumented] parents of people
with DACA?” Louie and his friends, many from mixed-status families, are realistic. “I think we have zero
expectations. It’s a ‘don’t get our hopes up’ kind of thing.”
14
MSDI 2015
15
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
US not key to global
US not key to global economy
NYT (New York Times) July 2009 “In Asia, a Derided Theory Returns”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDE163EF932A35754C0A96F9C8B63&pagewant
ed=1
For a while, when the global economic crisis was at its worst, it was a dirty word that only the most provocative of analysts dared to use. Now,
the D-word -- decoupling -- is making a comeback, and nowhere more so than in Asia. Put simply, the term refers
to the theory
that emerging countries -- whether China or Chile -- will become more independent of the ups and downs in the
United States as their economies become stronger and more sophisticated. For much of last year, the theory
held up. Many emerging economies had steered clear of investments that dragged down a string of banking behemoths in the West, and saw
nothing like the turmoil that began to engulf the United States and Europe in 2007. But then, last autumn, when the collapse of Lehman
Brothers caused the global financial system to convulse and consumer demand to shrivel, emerging economies around the world got caught in
the downdraft, and the D-word became mud. Now, the tables
are turning again, especially in Asia, where many emerging
economies are showing signs of a stronger recovery than in the West. And economists here have begun to use the Dword in public once again. ''Decoupling is happening for real,'' the chief Asia-Pacific economist at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong,
Michael Buchanan, said in a recent interview. Or as the senior Asia economist at HSBC, Frederic Neumann, said, ''Decoupling is not a dirty
word.'' To be sure, the once sizzling pace of Asian economic growth has slowed sharply as exports to and investments from outside the region
slumped. Across Asia, millions of people have lost their jobs as business drops off and companies cut costs and output. Asia is heavily
dependent upon selling its products to consumers in the United States and Europe, and many executives still say a strong U.S. economy is a
prerequisite for a return to the boom of years past. Nevertheless, the theory of decoupling is back on the table. For the past couple of months,
data from around the world have revealed a growing divergence between Western economies and
those in much of Asia, notably China and India. The World Bank last week forecast that the economies of the euro zone and
the United States would contract 4.5 percent and 3 percent, respectively, this year -- in sharp contrast to the 7.2 percent and 5.1 percent
economic growth it forecasts for China and India. Forecasts from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that were also
published last week backed up this general trend. Major statistics for June, due Wednesday, are expected to show manufacturing activity in
China and India are on the mend. By contrast, purchasing managers' indexes for Europe and the United States are forecast to be merely less
grim than before but still show contractions. Why this diverging picture? The crisis hit Asia much later. While the U.S. economy began
languishing in 2007, Asian economies were still doing well right up until the collapse of Lehman Brothers last September. What followed was a
rush of stimulus measures -- rate cuts and government spending programs. In Asia's case, these came soon after things soured for the region; in
the United States, they came much later in the country's crisis. Moreover, developing
Asian economies were in pretty good
shape when the crisis struck. The last major crisis to hit the region -- the financial turmoil of 1997-98 -- forced
governments in Asia to introduce overhauls that ultimately left them with lower debt levels, more
resilient banking and regulatory systems and often large foreign exchange reserves. Another crucial difference is
that Asia, unlike the United States and Europe, has not had a banking crisis. Bank profits in Asia have plunged and some have had to raise extra
capital but there have been no major collapses and no bailouts. ''The single most important thing to have happened in Asia is that there has not
been a banking crisis,'' said Andrew Freris, a regional strategist at BNP Paribas in Hong Kong. ''Asia is coming though this crisis with its banking
system intact. Yes, some banks may not be making profits -- but it is cyclical and not systemic.''
15
MSDI 2015
16
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Economy resilient
Econ resilient
Fareed Zakaria (editor of Newsweek International) December 2009 “The Secrets of Stability,”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425/page/2]
One year ago, the world seemed as if it might be coming apart. The global financial system, which had fueled
a great expansion of capitalism and trade across the world, was crumbling. All the certainties of the age of globalization—about the
virtues of free markets, trade, and technology—were being called into question. Faith in the American model had collapsed. The financial
industry had crumbled. Once-roaring emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil were sinking. Worldwide trade was shrinking to a degree
not seen since the 1930s. Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated predicted
we were doomed to a long, painful
bust, with cascading failures in sector after sector, country after country. In a widely cited essay that appeared in
The Atlantic n this May, Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, wrote: "The conventional wisdom among
the elite is still that the current slump 'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse
than the Great Depression."
Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political instability and
violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair,
cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations
over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest
in several emerging markets. Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again. Not the financial industry, not capitalism,
not globalization. One year later, how much has the world really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer
investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely
unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by
responses to the crisis—soaring debt and fears of inflation. But overall, things
look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The
predictions of economic and political collapse have not materialized at all. A key measure of fear and fragility is the
ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So consider this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have
returned 168 percent so far this year. All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return to some level of normalcy. And that
rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The question I have at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says
Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to business as usual?"This revival did not happen
because markets
managed to stabilize themselves on their own. Rather, governments, having learned the lessons of the
massively expanding state support
for the economy—through central banks and national treasuries—they buffered the worst of the damage. (Whether they
Great Depression, were determined not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis hit. By
made new mistakes in the process remains to be seen.) The extensive social safety nets that have been established across the industrialized
world also cushioned the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but things are nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s, when governments
played a tiny role in national economies. It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: the
cheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock and
bond markets. Yet these rallies also demonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a very powerful economic force. When John
Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action could provide only a temporary fix until
the real motor of the economy started cranking again—the animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking risk and profit.
Beyond all this, though, I believe there's
a fundamental reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last year.
It is the same reason that we weathered the stock-market crash of 1987, the recession of 1992, the
Asian crisis of 1997, the Russian default of 1998, and the tech-bubble collapse of 2000. The current
global economic system is inherently more resilient than we think. The world today is characterized by
three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.
16
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
17
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Econ resilient
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October
2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,”
http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_TheIrony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
It is equally possible, however, that a renewed crisis would trigger a renewed surge in policy
coordination . As John Ikenberry has observed, “the complex interdependence that is unleashed in an
open and loosely rule-based order generates some expanding realms of exchange and investment that
result in a growing array of firms, interest groups and other sorts of political stakeholders who seek to
preserve the stability and openness of the system.”103 The post-2008 economic order has remained
open , entrenching these interests even more across the globe. Despite uncertain times, the open
economic system that has been in operation since 1945 does not appear to be closing anytime soon.
It’s resilient
Globe and Mail ‘10
(5/31/10, BRIAN MILNER, "While gloom says bear, TIGER points to bull", lexis, WEA)
Even at the height of the remarkable rebound of 2009 that brought stocks back from the dead zone, the bears never
retreated to their lairs. Negative sentiment among investors remained stubbornly high, no matter how promising
the economic indicators looked. And then along came the Greeks and their little sovereign debt problem, the Chinese
and their public hand-wringing over asset bubbles and the North Koreans and their latest idiotic sabre-ratting to remind
nervous markets just how fragile the nascent global recovery could turn out to be. The latest survey of American investors last week showed bearish sentiment
hovering close to 30 per cent, with plenty of room for an uptick in the months ahead, as the optimists come to realize that a V-shaped recovery was never in the
cards after the worst global financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. The world's most overexposed permabear, Nouriel Roubini, is still grabbing
headlines with his dire Greece-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg warnings. (Well, he does have a new book to sell.) And such high-profile Canadian bruins as gold-loving
money manager Eric Sprott and eminent strategist and data miner David Rosenberg have never veered from their sombre outlooks. The fact that May turned into a
particularly brutal month for just about everything but U.S. Treasuries - even after last week's modest rebound, the Dow posted its worst performance for the
month in 70 years - only added fuel to arguments that worse, much worse, is yet to come. I mention all this to Eswar Prasad, when I reach the Cornell University
economics professor at his hotel in Beijing. Prof. Prasad is a noted China watcher who once headed the IMF's China division and still keeps in close touch with top
government finance officials. But on this call, I'm more interested in one of his other hats as a shrewd analyst of global economic and market trends. "My
inclination also is to be a bear," the affable academic says. "But the data don't support
my
bearishness
as much as I
would like. One
has to be a little cautious, because these are based on a variety of indicators. Some of them certainly show more
strength than I had realized." The data he's talking about come out of his work on a new composite index derived from a broad set of economic,
market and confidence measures in the G20 countries and designed to provide a quarterly snapshot of the global recovery. "All signs are that the recovery has some
momentum," says Prof. Prasad, who developed the index at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank where he is also a senior fellow. "But I wouldn't call
it solid enough momentum that we can consider it 'in the bag.'" The
new index, cutely named TIGER (Tracking Indices for the Global Economic Recovery), is
that since the world began climbing out of the deep
trough about the middle of last year, big emerging economies have roared ahead, while the developed world has experienced much
more uneven results. Industrial production and trade have bounced back handsomely - total exports from the big emerging
countries now exceed pre-crisis levels - but the employment picture remains cloudy and consumption has yet to develop a new head of steam. " It's much
easier at this stage to list all the things that could derail the recovery," Prof. Prasad says. "But all of those things are still conjectural.
The reality, and the data, is that things are looking better."
a joint effort by Brookings and the Financial Times. And TIGER shows
17
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
18
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Fungibility guarantees economic flexibility – no collapse
Eugene Gholz (an associate professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin) Daryl G.
Press (an associate professor of government at Dartmouth College) Harvey M. Sapolsky (a professor
of public policy and organization at MIT) and Benjamin H. Friedman (research fellow in defense and
homeland security studies at Cato Institute) Fall 2009 “Restraining Order: For Strategic Modesty”
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/articles/2009-Fall/full-Sapolsky-etal-Fall-2009.html
Under a policy of restraint, the United States would remain deeply enmeshed in the global economy.
U.S. firms will continue to sell their products abroad as eagerly as they do now, and consumers around
the world will still buy American products. Nor would the adoption of restraint affect the movement of
global capital. American investors will still seek high returns abroad, and foreigners will still invest in
the United States. Some policy analysts suggest that political instability abroad would disrupt the
global economy, interfering with trade and investment. They presume that growing economic
interdependence means that the United States has an economic interest in policing the globe. Although
globalization heightens economic ties between countries, those ties mitigate U.S. vulnerability to
overseas shocks. Globalization has multiplied the alternatives for almost every economic
relationship. There are now alternative suppliers for the goods we consume, alternative consumers
for the products we manufacture, alternative locations in which we can invest, and alternative
sources of capital for our firms. A common metaphor for the global economy—a complex
web—is on the mark. The structure of that web can survive even if a few strands are
severed. Profit-seeking actors respond quickly to disruptions by searching for the nextbest alternative. If there is trouble in the Strait of Malacca, ships will quickly reroute through the
nearly-as-convenient Straits of Lombok or Makassar. If disruptions abroad make it harder to sell U.S.
bicycles in Korea, manufacturers will sell them in Portugal. Because of globalization, the United States
depends more on access to the global economy as a whole but depends less on any specific
economic relationship. The oil market seems to stand out as an exception. Disruptions to oil supply
routinely cause huge price spikes and painful adjustments. But the danger of oil disruptions does not
require that Washington police the Middle East; rather, the United States ought to retain large
stockpiles of oil and other critical materials. The U.S. government has already amassed approximately
700 million barrels of oil. If you add the stockpiles in the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and
China, the total for the industrialized world is approximately 1.5 billion barrels of oil. And those are only
government-controlled stocks; most analysts believe private holdings exceed official stockpiles. When
one compares these massive reserves against plausible disruptions, government-controlled stockpiles
alone count as more than sufficient to maintain global supply. The extreme flexibility of the global
economy adds to restraint’s appeal as a strategy for the United States. The global economy is not a
rigid chain with links that must be protected. It is a flexible, constantly changing web that needs no
global policeman to direct its traffic
18
MSDI 2015
19
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
1NC Economy – no war
Econ collapse doesn’t cause war – prefer our studies
Samuel Bazzi (Department of Economics at University of California San Diego) and Christopher
Blattman (assistant professor of political science and economics at Yale University) November 2011
“Economic Shocks and Conflict: The (Absence of?) Evidence from Commodity Prices”
http://www.chrisblattman.com/documents/research/2011.EconomicShocksAndConflict.pdf?9d7bd4
VI. Discussion and conclusions A. Implications for our theories of political instability and conflict The
state is not a prize?—Warlord politics and the state prize logic lie at the center of the most influential
models of conflict, state development, and political transitions in economics and political science. Yet
we see no evidence for this idea in economic shocks, even when looking at the friendliest cases: fragile
and unconstrained states dominated by extractive commodity revenues. Indeed, we see the opposite
correlation: if anything, higher rents from commodity prices weakly 22 lower the risk and length of
conflict. Perhaps shocks are the wrong test. Stocks of resources could matter more than price shocks
(especially if shocks are transitory). But combined with emerging evidence that war onset is no more
likely even with rapid increases in known oil reserves (Humphreys 2005; Cotet and Tsui 2010) we regard
the state prize logic of war with skepticism.17 Our main political economy models may need a new
engine. Naturally, an absence of evidence cannot be taken for evidence of absence. Many of our conflict
onset and ending results include sizeable positive and negative effects.18 Even so, commodity price
shocks are highly influential in income and should provide a rich source of identifiable variation in
instability. It is difficult to find a better-measured, more abundant, and plausibly exogenous
independent variable than price volatility. Moreover, other time-varying variables, like rainfall and
foreign aid, exhibit robust correlations with conflict in spite of suffering similar empirical drawbacks and
generally smaller sample sizes (Miguel et al. 2004; Nielsen et al. 2011). Thus we take the absence of
evidence seriously. Do resource revenues drive state capacity?—State prize models assume that rising
revenues raise the value of the capturing the state, but have ignored or downplayed the effect of
revenues on self-defense. We saw that a growing empirical political science literature takes just such a
revenue-centered approach, illustrating that resource boom times permit both payoffs and repression,
and that stocks of lootable or extractive resources can bring political order and stability. This
countervailing effect is most likely with transitory shocks, as current revenues are affected while long
term value is not. Our findings are partly consistent with this state capacity effect. For example, conflict
intensity is most sensitive to changes in the extractive commodities rather than the annual agricultural
crops that affect household incomes more directly. The relationship only holds for conflict intensity,
however, and is somewhat fragile. We do not see a large, consistent or robust decline in conflict or coup
risk when prices fall. A reasonable interpretation is that the state prize and state capacity effects are
either small or tend to cancel one another out. Opportunity cost: Victory by default?—Finally, the
inverse relationship between prices and war intensity is consistent with opportunity cost accounts, but
not exclusively so. As we noted above, the relationship between intensity and extractive commodity
prices is more consistent with the state capacity view. Moreover, we shouldn’t mistake an inverse
relation between individual aggression and incomes as evidence for the opportunity cost mechanism.
The same correlation is consistent with psychological theories of stress and aggression (Berkowitz 1993)
19
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
20
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
and sociological and political theories of relative deprivation and anomie (Merton 1938; Gurr 1971).
Microempirical work will be needed to distinguish between these mechanisms. Other reasons for a null
result.—Ultimately, however, the fact that commodity price shocks have no discernible effect on new
conflict onsets, but some effect on ongoing conflict, suggests that political stability might be less
sensitive to income or temporary shocks than generally believed. One possibility is that successfully
mounting an insurgency is no easy task. It comes with considerable risk, costs, and coordination
challenges. Another possibility is that the counterfactual is still conflict onset. In poor and fragile
nations, income shocks of one type or another are ubiquitous. If a nation is so fragile that a change in
prices could lead to war, then other shocks may trigger war even in the absence of a price shock. The
same argument has been made in debunking the myth that price shocks led to fiscal collapse and low
growth in developing nations in the 1980s.19 B. A general problem of publication bias? More generally,
these findings should heighten our concern with publication bias in the conflict literature. Our results
run against a number of published results on commodity shocks and conflict, mainly because of select
samples, misspecification, and sensitivity to model assumptions, and, most importantly, alternative
measures of instability. Across the social and hard sciences, there is a concern that the majority of
published research findings are false (e.g. Gerber et al. 2001). Ioannidis (2005) demonstrates that a
published finding is less likely to be true when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of
tested relationships; there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and models; and when
more teams are involved in the chase of statistical significance. The cross-national study of conflict is an
extreme case of all these. Most worryingly, almost no paper looks at alternative dependent variables or
publishes systematic robustness checks. Hegre and Sambanis (2006) have shown that the majority of
published conflict results are fragile, though they focus on timeinvariant regressors and not the timevarying shocks that have grown in popularity. We are also concerned there is a “file drawer problem”
(Rosenthal 1979). Consider this decision rule: scholars that discover robust results that fit a theoretical
intuition pursue the results; but if results are not robust the scholar (or referees) worry about problems
with the data or empirical strategy, and identify additional work to be done. If further analysis produces
a robust result, it is published. If not, back to the file drawer. In the aggregate, the consequences are
dire: a lower threshold of evidence for initially significant results than ambiguous ones.20
20
MSDI 2015
21
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
2NC Economy – no war
Economic collapse doesn’t cause war – no causal connection
Thomas P.M. Barnett (senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC and a contributing editor/online
columnist for Esquire magazine) August 2009 “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis”
http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of
scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great
Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over
the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact
whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing
conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last
new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a
year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity
conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly,
the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening
ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S.
presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia
and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture:
the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the
recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v.
Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to
global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major
interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the
planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g.,
the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia,
mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much
let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa
Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum
up: * No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year
in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); * The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the
usual places); * Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power
crises even triggered); * No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the
emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); * A modest scaling back of international
policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and * No
serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst
things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere
and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include
China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen
global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to
21
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
22
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If
anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power
dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political
radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed
by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade.
In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage
(in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into
"trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and
regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was
inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's
growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And
looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as
disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently
frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has
sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of
the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have
attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like
between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production
chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for
wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined,
so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the
great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect to read any
analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic fearmongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.
22
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
23
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Economic collapse doesn’t cause war
Jervis, professor of political science – Columbia University, ‘11
(Robert, Force in Our Times,” Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of
interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the
members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example,
perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current
economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring
back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard
to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to
contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the
point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything
seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme
versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited , it is hard to see how without
building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to
believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that
problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be
solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did
before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we
have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the
solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict , it will not make
war thinkable .
No impact to economic decline – empirically proven
Ferguson, 2006 (Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University.
He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a
Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution,
Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct)
Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in
modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of
World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in
Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great
Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of
aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for
the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather
than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not
followed by wars.
23
MSDI 2015
24
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
1NC Econ not key to heg
Economic power not key to hegemony
Kapila 2010 (Dr. Subhash Kapila is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst and the
Consultant for Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group and a graduate of the Royal British Army
Staff College with a Masters in Defence Science and a PhD in Strategic Studies, June 26, 2010, “21st
Century: Strategically A Second American Century With Caveats,”
http://www.eurasiareview.com/201006263919/21st-century-strategically-a-second-american-centurywith-caveats.html)
Strategically, the 20th Century was decidedly an American Century. United States strategic, military,
political and economic predominance was global and undisputed. In the bi-polar global power structure comprising the United States and
the Former Soviet Union it was the United States which globally prevailed. The 20th Century's dawn was marked by the First World War which marked the decline of the old European
colonial powers, noticeably Great Britain. The Second World War marked the total eclipse of Great Britain and other colonial powers. The United States replaced Great Britain as the new
global superpower. The 20th Century's end witnessed the end of the Cold War, with the disintegration of the Former Soviet Union as the United States strategic challenger and counter-vailing
On the verge of the new millennium the United States strode the globe like a colossus as the sole
global super power. With a decade of the 21st Century having gone past, many strategic and political
analysts the world over have toyed with projections that United States global predominance is on the
decline, and that the 21st Century will not be a second American Century. Having toyed, with such projections, these analysts however shy away from predicting whose century the 21st
Century will strategically be? The trouble with such projections is that they are based predominantly on analyses of
economic trends and financial strengths and less on detailed analyses of strategic and military strengths,
and more significantly strategic cultures. Presumably, it is easier for such analysts to base trends on much
quoted statistical data. Strategic analysis of global predominance trends is a more complex task in the opinion
of the Author, as it cannot be based on statistical data analysis. Global predominance trends need unravelling of strategic cultures of
contending powers, the reading of national intentions and resolve and the inherent national strengths and willpower demonstrated over a
considerable time span of half-centuries and centuries. Crisply put, one needs to remember that in the
1980's, Japan and Germany as "economic superpowers" could not emerge as global superpowers. Hence
global predominance calls for more than economic strengths. The United States getting strategically
bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first decade of the 21st Century has not led to any
noticeable decline in American global predominance. Despite Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States reigns
supreme globally even in East Asia where China could have logically challenged it. More significantly, and normally
forgotten, is the fact that the off-quoted shift of global and economic power from the West to East was facilitated
by United States massive financial direct investments in China, Japan, South Korea and India. China quoted
as the next superpower to rival the United States would be economically prostate, should the United States surgically
disconnect China's economic and financial linkages to the United States. More significantly, while examining the prospects of the
21st Century as a "Second American Century" it must be remembered that besides other factors, that out of the six multipolar contenders for global
power, none except China have shown any indications to whittle down US global predominance. Even
China seems to be comfortable with US power as long as it keeps Japan in check. This Paper makes bold to assert that the
21st Century would be a Second American Century despite China's challenge and the strategic
distractions arising from the global Islamic flash-points.
power.
24
MSDI 2015
25
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
1NC Hegemony defense
Heg doesn’t solve war
Barbara Conry (former associate policy analyst, was a public relations consultant at Hensley Segal
Rentschler and an expert on security issues in the Middle East, Western Europe, and Central Asia at the
CATO Institute) and Charles V. Pena (Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute as well as a senior
fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform
Project at the CATO Institute) 2003 “47. US Security Strategy” CATO Handbook for Congress,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-47.pdf
Another rationale for attempting to manage global security is that a world without U.S. hegemony
would soon degenerate into a tangle of chaos and instability, in which weapons proliferation, genocide,
terrorism, and other offensive activities would be rampant. Prophets of such a development hint that if
the United States fails to exercise robust political and military leadership today, the world is condemned
to repeat the biggest mistakes of the 20th century—or perhaps do something even worse. Such thinking
is seriously flawed. First, instability in the international system is nothing new, and most episodes do not
affect U.S. vital interests. Furthermore, to assert that U.S. global leadership can stave off otherwise
inevitable global chaos vastly overstates the power of any single country to influence world events.
Indeed, many of the problems that plague the world today, such as civil wars and ethnic strife, are
largely impervious to external solutions. There is little to back up an assertion that only Washington’s
management of international security can save the world from political, economic, or military
conflagration.
25
MSDI 2015
26
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
2NC Hegemony defense
No war – empirically proven
Christopher J. Fettweis (Professor of national security affairs @ U.S. Naval War College) 2010 “Threat
and Anxiety in US Foreign Policy,” Survival, Volume 52, Issue 2 April 2010 , pages 59 – 82
One potential explanation for the growth of global peace can be dismissed fairly quickly: US actions do
not seem to have contributed much. The limited evidence suggests that there is little reason to believe
in the stabilising power of the US hegemon, and that there is no relation between the relative level of
American activism and international stability. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its
defence spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on
defence in real terms than it had in 1990, a 25% reduction.29 To internationalists, defence hawks and
other believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible 'peace dividend' endangered both national and
global security. 'No serious analyst of American military capabilities', argued neo-conservatives William
Kristol and Robert Kagan in 1996, 'doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet
America's responsibilities to itself and to world peace'.30 And yet the verdict from the 1990s is fairly
plain: the world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe
that its security was endangered by a less-capable US military, or at least none took any action that
would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums; no security
dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races; no regional balancing occurred once the stabilis-ing presence
of the US military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was
not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in US military capabilities. Most of all, the United States
was no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its
military spending under President Bill Clinton, and kept declining as the George W. Bush administration
ramped the spending back up. Complex statistical analysis is unnecessary to reach the conclusion that
world peace and US military expenditure are unrelated.
26
MSDI 2015
27
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
**Agriculture**
27
MSDI 2015
28
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Agriculture turn
DAPA decreases migrant farm labor – they will take other jobs
Jeff Daniels, 1-8-2015, "Immigrant rule to mean fewer—not more—farm workers," CNBC,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102321742
A recent executive action by President Barack Obama to protect some 5 million illegal immigrants from
deportation may have the paradoxical effect of making it harder for farmers to find workers as they
leave agriculture for better work elsewhere. "The people who are here that are subject to the executive
order may choose to go to another industry and work in a field where it's not such intensive labor
outdoors. It's not seasonal; it's 12 months of the year where they get benefits," said Tom Nassif,
president and CEO of Western Growers, the California and Arizona trade group representing producers
for about half the fruits and vegetables in the country.
DAPA backfires – increases labor shortages
Daniel
Costa, Director of Immigration Law and Policy Research @ Economic Policy Institute, 1-7-2015, "Agribusiness Reveals its Dislike of Deferred Action for
Unauthorized Immigrants," Economic Policy Institute, http://www.epi.org/blog/agribusiness-reveals-dislike-deferred-action-unauthorized-immigrants/
I always suspected that the
agricultural industry would not support deferred action or any DAPA-like program, but until now the
industry had been relatively quiet about their position. My assumption was that—because unauthorized immigrants comprise such a large share of the workforce
employed in agricultural occupations, and because ag employers directly benefit from having unauthorized immigrant employees who can’t complain about
dangerous workplaces where pesticides are in the air and extreme, triple-digit temperatures are the norm—they
would find objectionable
anything that increased farmworkers’ bargaining power or that allowed them to move to better-paying
jobs in other industries. Because unauthorized immigrants don’t have a lot of bargaining power and are mostly employed by bosses willing to violate
the law, they can’t easily get a job anywhere else, which means they have to put up with the low wages that are on offer in ag. So I was pleasantly surprised to see
some truth seep out onto the airwaves, thanks to a three-minute interview conducted by Tucker Carlson the other day on Fox and Friends, which sheds some light
on what the ag industry really thinks about DAPA. In the clip above, Carlson speaks with Ken Barbic, Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs (translation:
corporate lobbyist) for the Western Growers Association, a powerful industry trade association that lobbies on behalf of ag employers. The heading for the segment
reads, “Who is hurt by President’s immigration deal?” and Barbic is mainly on the show to relay the industry’s complaint that the ag industry faces a shortage of
farmworkers in the neighborhood of “15 to 20 percent.” Here’s the relevant part of the exchange: CARLSON: “…why will
[DAPA] make it harder for
you all to find workers?” BARBIC: “…it’s going to result in a number of workers that are currently working [in
agriculture] potentially leaving the industry.” Barbic is concerned that workers employed in agriculture who are
issued employment authorization documents from the federal government via DAPA will suddenly be
empowered to leave and find jobs in other industries. Why? Because the wages and working conditions on
offer for farmworkers are pitiful. Barbic won’t say this out loud, but it’s the truth. Instead he alludes to the bogus argument that Americans refuse
to work as farmworkers (even though almost 30 percent of farmworkers are U.S.-born citizens).
Doesn’t solve agriculture – they’ll leave farm work
Everett
Rosenfeld, 11-21-2014, "Obama's immigration plan risks backlash," CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102208015, accessed 6-20-2015, jwh
President Barack Obama's
new immigration plan may end up doing the most damage to the very sectors that
begged for reform. The White House boasted Thursday the president's historic executive actions on immigration will help the U.S. economy, but some
predicted it will actually harm Americans' wages. More surprisingly, however, is the possibility that a new legal status for
undocumented workers may actually increase low-skill labor shortages across the country, said J. Edward Taylor,
professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Davis. "When agricultural workers become legalized
their mobility increases, and their likelihood of leaving farm work goes up," he said. Taylor's research demonstrates that
28
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
29
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
the pool of low-skill agricultural workers is on a steady decline, with no sign the trend is ending soon. This is largely due not to
flawed immigration policy, as many industries complain, but to economic and educational strides in Mexico. Increasingly few Mexicans, he explained, have reason
to come to America to work low-skill jobs—and no amount of reform can help this in the long run.
29
MSDI 2015
30
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Mechanization turn
Dependence on foreign labor for agriculture prevents innovation and guarantees
collapse
Mark
Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, June 2001, "Guestworker Programs: A Threat to American Agriculture," Center
for Immigration Studies, http://cis.org/GuestworkerPrograms-AmericanAgriculture, accessed 6-16-2015, jwh
But whether the agricultural workforce is inflated through affirmative means — by a formal guestworker program, as is now being considered — or tacitly,
through toleration of illegal immigration, the result for American agriculture is the same: an
artificially low price of labor, resulting in
slowed mechanization and stagnating harvest productivity. This sows the seeds of a competitive
meltdown in the future , as it becomes increasingly untenable for American fruit and vegetable farmers
to compete on the basis of labor costs with low-wage countries. Such competitive difficulties are sure to be followed by successful demands that Congress
enact direct subsidies for farmers grown accustomed to relying on cheap labor. This would seem contrary to Congress's recent moves to phase out many other
agricultural subsidies. The period from 1960 to 1975 — roughly from the end of the Bracero program to the beginning of the mass illegal immigration we are still
experiencing today — was a period of considerable mechanization, with the average labor-hours per acre used in harvesting horticultural crops dropping 20
percent. But a continuing increase in the acreage and number of crops harvested mechanically did not materialize as expected, in large part because the supply of
workers remained artificially large due to the growing illegal immigration we were politically unwilling to stop. This is not to say there has been no growth in
agricultural labor productivity. In fact, between 1960 and 1994, the quantity of farm output doubled, while farm employment shrank by 57 percent. But such a
broad indicator means little, since it includes not only the production of lettuce in California, but also corn in Iowa, cotton in Alabama, and cranberries in
Massachusetts. In states with labor-intensive fruit and vegetable sectors, there was a smaller decrease in overall farm employment, and even that shrinkage masked
what was really happening — a sharp decrease in the numbers of actual farmers and their families working the soil, offset by an actual increase in the number of
hired (usually foreign) laborers. Mass access to foreign labor is thus recreating the plantation style of agriculture once prevalent in the South and now dominant in
states like California and Florida. Even with a large pool of cheap foreign labor, there will always be some increases in harvest labor productivity. Capital or machines
are normally substituted for workers when wages rise, but there may be reasons to substitute capital for labor that aren't related to wages. For example, as water
became scarcer and more costly in the 1980s and 1990s in California, more farmers turned to drip irrigation — it uses less water and, almost as an afterthought,
also saves millions of hours of labor. Similarly, picking wine grapes by machine can improve the quality of the wine in hotter areas because the machines can harvest
at night, so most of California's wine grapes are now picked by machine. But the basic truth still holds — foreign
farm labor keeps wages low
and serves as a disincentive to mechanization. In fact, the wages of farmworkers have been decreasing over the past
decade. A March 2000 report from the Labor Department found that the real wages of farmworkers have fallen from $6.89 per hour in 1989 to $6.18 per hour in
1998. A new guestworker program, or continued
official encouragement of illegal immigration, is likely to continue this
downward trend in farmworker wages. This may seem superficially appealing to farmers, but from a competitive point of view, vying with
low-wage countries on the basis of labor costs is a dead end — no modern society, will ever be willing to reduce farmworkers' wages enough to match those paid in
third world countries. The
importation of foreign farmworkers also leads to very inefficient use of labor, further
hampering productivity growth. The same March 2000 Labor Department report found widespread under-employment — the average number of
weeks a farmworker works in agriculture has dropped from 26 weeks in 1990-92 to 24 weeks in 1996-98. The average farmworker spent only about 47 percent of
his time in U.S. farm work, compared with 19 percent of his time unemployed in the U.S., 8 percent of his time in U.S. non-farm employment, and 24 percent of his
time living abroad. This inefficient utilization of farm labor is also reflected in the fact that the unemployment rate for farmworkers between 1994 and 1998 was
routinely more than double the rate for all occupations, according to a December 1999 report from the Congressional Research Service. Ironically, the artificial
expansion of the agricultural labor market not only dissuades our farmers from exploiting America's
comparative advantage in technology and capital, but using cheap foreign labor to produce fruit and
vegetables for export actually subsidizes foreign consumers, since about one-fifth of our country's fruit, vegetable, and
horticultural production is exported. Subsidies for Americans are problematic enough, but subsidies for foreigners are difficult to justify in any conception of the
national interest.
30
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
31
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Immigration enforcement leads to innovation – meatpacking industry proves
Phillip
Martin, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, 2013, "Migration and US agricultural competitiveness."
Migration Letters 10.2 (2013): 159-179.
If farm labour costs were to rise, history suggests that the flexibility
in production agriculture is likely to lie on the demand
rather than the supply side of the labour market. This means that, if wages were to rise 20 or 30 per cent, it is
more likely that farmers would respond by reducing the demand for farm workers via labour-saving
innovations rather than induce more US workers into the fields. Some commodities that defy mechanization would likely be
imported, as with fresh asparagus and green onions. US agriculture is a case of migrant workers improving competitiveness in the short run by
holding down wages and reducing competitiveness in the long run as lower labour costs discourage productivity
improvements. In a globalizing world, what many farmers feel is necessary in the short term could be harmful to
US agriculture in the long run. In contrast to production agriculture, the availability of migrant workers may have
hastened productivity improvements in meatpacking as it shifted from smaller urban to larger rural plants. Newer facilities nearer to
animals were often in places with few people, so that the availability of migrants arguably helped to spur productivity growth and competitiveness.
Meatpacking wages dropped as the industry moved from urban to rural areas, and were stagnant despite the fact that
workers were represented by unions in many plants. However, enforcement in 2005-06 reversed the share of Hispanics in
meatpacking and encouraged many meatpackers to enrol in EVerify, the federal internet-based system that allows employers to check the legal status of
new hires. A combination of enforcement, recession, and higher wages reversed the rising share of migrants in the more
modern meatpacking industry.
Mechanization solves better than migrant labor
Mark
Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, June 2001, "Guestworker Programs: A Threat to American Agriculture," Center
for Immigration Studies, http://cis.org/GuestworkerPrograms-AmericanAgriculture, accessed 6-16-2015, jwh
The dependence
of our horticultural sector on foreign labor is a genuine problem — but the solutions so far
proposed would only spawn new difficulties. The national interest demands that we reject the false choice of either illegal immigrants or
guestworkers. A modest, transitional program to promote mechanization would better serve the long-term interests
of agriculture and be far more cost-effective and have fewer unintended consequences than importing a
vast new poverty class. Helping agriculture disentangle itself from foreign labor would strengthen the
competitive position of America's farmers, avoid burdening taxpayers with huge new liabilities, and
lighten the load of those who continue to toil in the fields. Seldom does such a small measure have the potential for so much good.
31
MSDI 2015
32
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Labor shortage inevitable
Labor shortage inevitable
Brad Plumer, 1-29-2013, "We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help.,"
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-isrunning-out-of-farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/
For years, one of the groups pushing hardest for immigration reform has been the U.S. food industry. Farmers have long grumbled about a
shortage of labor, and they've asked for policies that make it easier to hire foreign workers from places like Mexico. But looser
immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S. farms
could well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on
immigration. That's because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers
to the United States. And it won't be nearly as easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere. For decades, farms in the United
States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers — mainly from Mexico — to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural
workers in the United States were foreign-born. (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap
labor
has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables. But that
labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, we've seen a spate of headlines like this from CNBC: "California Farm Labor Shortage
'Worst It's Been, Ever'." Typically, these stories blame drug-related violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the
decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker programs. But a new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage.
Mexico is getting richer. And, when a country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not
only are Mexican workers shifting into other sectors like construction, but Mexico's own farms are increasing wages. That
means U.S. farms will have to pay higher and higher wages to attract a dwindling pool of available
Mexican farm workers. "It's a simple story," says Edward Taylor, an agricultural economist at U.C. Davis and one of the study's authors.
"By the mid-twentieth century, Americans stopped doing farm work. And we were only able to avoid a farm-labor crisis by bringing in workers
from a nearby country that was at an earlier stage of development. Now that era is coming to an end." Taylor and his co-authors argue that the
United States could face a sharp adjustment period as a result. Americans appear unwilling to do the sort of low-wage farm work that we have
long relied on immigrants to do. And, the paper notes, it may be difficult to find an abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else — potential
targets such as Guatemala and El Salvador are either too small or are urbanizing too rapidly. So the labor shortages will keep getting worse. And
that leaves several choices. American farmers could simply stop growing crops that need a lot of workers to harvest, such as fruits and
vegetables. Given the demand for fresh produce, that seems unlikely. Alternatively, U.S. farms could continue to invest in new labor-saving
technologies, such as "shake-and-catch" machines to harvest fruits and nuts. "Under this option," the authors write, "capital improvements in
farm production would increase the marginal product of farm labor; U.S. farms would hire fewer workers and pay higher wages." That could be
a boon to domestic workers — studies have found that 23 percent of U.S. farm worker families are below the poverty line. In the meantime,
however, farm groups are hoping they can fend off that day of reckoning by revamping the nation's immigration laws. The bipartisan
immigration-reform proposal unveiled in the Senate on Monday contained several provisions aimed at boosting the supply of farm workers,
including the promise of an easier path to citizenship. Taylor, however, is not convinced that this is a viable long-term strategy. "The
idea
that you can design a guest-worker program or any other immigration policy to solve this farm labor
problem isn’t realistic," he says. "It assumes that there's a willingness to keep doing farm work on the other
side of the border. And that's already dropping off."
32
MSDI 2015
33
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
US not key to global ag
No food price increase – other countries fill in
Moira
Herbst, 10-25-2007, "Immigration Raids Hurt Farmers," Businessweek, http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-10-25/immigration-raids-hurt-
farmersbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice, accessed 6-16-2015, jwh
U.S. consumers may see little or no effect from the crackdown, but farmers like Torrey certainly will. Losing farm labor in the
U.S. is likely to result in a shift of market share to foreign producers from domestic ones, rather than much change in
food prices. "Farmers all over the world are salivating at the prospect that we won't be able to produce
here," says James Holt, an agricultural labor economist. "They are more than happy to produce for us."
33
MSDI 2015
34
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Food shortage inevitable
Crop failures will cause huge price spikes in the future
Mark Edwards. (Holds PhDs in Mechanical Engineering , oceanography and meteorology AND
Marketing and Consumer behavior. Proftessor of food marketing and world entrepreneurship at Arizona
State. Consulted for 400 Food industry and Energy Inudstriy Firms and Served as a director for a fortune
50 transportation and foods company. Worked with Monsanto, Dupont, Pioneer Seeds, Nabisco, Quaker
Oats, General Mills, Borden and several other agribusiness companies. Worked with senior executives at
15 large US oil and gas firms as well as BP and Saudi Aramco. Worked with several pipeline and energy
distribution firms). Biowar I: Why Battles over Food and Fuel Lead to World Hunger. 2008. P. 132-3.
U.S. agricultural land has experienced severe or
extreme drought each year. Over half the total agricultural land experienced severe or extreme drought in 1934, and over 40% in
1954 and 1956. More recently, in 1988 and 2002, about 20% of acreage was affected. In 2006, about 12% of the agricultural land
experienced severe, extreme or exceptional drought.325 In these years, corn production may be cut to a fraction in the areas
affected. Few Americans know, because it did not make U.S. history textbooks, about the three years starting in 1816 when crop
failures led to food riots and mass starvation across Europe. During the year without a summer, 1816, volcanic ash
occluded the sun so it snowed in July and created 100% crop loss. Even French grapes froze and failed. Food riots
challenged the social order. Crime, arson, suicides and infanticides became widespread and governments imposed martial law because
According to the U.S. Weather Service, over the past 112 years, an average of 7% of
they feared revolution. The cause, the Trambora volcano eruption in Indonesia, finally dissipated, but the ash took several years to fall to
Earth.326 Fortunately, the Earth had far fewer mouths to feed in the early 1800s. Weather varies every year, even in good corn country. For
example, the corn condition report across the state of Iowa in June 2007 was 1% very poor, 3% poor, 17% fair, 58% good and 21%
excellent.327 Too much local rain or drought can shift those numbers dramatically over the five-month growing
season. The national corn condition report shows less than 60% of corn planted received good or excellent condition ratings for three of the
last four years.328 The weather has been good for corn production over the past decade, creating bumper crops.
However, one bad season could devastate the crop, create chaos in the food industry and skyrocket food prices. The
weather has severe local and regional implications because the cost of transporting corn is huge, except for fields close
to Mississippi river barges.
34
MSDI 2015
35
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
1NC No resource wars
No resource wars
Idean Salehyan (Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas) May 2008 “From
Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet*” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 45, no. 3
http://emergingsustainability.org/files/resolver%20climate%20change%20and%20conflict.pdf
every potential example of
an environmental catastrophe or resource shortfall that leads to violence, there are many more counterexamples in which conflict never occurs. But popular accounts typically do not look at the dogs that do
not bark. Darfur is frequently cited as a case where desertification led to food scarcity, water scarcity, and famine, in turn leading to civil war
and ethnic cleansing.5 Yet, food scarcity and hunger are problems endemic to many countries – particularly in sub-Saharan Africa
– but similar problems elsewhere have not led to large-scale violence. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, food shortages and malnutrition affect more than a third of the population in Malawi,
Zambia, the Comoros, North Korea, and Tanzania,6 although none of these countries have experienced
fullblown civil war and state failure. Hurricanes, coastal flooding, and droughts – which are all likely to intensify as the climate
First, the deterministic view has poor predictive power as to where and when conflicts will break out. For
warms – are frequent occurrences which rarely lead to violence. The Asian Tsunami of 2004, although caused by an oceanic earthquake, led to
severe loss of life and property, flooding, population displacement, and resource scarcity, but it did not trigger new wars in Southeast Asia.
Large-scale migration has the potential to provoke conflict in receiving areas (see Reuveny, 2007; Salehyan & Gleditsch, 2006), yet most
migration flows do not lead to conflict, and, in this regard, social integration and citizenship policies are particularly important
(Gleditsch, Nordås & Salehyan, 2007). In short, resource scarcity, natural disasters, and long-term climatic shifts are ubiquitous, while armed
conflict is rare; therefore, environmental
conditions, by themselves, cannot predict violent outbreaks. Second, even if
local skirmishes over access to resources arise, these do not always escalate to open warfare and state
collapse. While interpersonal violence is more or less common and may intensify under resource pressures, sustained armed conflict on a
massive scale is difficult to conduct. Meier, Bond & Bond (2007) show that, under certain circumstances, environmental conditions have led to
cattle raiding among pastoralists in East Africa, but these conflicts rarely escalate to sustained violence. Martin (2005)
presents evidence from Ethiopia that, while a large refugee influx and population pressures led to localized conflict over natural resources,
effective resource management regimes were able to ameliorate these tensions. Both of these studies
emphasize the role of local
dispute-resolution regimes and institutions – not just the response of central governments – in preventing resource
conflicts from spinning out of control. Martin’s analysis also points to the importance of international organizations, notably the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in implementing effective policies governing refugee camps. Therefore, local hostilities need not escalate
to serious armed conflict and can be managed if there is the political will to do so. Third, states often bear responsibility for environmental
degradation and resource shortfalls, either through their own projects and initiatives or through neglect of the environment. Clearly, climate
change itself is an exogenous stressor beyond the control of individual governments. However, government policies and neglect can compound
the effects of climate change. Nobel Prizewinning economist Amartya Sen finds that, even in the face of acute environmental scarcities,
countries with democratic institutions and press freedoms work to prevent famine because such states are accountable to their citizens (Sen,
1999). Others have similarly shown a strong relationship between democracy and protection of the environment (Li & Reuveny, 2006). Faced
with global warming, some states will take the necessary steps to conserve water and land, redistribute resources to those who need them
most, and develop disaster-warning and -response systems. Others will do little to respond to this threat. While a state’s level of income and
technological capacity are certainly important, democracy – or, more precisely, the accountability of political leaders to their publics – is likely
conflict is an inefficient and sub-optimal
reaction to changes in the environment and resource scarcities. As environmental conditions change,
several possible responses are available, although many journalists and policymakers have focused on the
potential for warfare. Individuals can migrate internally or across borders, or they can invest in technological
improvements, develop conservation strategies, and shift to less climate-sensitive livelihoods, among other adaptation
mechanisms. Engaging in armed rebellion is quite costly and risky and requires large-scale collective action.
to be a critical determinant of how states respond to the challenge. Fourth, violent
35
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
36
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Individuals and households are more likely to engage in simpler, personal, or smallscale coping
strategies.
36
MSDI 2015
37
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
2NC No resource wars
No resource wars – data proves cooperation is more likely
Simon Dalby (Dept. Of Geography, Carleton University) 2006 "Security and environment linkages
revisited" in Globalisation and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualising Security in the 21st
Century, www.ntu.edu.sg/idss/publications/SSIS/SSIS001.pdf)
In parallel with the focus on human security as a necessity in the face of both natural and artificial forms
of vulnerability, recent literature has emphasised the opportunities that environmental management
presents for political cooperation between states and other political actors, on both largescale
infrastructure projects as well as more traditional matters of wildlife and new concerns with biodiversity
preservation (Matthew/Halle/Switzer 2002). Simultaneously, the discussion on water wars, and in
particular the key finding the shared resources frequently stimulate cooperation rather than conflict,
shifted focus from conflict to the possibilities of environmental action as a mode of peacemaking. Both
at the international level in terms of environmental diplomacy and institution building, there is
considerable evidence of cooperative action on the part of many states (Conca/Dabelko 2002). Case
studies from many parts of the world suggest that cooperation and diplomatic arrangements can
facilitate peaceful responses to the environmental difficulties in contrast to the pessimism of the 1990’s
where the focus was on the potential for conflicts. One recent example of the attempts to resolve
difficulties in the case of Lake Victoria suggests a dramatic alternative to the resource war scenarios. The
need to curtail over-fishing in the lake and the importance of remediation has encouraged cooperation;
scarcities leading to conflict arguments have not been common in the region, and they have not
influenced policy prescriptions (Canter/Ndegwa 2002). Many conflicts over the allocations of water use
rights continue around the world but most of them are within states and international disputes simply
do not have a history of leading to wars.
Resource wars don’t escalate
Nils Petter Gleditsch (International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) & Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim) 1998 “Armed Conflict and the Environment: A Critique of the
Literature” JSTOR
A similar point holds for economic variables. Much of the environmental literature lacks explicit
recognition of the fact that material deprivation is one of the strongest predictors of civil war.
Moreover, economically highly developed countries rarely fight one another (Mueller, 1989), although
this regularity is less absolute than the democratic peace. Finally, while economic development does
tend to exacerbate certain environmental problems (such as pollution and excessive resource
extraction) up to a point, the most advanced industrial economies also tend to be relatively more
resource-friendly. Hence, resource competition is likely to be less fierce domestically as well as
externally among the most highly developed countries. Going back to the example of shared water resources, highly developed countries have very strong economic motives for not fighting over scarce
water resources; instead, they use technology to expand the resources or find cooperative solutions in
exploiting them. Poor countries generate more local environmental problems, which in turn may
37
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
38
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
exacerbate their poverty and which is also conducive to conflict. Certain types of environmental
degradation - like deforestation, lack of water and sanitation, and soil erosion - are part and parcel of
underdevelopment.
38
MSDI 2015
39
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
**State Budgets**
39
MSDI 2015
40
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
A2 Bioterror
Consensus of scientists in the field say more research is unnecessary and the threat is
nil
Hynes 2011 (H. Patricia Hynes, retired professor of environmental health from Boston University and
chairs the board of the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice, August 18, 2011, “Biological Weapons:
Bargaining With the Devil,” Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2693:biological-weaponsbargaining-with-the-devil)
No Realistic Assessment of Need for Growth in Biodefense/Bioweapons Labs
Between 1900 and 2000, one person died in the U nited S tates from the deliberate use of a
biological weapon (altogether six died by 2011, given the five anthrax deaths in 2001). This contrasts
with more than 100,000 deaths per year from three public health causes, namely firearms, air pollution
and food-borne disease. The other documented deliberate use of a pathogen involved the
contamination of salad bar food with salmonella in 1984, which sickened 751 people. This contrasts with
the annual incidence of comparable intestinal infections suffered by American tourists in Mexico, Africa,
the Middle East and South Asia, which must reach hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases. Most
historical threats of bioweapon use were hoaxes and most intended uses were personal, according to
Milton Leitenberg of the Center for International Studies at the University of Maryland. Contrary to
popular and public official statements, weaponizing biological agents is extremely difficult, requiring
immense research money, effort and expertise. Thus, the threat of biological terrorism with mass
casualties - a threat that government has elevated without a basis in fact and without any rational
threat assessment - confounds public awareness and siphons resources from true public health needs,
such as gun control, reducing air pollution and research on TB resistance.¶ In March 2005, 750 top
microbiologists , comprising the majority of US scientists studying bacterial and fungal diseases ,
wrote their major funding agency, the NIH, to claim that the agency's emphasis on biodefense research
had diverted research away from germs that cause much more significant disease and death. Between
1998 and 2005, grants for researching potential bioweapons such as the bacteria that cause anthrax,
plague and tularemia and viruses such as Ebola, Marburg and smallpox increased by 1,500 percent.
During the same period, grants to support non-biodefense germs that cause major sickness and death
(such as TB-resistant microbes and influenza) dropped 27 percent.
Existing public health system is enough- bioterror has killed 105 people total
Dove 2012 (Alan Dove, Ph.D. in microbiology from Columbia University, science journalist, podcaster,
blogger, and editor, January 24, 2012, “Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Bioterrorist?,”
http://alandove.com/content/2012/01/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-bioterrorist/)
40
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
41
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Of the four modern biowarfare incidents, two have been fatal. The first was the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax
incident, which killed an estimated 100 people. In that case, a Soviet-built biological weapons lab accidentally released a large
plume of weaponized Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) over a major city. Soviet authorities tried to blame the resulting fatalities on “bad meat,” but
in the 1990s Western investigators were finally able to piece together the real story. The
second fatal incident also involved
anthrax from a government-run lab: the 2001 “Amerithrax” attacks. That time, a rogue employee (or perhaps
employees) of the government’s main bioweapons lab sent weaponized, powdered anthrax through the US postal service. Five people
died.¶ That gives us a grand total of around 105 deaths , entirely from agents that were grown and
weaponized in officially-sanctioned and funded bioweapons research labs. Remember that.¶ Terrorist groups
have also deployed biological weapons twice, and these cases are very instructive. The first was the 1984
Rajneeshee bioterror attack, in which members of a cult in Oregon inoculated restaurant salad bars with
Salmonella bacteria (an agent that’s not on the “select” list). 751 people got sick, but nobody died.
Public health authorities
handled it as a conventional foodborne Salmonella outbreak, identified the sources and contained them. Nobody
even would have
known it was a deliberate attack if a member of the cult hadn’t come forward afterward with a
confession. Lesson: our existing public health infrastructure was entirely adequate
to respond to a major
bioterrorist attack.¶ The
second genuine bioterrorist attack took place in 1993. Members of the Aum
Shinrikyo cult successfully isolated and grew a large stock of anthrax bacteria, then sprayed it as an
aerosol from the roof of a building in downtown Tokyo. The cult was well-financed, and had many highly educated
members, so this release over the world’s largest city really represented a worst-case scenario.¶
Nobody got sick or died.
From the
cult’s perspective, it was a complete and utter failure. Again, the only reason we even found out about it was a post-hoc confession. Aum
members later demonstrated their lab skills by producing Sarin nerve gas, with far deadlier results. Lesson: one of the top “select agents” is
extremely hard to grow and deploy even for relatively skilled non-state groups. It’s a really crappy bioterrorist weapon.¶ Taken together, these
events point to an uncomfortable but inevitable conclusion: our biodefense industry is a far greater threat to us than any actual bioterrorists.¶
For comparison, Timothy McVeigh pulled a Ryder rental truck full of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (both very easily obtained) in front of a
Federal building, and killed 168 people. The 9/11 hijackers killed almost 3,000 people and blew up the headquarters of the United States
military, using box cutters and basic flight training. In 2000, a couple of guys in an inflatable boat full of explosives totaled an American
battleship. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point: conventional weapons are orders of magnitude more effective for terrorism than
biological ones.¶ Astute readers may have noticed that I mentioned a single exception on the select agent list. I’m talking about smallpox, and
the reason it’s an exception is interesting: it’s a good weapon only because we successfully eradicated it.¶ Had the World Health Organization
focused on controlling smallpox instead of eradicating it, there would have been continued pressure to develop improved vaccines, and likely
continued vaccination. That’s the pattern now with poliovirus, which has been incorporated into one of the standard combination vaccines that
kids receive.¶ But because the WHO focused on eradicating smallpox instead, they stuck with the primitive vaccine originally developed in the
18th century by Edward Jenner. Once the world was certified smallpox-free, vaccination stopped. Now, nearly everyone born in the past forty
years or so is susceptible to this highly contagious, highly lethal virus.¶ Smallpox
would still be a very poor choice for
bioterrorism, but for a different reason than the rest of the select agents. A terrorist group that actually got ahold of it
could probably culture it and deploy it without much trouble – in many ways it would be easier to work
with than anthrax. However, there is no question who would be hit hardest by a new global pandemic of smallpox: the poor countries.
The US already stockpiles hundreds of millions of doses of smallpox vaccine and antivirals. Once an outbreak
was identified, it would be straightforward to track and stop, at least in the developed world. The people who would suffer
and die would be precisely the ones most terrorist groups are trying to represent. Military types call that “blowback,” and it’s a very bad thing.¶
So what should we do? First, stop panicking. Terrorist groups have repeatedly said they want biological
weapons, but that’s either propaganda or fantasy. The groups that have actually pursued such weapons
have found that they’re a complete waste of resources. However, the fear of bioweapons has caused governments around
the world – particularly in the US – to spend billions of dollars on technologies they will never need. Spending the same money on
our ailing public health system would have been a much better investment.
41
MSDI 2015
42
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
**DA**
42
MSDI 2015
43
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Unpopular
The plan sparks Congressional backlash
Shoba S.
Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law at Penn State Law, 2015. "The History of Prosecutorial Discretion in
Immigration Law." American University Law Review 64
Beyond the courtroom , the President’s executive actions have been the subject of congressional hearings
and emotion. Within a month of President Obama’s announcement and, interestingly, before the application period for DAPA and expanded DACA (the two
more controversial programs) even began, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on December 2, 2014
challenging the legality of these programs.63 On December 3, 2014, the House of Representatives held a vote on
a bill, known as the Yoho bill, that would make the President’s November 20, 2014 actions null and void.64 The politics of this vote
is well captured by this exchange in a Politico story the day following the vot e: “Even the bill’s biggest supporters admit the vote is
more about symbolism than substance. When asked by a reporter whether Republicans were taking the Yoho bill seriously, Rep. Matt Salmon
(R-Ariz.) replied: ‘I don’t even know if Ted [Yoho] is.’”65 The House continued to attack the President’s executive actions by
holding a vote on a spending bill that would have defunded the executive action programs.66 On January 14,
2015, the House voted 236 to 191 to block the President’s immigration actions.67 Interestingly, the vote exposed more than one layer within the Republican Party,
as ten Republicans voted against the bill68 and 26 Republicans voted against an amendment to end the DACA program created in 2012.69 On the heels of this vote,
Representative Luis Gutiérrez remarked: “‘Wow. Time flies when you’re playing politics with people’s lives . . . . What are the headlines today? Behold the
Republican immigration strategy, mass deportation.’”70 The
politics that emerged after President Obama announced his
executive actions on immigration resemble the politics that followed the creation of DACA. For example, a
lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging that DACA was unconstitutional.71 Similarly, select
members of the House of Representatives introduced a piece of legislation and held a hearing on a bill
titled “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act” (HALT), which, among other things, would have nullified a variety of
discretionary remedies in the immigration statute and the President’s authority to grant select forms of
prosecutorial discretion.72
Plan causes a massive fight – perceived as unconstitutional amnesty
Emma Dumain, 8-21-2014, "Republicans Vote to End DACA After Tense Floor Debate," Roll Call,
http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/republicans-vote-to-end-daca/?dcz=
House Republicans voted to prohibit President Barack Obama from granting what they consider to be an
unconstitutional amnesty to illegal immigrants Friday. The bill would effectively end Deferred Actions for
Childhood Arrivals, or DACA — a program that has allowed hundreds of thousands of “Dreamers”
brought to the United States illegally by their parents to get work permits and avoid deportation. And it
would prohibit the president from expanding the program, as he has been reportedly considering doing
for as many as five million additional immigrants. The 216-192 vote included four Democrats voting
“yes” — Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, John Barrow of Georgia, and
Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia. Eleven Republicans broke ranks to oppose it — Mario Diaz-Balart of
Florida, Jeff Denham of California, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Mike Coffman of Colorado, David Valadao
of California, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, David Reichert of Washington, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois,
Joe Heck of Nevada, Mark Amodei of Nevada, and Fred Upton of Michigan. The bill won’t get taken up
any time soon by the Democrat-controlled Senate, which already left for August recess. And it’s unlikely
to be signed into law by Obama, who started DACA through an executive action in 2012 and vowed to
veto the bill earlier Friday. Still, the measure, brought to the House floor as a reward for conservative
43
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
44
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
members who agreed to help pass a $694 million appropriations bill to address the child migrant border
surge just an hour earlier, will be an important messaging vote for both parties heading into the
November midterm elections. Republicans who voted “yes” will be able to tell their base they voted
against Obama’s executive overreach, which they argue helped spur the record influx of unaccompanied
minors at the U.S.-Mexico border that has overwhelmed enforcement agencies. “It sends a vitally
important message that minors wanting to come here in the future will … have absolutely no
opportunity to receive DACA benefits,” said Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., during floor
debate Friday evening. It also fits into the recent vote allowing House Republicans to file a lawsuit
against Obama for acting without the consent of Congress. The measure sparked one of the most
vitriolic debates in recent memory. Democrats hurled accusations of xenophobia, cowardice and
racism against Republicans. At times, they sat back in their seats on their side of the aisle in the House
chamber and smirked, sarcastically applauding some of their biggest foes like Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
During other moments, they booed.
Strong opposition to deferred action in the House
Amanda Sakuma, 1-14-2015, "House votes to gut immigration actions," MSNBC,
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/house-gop-vote-gut-immigration-actions
A GOP plan to gut President Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration passed through the Republicanled House Wednesday in a largely symbolic vote tied to crucial funding for the Department of Homeland
Security.
In a final 236-191 vote, lawmakers agreed to keep the department running through September in
legislation that includes a set of amendments designed to unravel and block funding to the president’s
executive measures. Far-right elements of the party tacked the toxic amendments to dismantle not just
the latest immigration actions brought by President Obama, but also a similar initiative from 2012. In
sum, the amendments work to prevent millions of undocumented immigrants the right to apply for
work permits and seek temporary relief from deportation. In a nod to to ultra conservatives who led the
charge against the executive actions, House Speaker John Boehner threw his full weight behind the GOP
strategy to attack the measures through DHS funding. Speaking on the House floor Wednesday morning,
Boehner read out loud the 22 times President Obama has said publicly since 2008 that he is unable to
change immigration law by executive action. “We do not take this action lightly, but there is simply no
alternative,” Boehner said. “This is not a dispute between parties, or even branches of government. This
executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.” This is just the latest
Republican-led effort to kill the Obama administration’s DACA program, short for Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals. Nearly 600,000 young undocumented immigrants have already benefited from the
measure. And starting in the late spring, millions more will be able to join once a new initiative opens up
to the undocumented parents of U.S.-born children.
44
MSDI 2015
45
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Courts link to politics
Implementation of court decisions ensures political involvement and influence.
Charles A. Johnson and Bradley C. Canon (professors political science @ Texas A&M and Univ.
Kentucky) 1999 Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, p. 24
President Andrew Jackson, unhappy with a Supreme Court decision, is said to have retorted: "John Marshall has
made his decision, now let him enforce it." His remark reminds us of a central fact of American democracy:
judicial policies do not implement themselves. In virtually all instances, courts that formulate
policies must rely on other courts or on nonjudicial actors to translate those policies into action.
Inevitably, just as making judicial policies is a political process, so too is the implementation of the
policies - the issues are essentially politics, and the actors are subject to political pressures.
Court decisions derail the agenda
Klein 2013 (Phillip Klein, senior editorial writer, January 25, 2013, “Philip Klein: Recess appointment
decision could hamper Obama's 2nd-term agenda,” http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip-klein-recessappointment-decision-could-hamper-obamas-2nd-term-agenda/article/2519737)
Friday’s ruling by the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. circuit invalidating three of President Obama’s
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board technically dealt with a routine labor matter. But
the decision, if upheld by the Supreme Court, could have important ramifications for Obama’s second
term agenda and for the future of the presidential appointment process.¶ By way of background, the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power, “to fill up all Vacancies that
may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” This power has been the subject of an ongoing cat and mouse game
between Republicans and Democrats over the years, especially as presidential appointments have become increasingly contentious in the Senate, which is granted the general power to
“advise and consent” on presidential nominations.¶ In his first year in office, 2009, Obama didn’t need to exercise his recess appointment power because Democrats had a 60-seat filibusterproof majority for part of the year. By January 2010, with Scott Brown taking office, Republicans regained the ability to block nominees and Obama made 28 recess appointments in just that
year alone.¶ Though Democrats maintained control of the Senate after the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives introduced a new wrinkle.
According to the U.S. Constitution, “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days…” That meant that the GOP-led
House had the power to simply deny the Senate the ability to adjourn. Republicans used this as leverage to force Reid to revive the practice of holding “pro forma” Senate workdays every
three days. This effectively prevented Obama from making any recess appointments throughout 2011.¶ Then, on January 4, 2012, Obama made three appointments to the NLRB and also
appointed Richard Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new agency created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law. Obama did this even though the
Senate was still technically in a “pro forma” session.¶ When the newly stacked NLRB ruled against Yakima, Washington-based bottler Noel Canning in a union dispute, the company filed suit
arguing that the board lacked the necessary quorum to make a decision, because three of its members were unconstitutionally appointed by Obama. Most Republican Senators as well as
House Speaker John Boehner joined the suit.¶ In its Friday decision (read it in full here, key excerpts here), the D.C. Circuit threw out the NLRB’s ruling against Noel, agreeing the Obama’s
appointments were unconstitutional.¶
The ruling has several immediate ramifications. To start, since its reasoning can be applied by litigants to any
other NLRB decision, it effectively brings into question the validity of all NLRB rulings since last January and any decisions the current board may make going forward. In addition, the reasoning
Beyond that, there’s the question
of Obama’s second term agenda. Though Obama made an unapologetic case for liberalism in his second
inaugural address, the reality is that as long as Republicans are in charge of the House and can sustain
filibusters in the Senate, he won’t be able to enact major legislation. This means that any real progress
he’s going to make on liberal agenda items is going to have to come on the regulatory front, which relies
heavily on getting his appointees in place. As he put it in 2011, “(W)here Congress won’t act, I will.” This
could also mean that Cordray’s regulatory work at the new CFPB is invalid given that he was recess appointed at the same time.¶
decision, if it withstands further appeals, would make matters more difficult for him, thus hampering
his second term agenda .
45
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
46
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Controversial court decisions spark congressional backlash – Citizens proves.
ZELENY 10 JEFF, “Political fallout from the Supreme Court ruling” New York Times -- Jan 21 -http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/political-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-ruling/
Today’s ruling upends the nation’s campaign finance laws, allowing corporations and labor unions to
spend freely on behalf of political candidates. With less than 11 months before the fall elections, the
floodgates for political contributions will open wide, adding another element of intrigue to the fight for
control of Congress.¶ At first blush, Republican candidates would seem to benefit from this change in
how political campaigns are conducted in America. The political environment – an angry, frustrated
electorate seeking change in Washington – was already favoring Republicans. Now corporations, labor
unions and a host of other organizations can weigh in like never before.¶ But the populist showdown
that was already brewing – President Obama on Thursday sought to limit the size of the nation’s banks –
will surely only intensify by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The development means that both sides will
have even louder megaphones to make their voices and viewpoints heard.¶ Mr. Obama issued a
statement – a rare instance of a president immediately weighing in on a ruling from the high court – and
said his administration would work with Congressional leaders “to develop a forceful response to this
decision.”¶ “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of
special interest money in our politics,” Mr. Obama said. “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street
banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day
in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.Ӧ Republicans, of course, hailed the
ruling as a victory for the First Amendment.¶ “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect
the Constitution’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association,” said Senator John Cornyn of
Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “These are the bedrock principles
that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy.Ӧ Democrats, not surprisingly,
said the ruling would be bad for democracy.¶ “Giving corporate interests an outsized role in our process
will only mean citizens get heard less,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “We must look at legislative ways to make sure the ledger
is not tipped so far for corporate interests that citizens voices are drowned out.”
46
MSDI 2015
47
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
Terror DA
DAPA explodes illegal immigration – DACA proves
John Cornyn, 7-1-2014, "Obama's deferred-action policy, not Congress, led to illegal crossings," No
Publication, http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20140701-obamas-deferred-actionpolicy-not-congress-led-to-illegal-crossings.ece
Earlier this week, shortly after it was reported that President Barack Obama would request $2 billion to deal with the humanitarian crisis along
the U.S.-Mexico border, the president threatened to double down on the policies that caused the crisis in the first place. More specifically, he
made clear in a Rose Garden statement that he is considering yet another unilateral suspension of immigration enforcement on his own. It is
exactly this type of administrative
action that caused the current crisis and, if he is not careful, could cause another one,
costing taxpayers an additional $2 billion or more. To understand why, just ask the president’s Department of Homeland
Security. According to an internal Homeland Security memo analyzing the recent surge of child and female migrants flooding the U.S.-Mexican
border, “The
main reason the subjects chose this particular time to migrate to the United States was to
take advantage of the ‘new’ U.S. ‘law’ that grants a ‘free pass’ or permit.” Meanwhile, a Homeland Security study
concluded that the unaccompanied minors “are aware of the relative lack of consequences they will receive
when apprehended at the U.S. border.” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson implicitly acknowledged that the
president’s policies have become a magnet for illegal border crossings. Referring to the deferred-action program that
the president announced in June 2012, Johnson felt compelled to inform the world that “The U.S. government’s Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals program ... does not apply to a child who crosses the U.S. border illegally today, tomorrow or yesterday.” It’s become simply
undeniable, even to those in his own administration, that the president’s administrative policies — from his deferred-action program to
his overall lack of serious immigration enforcement — have played
a huge role in encouraging tens of thousands of
children to risk their lives by traveling across Mexico. Drug- and gang-related violence in Central America has been a major
problem for many years. But the massive spike in illegal immigration by Central American children didn’t start until 2012 —
the same year Obama announced his deferred-action program. The president insists on blaming Congress, specifically
Republicans, for doing nothing. If he wants to know why Congress hasn’t been able to pass immigration reform, all he has to do is look at his
own policies, which have created a massive amount of distrust. It’s now painfully clear that
the consequences of the president’s
previous executive actions include tens of thousands of children navigating some of the most dangerous
migration corridors in the world. As I’ve said many times, there is nothing humane about encouraging mothers, daughters,
fathers and sons to put their lives in the hands of criminal smuggling networks controlled by brutal drug
cartels.
DAPA increases illegal immigration – attracts criminal organizations
Okie, 10-30-2014, "Bridenstine Visits Southern Border," http://www.theokie.com/bridenstine-visitssouthern-border/
4. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that Congress has the authority to create “an uniform rule of naturalization”, not
the President. The President’s unconstitutional “deferred action” policies incentivized mass waves of illegal immigration. Simply put,
deferred action is a euphemism for not enforcing the law. Now, the President wants to drastically expand deferred action
to cover 34 million illegal immigrants over 5 years. According to CBP, even talking about further deferred action executive
orders will spur massive illegal immigration. According to CBP officials, every communication from elected
officials, including President Obama, regarding amnesty or border security is monitored by transnational criminal
organizations that smuggle humans. These communications are used to encourage or discourage more
illegal immigration.
47
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
48
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
48