ICE Aff –CPPFF The plan is to take away Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (Part of Department of Homeland Security) state and local police cooperation over immigration surveillance. State and Local police act as ICE agents with federal authority, when acting as immigration agents. There are a bunch of problems with this, mostly stemming from undocumented immigrants reluctance to participate in important parts of society out of fear of being surveilled by police in common instances. The police advantage all stems from that fear. The scenarios we included are organized crime, small business success and health care, which all stem from fear of police. There’s a better version of this aff that would just claim systemic impacts to not being able to participate in society. The second advantage is about how federally forced immigration surveillance is blowing up immigration federalism, which is bad for a lot of MSU reasons. The third advantage is especially susceptible to some alternative cause claims, but claims that undocumented immigrants human rights are being violated by the criminalization of immigration. That kills US Human rights cred. Some reforms to the program went into effect during the first part of this year, but any improvements have been largely circumvented, and the subsequent electronic surveillance has actually gotten worse. The plan heeds the demand to disentangle federal immigration from local law enforcement. Subsequently, ICE doesn’t have the person power to enforce criminalized immigration. This file was brought to you by a lot of great hands. There are several parts that need to be further developed, but some great work was done by the researchers. They include: Christina William Abdus Thomas Anant Liz Taya Sabrina Aditya And helping out the last couple of days with some good stuff: Alex Michael Cho Varun Hannah W. Liam Jason Josh S. Gauri Michael Cerny ICE AFF ICE 1AC Adv 1 – Police *Scenario 1 is organized crime Local enforcement of ICE immigration law drives racial profiling, undermines trust of police, and overstretches police resources Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas Program.)//lb Like its other criminal alien programs, ICE claims that through the 287(g) program it aims to protect against threats to the community. In its description of the 287(g) program, ICE says the local law enforcement officials should be cross-designated as immigration agents because "during the course of daily duties, they will often encounter foreign-born criminals and immigration violators who pose a threat to national security or public safety." The program gives local police the "necessary resources and latitude to pursue investigations related to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling, and money laundering." The 287(g) program has led to widespread concerns about racial profiling, reduced community trust, inadequate prioritization of dangerous criminals, and misplaced law enforcement resources. A study of the operation of the program in North Carolina found that it has been used to "purge towns and cities of 'unwelcome' immigrants." The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement report noted: "Instead of focusing on those people who commit the violent crimes as stated by ICE, local law enforcement officers seem to be targeting drivers of a particular race or national origin and stopping them for traffic violations. For example, during the month of May 2008, 83% of the immigrants arrested by Gaston County ICE-authorized officers pursuant to the 287(g) program were charged with traffic violations. This pattern has continued as the program has been implemented throughout the state. The arrest data appears to indicate that Mecklenburg and Alamance Counties are typical in the targeting of Hispanics for traffic offenses for the purposes of a deportation policy." These problems were also highlighted in a January 2009 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. The GAO report discovered that despite ICE's claims that the program would target dangerous criminal aliens, the agency did nothing to ensure that the police and sheriff deputies it cross-designated prioritized immigrants who were suspected of "posing a threat to national security or public safety." GAO concluded: "While ICE officials have stated that the main objective of the 287(g) program is to enhance the safety and security of communities by addressing serious criminal activity committed by removable aliens, they have not documented this objective in program-related materials consistent with internal control standards. As a result, some participating agencies are using their 287(g) authority to process for removal aliens who have committed minor offenses, such as speeding, carrying an open container of alcohol, and urinating in public. None of these crimes fall into the category of serious criminal activity that ICE officials described to us as the type of crime the 287(g) program is expected to pursue." The GAO found that ICE didn't even attempt to ensure that the local officers it trained and designated as immigration agents used their authority only for arrested immigrants. Of the 287(g) agreements studied by GAO, not one of the 29 "mentioned that an arrest should precede use of 287(g) program authority." In other words, cross-designated local police have been investigating the immigration status of people they stop or otherwise encounter even when there is no crime involved. A March 2008 report by Justice Strategies, Local Democracy on ICE, also pointed to the broader problem of mixing immigration law and criminal law. In their report, Aarti Shahani and Judith Greene warned: "287(g) represents the fusion of two separate systems of law enforcement power. Once in place, it can lead to further entanglement of these powers as state and local politicians jump into the campaign to 'crack down' on immigrants. But civil immigration and criminal law are fundamentally incompatible . The grey area between civil and criminal law creates a situation ripe for abuse. The Constitution's protections against arrest without probable cause, indefinite detention, trial without counsel, double jeopardy, and selfincrimination, as well as the statute of limitations, do not apply equally (or in some cases at all) in the civil immigration context." Mistrust in police drives Immigrants to participate or rely on gangs – Increases involvement Cave 14 (Damien Cave is a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, “Crime, Migrants and Politics Intersect on Tulsa Streets,” New York Times Late Edition 6/7/14, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, Lexis, SZ) The city police, however, see things differently. Most of the drug dealers and murderers arrested in and around Tulsa, they say, are not immigrants, nor are they Hispanic. And much of the crime in the Hispanic community, they add, involves non-Hispanic gangs preying on immigrants who are less likely to report being victimized. Rather than detain immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally -- a policy the sheriff's office strongly supports -- the city police say they would rather work with immigrants, here legally or not, to encourage them to report crime and reduce violence. Experts say the conflicting views of two law enforcement departments working side by side in the same place underscores the complexity, and the competing agendas, found at the nexus of the issue of immigration and crime -- and the way that the politics of immigration can clash with the reality of beat cops. ''The sheriff is elected; it's a political position,'' said Elizabeth M. McCormick, a professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law. ''There are motivations at play in the sheriff's office, in terms of continuing to be engaged with immigration, that don't exist for the Tulsa Police Department.'' The city police acknowledge that Hispanic gangs have expanded as the immigrant population has grown in the past few years. But a vast majority of their members are legal residents or American citizens: many are the sons or grandsons of immigrants, they say, who seem to join street gangs here not to reach back to their roots, but rather to become more American. ''Their parents are trying to provide them with a better life, but some of these kids see that gang lifestyle and they want to follow it,'' Sergeant Larkin said. ''It's almost ingrained into teenage American culture.'' Officer Jesse Guardiola, a Mexican-American with the Tulsa Police Department, said that Hispanic gangs were growing in part because the children of immigrants often come from families in which all the adults are working nonstop, without the time or inclination to encourage the pursuit of education. ''What we have is a growing epidemic of dropouts who are Latino -- 52 percent of Latinos in Tulsa are not graduating from high school,'' Officer Guardiola said. And for criminals of all backgrounds, several city officers said, immigrants are typically seen as inviting targets. Immigrant gangs are developing ties to terrorist organizations that will attack the U.S. Killebrew ’08 -- retired Army Col. And researcher at the Center for a New American Strategy (Robert, “A New Threat: The Crossover of Urban Gang Warfare and Terrorism”, file:///C:/Users/clarkj/Downloads/killebrewgangs.pdf) A growing body of evidence shows that criminal gang activities in the United States are taking on the characteristics of a domestic insurgency similar, in some ways, to the war going on in Mexico against drug gangs. There is also growing circumstantial evidence of mutual support between the more serious international gangs and state-sponsored terrorism that will soon pose a clear danger to American national security -- if it hasn’t already. This isn’t just the local punk “gangstas” that are preoccupying our police, educators and parents across America. Nor is it solely an attack by 9/11-style terrorists, either from outside the U.S. or from sleeper cells inside America. Rather it is a new thing -- a potentially murderous combination that is spreading rapidly northward from South and Central America into densely packed American urban centers into suburbia and rural areas. Unless it is checked, and defeated, the United States will be increasingly vulnerable to civil violence and catastrophic attack from within. Nuclear terror kills billons Brill and Luongo ’12 [Kenneth C. Brill is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A. Kenneth N. Luongo is president of the Partnership for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a nonpartisan nongovernmental organization. “Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger” The New York Times, 3/15/12 ln] There is a consensus among international leaders that the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection. President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious threats to global security and stability. At least four terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in such material. There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material. In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material. A terrorist nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in damages and undermine the global economy. Former Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism “would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty” and create “a second death toll throughout the developing world.” It is also preventable with more aggressive action. *Scenario 2 is Small Businesses Fear of local police is crushing immigrant frequency of small businesses Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb Immigration enforcement undercuts the vital contributions immigrants make to urban economies. In “Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the Middle Class,” the Drum Major Institute finds that immigrants produce goods and services, pay taxes and support small businesses, and as such are an integral part of the American economy.50 In the Chicago metropolitan area alone, undocumented immigrants spend nearly $2.9 billion each year on goods and services, creating an When immigration enforcement goes local, undocumented immigrants may fear that everyday activities could result in contact with police, and by extension, immigration authorities. As a result, many avoid public places, to the detriment of neighborhood businesses. In Irving, Texas, a large Dallas additional 31,908 jobs in the local economy.51 suburb, initial enforcement of the Criminal Alien Program drove many Latino immigrants underground. After controversial arrests of undocumented immigrants at a local barbeque, the Dallas Consul General of Mexico went so far as to warn Mexican immigrants to stay away from the suburb completely.52 Soon after, newspapers reported that small businesses dependent on immigrant customers took a noticeable hit. An article from the Houston Chronicle sheds light on the fallout: The bottom dropped out of Mike Granger’s snack business almost immediately after the Mexican consul general in Dallas warned people to avoid this sprawling suburb. ‘I’m picking up stales…My customers have disappeared.’ … Joe Reyes, a worker at Nico’s Discount Tires on Story Road, said: ‘The cops are stopping everybody around here,’ Reyes said, motioning to a stretch of inexpensive restaurants, auto repair shops and beauty shops. ‘People who used to come here now go to Grand Prairie, anyplace else,’ he said. His boss, manager Rafael Romero, said Nico’s business is down 50 percent.53 The same effect was observed on businesses in metropolitan Atlanta after 287(g) was implemented. From bridal shops to apartment complexes, business in Cobb and Gwinnett counties that catered to Latino immigrant customers registered serious and sometimes “staggering losses.” One Atlanta-based grocery distributor reported that lagging business post-287(g) forced him to cut the number of Latino grocery stores supplied from 30 to 5.54 A similar effect was observed in Frederick County and Prince William County, two 287(g) participants in the Washington, D.C metropolitan area.55 In Maricopa County, Arizona, one local politician actually touted depressed business activity as proof of 287(g)’s success. According to former Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas: We have a lot of anecdotal evidence of areas in the Valley that have a large number of presumed illegal immigrants leaving (and) businesses that cater to illegal immigrants suffering or going out of business entirely…So you have all of this evidence that supports the conclusion that illegal immigration is being curbed significantly, and I believe the main reason for that is the crackdown efforts of law enforcement and particularly the sheriff’s office and our office.56 This result was no doubt a negative for Maricopa business owners who relied on the economic support of undocumented immigrants and their families. Cities and metropolitan areas grappling with fiscal crises can scarcely afford to pursue immigration enforcement policies that risk reducing immigrants’ economic activities. Latino’s are uniquely key to the success of small businesses RNC ’13 (May 2nd, “Latinos Are the Engine of Small Business in America” ,https://www.gop.com/latinos-are-the-engine-of-small-business-inamerica/) The small business sector of the United States currently employs 60 million Americans full of entrepreneurial spirit, invaluable experiences and encouraging solutions for the expansion and growth of our economy. Small businesses are the engine of our nation's economic prosperity. They employ about half of all private sector employees, and they create nearly two-thirds of all new jobs. By far, they are the most significant, most populated and therefore the most potentially powerful sector of our economy and our electorate. Hispanic Americans are a major force in this small business sector with 3 million Latino-owned companies and over $500 billion in revenue. As administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, I led an organization that exceeded all previous records in small business loans, women and minority owned business support and private-public sector procurement opportunities, guaranteeing loans totaling more than $60 billion. This week, small business owners from around the nation will come together for The Latino Coalition and U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2013 America’s Small Business Summit in Washington, D.C. The summit seeks to champion the leadership of individuals with the American Dream of being small business owners and generate the productive, diverse, and flexible workforce that America needs to ensure prosperity over the coming generations. On Monday, April 29th – Wednesday, May 1st, the TLC Summit will host more than 40 speakers and panelists on key issues important to small business such as: procurement opportunities, newly available financing, risk management, legal reform, healthcare, immigration and international trade. The limitation of small businesses are preventing a recovery and actual growth Shepherdson 13’ (Ian [Ian Shepherdson is an award-winning British economist. He is the founder and Chief Economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics, an economic research firm located in Newcastle, England, with an office in White Plains, New York] Small Businesses Are The (Missing) Key To A Full Economic Recovery, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ianshepherdson/2013/09/10/small-businesses-are-the-missing-key-to-afull-economic-recovery/) You can’t understand the current state of the U.S. economy without understanding the role of small businesses. Big companies have been performing well for the past four years, thanks in part to huge support from the Fed in the early days after the meltdown of the financial the small business sector is barely growing at all, if the monthly survey from the National Federation of Independent Business is to be believed. Small firms account for about half of GDP and employ about half the workforce, so if they are struggling it is very hard for the economy as a whole to grow in line with its long-term trend. Most small firms are tiny, with fewer than 10 system, but employees, so their only external source of finance, apart from the owner’s pocket, is the bank. The stock of bank lending to commercial and industrial companies fell by about a quarter in the two years after Lehman, continuing to contract long after the capital markets, which provide most of the finance for big companies, re-opened for business. Small firms were not responsible for the boom or the bust, but they are an easy target for banks which have to shrink their balance sheets in a hurry. The Fed and the administration saved the banking system, but they did nothing to prevent the massive credit crunch which then engulfed small businesses. Bank lending began to recover in late 2010 and the stock of lending to companies has now returned to its pre-Lehman level, just. But this takes no account of inflation, and it will take at least another year for real lending to return to its previous peak. Until that happens, small firms will be constrained in their ability to hire, build inventory and spend on capital equipment, new software, buildings and research and development. And in the meantime, measures of small business activity and sentiment will remain much weaker than those of larger businesses, and the rate of economic growth will be stranded between the two, as it has been since the recovery began in 2009. Wall Street is fixated on public companies and doesn’t get the importance of the smallest companies, which is why analysts fall back on the idea that sluggish growth is now the “new normal”. It is not. Global nuclear war Harris & Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor of the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions . It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises . 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world. Scenario 3 is profiling ICE institutionalizes racism against latino communities Hing 09’ (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631) This Article contends that the evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which immigration laws operate have institutionalized bias against Latino immigrants— Mexicans in particular—and Asian immigrants. This has occurred through laws that initially manifested racist intent and/or impact, amendments that perpetuated that racism, and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations reinforcing the racism. Racism has been institutionalized in our immigration laws and enforcement policies. Kwame Ture (a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) coined the phrase “institutional racism” in the 1960s. He recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Institutional racism has come to describe societal patterns that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. In the United States, institutional racism resulted from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic structure still stands to this day. By understanding the fundamental principles of institutionalized racism we begin to see the application of the concept beyond the conventional black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating against certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices. Structures and social arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a way as to support or acquiesce in acts of racism. Institutional racism can be subtle and less visible, but is no less destructive than individual acts of racism. Charles Lawrence’s discussion of unconscious racism also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much racism lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb attitudes and stereotypes that influence behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. “Unconscious prejudice . . . is not subject to self-correction within the political process.”70 The forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration laws.71 As these laws are enforced, they are accepted as common practice, in spite of their racial effects. We may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their harshness or their violations of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism because we are not cognizant of the dominant racial framework. Understanding the evolution of U.S. immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better0 awareness of the institutional racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws and enforcement policies. The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the stage for the Mexicans and the Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to enforcement through employer sanctions enacted in 1986. *Scenario 3 is health care Status Quo immigrants stay away from public healthcare in fear of deportation, only the plan eliminates this fear by removing surveillance of immigrants Moran ’10 ( Benedict Moran, Huffington post, 3/18/10, “Undocumented immigrants scared to seek free healthcare”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benedict-moran/undocumented-immigrants-s_b_376032.html) //AS "When we do this type of work," he explained, "if they find out that they need further follow-up, they won't go!" He paused, "They're just too scared."¶ Though the extent is difficult to quantify, City health officials say that a large number of undocumented immigrants fear going to health centers and instead rely on an illegal network of doctors and traditional faith healers.¶ The free blood testing at Corona Square, sponsored by the Ecuadorian Consulate, was an effort to inform these unauthorized immigrants that their privacy was protected at City hospitals. The success of such events, though, is limited.¶ "New York City is probably the best possible place in the country to be undocumented, maybe in the world, because there are a lot of health care services that are available free of charge and that don't ask questions," said Dr. Peter Muennig, an associate professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. ¶ "The flip side to this is that many undocumented groups are very fearful of seeking that kind of care for fear of being reported to the authorities," he said.¶ Undocumented immigrants, like other New Yorkers without insurance, can access three types of health services offered by the City. The Department of Health runs clinics that provide tuberculosis care, vaccinations, and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Community health centers, which are funded by a mix of federal funds, Medicaid, and out of pocket payments, offer primary care. Then there are hospital emergency rooms.¶ At all of these locations, federal privacy laws prohibit immigration officials from accessing health records of patients. But despite these protections , those without papers often stay away.¶ Lack of healthcare for immigrants leads to uncontrollable disease, the plan is a necessary mechanism to solve disease Betzler 13 (Song Betzler, J.D., M.P.H., Legal Fellow at the Network for Public Health Law — Mid-States Region at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, “Undocumented Immigrants and Healthcare”, The Network for Public Health Care, https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2013/07/01/196/undocumented_immigra nts_and_health_care) //AS Inadequate access to health care and treatment can lead to the spread of disease and stymie disease control efforts . In November of 2012, immigration authorities detained a Nepalese man who had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, or XDR-TB. This is the first XDR-TB case that Immigration and Customs Enforcement encountered, but health officials aren’t confident it will be the last.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report the TB rate among foreign-born persons in the U.S. in 2012 was 11.5 times higher than among U.S.-born persons. States with large immigrant populations, such as California, Texas, Florida and New York, represented almost half of all TB cases reported in 2012.¶ Proposed immigration reform focuses on providing this population a path to citizenship by granting a registered provisional status. In general, this status allows undocumented immigrants to legally work in the U.S. but denies them public benefits. Undocumented immigrants are currently excluded from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For example, they aren’t covered under the individual mandate provision, entitled to any government subsidies, and are banned from purchasing insurance through insurance exchanges. Undocumented immigrants remain ineligible for Medicaid, making them prone to rely on safety-net providers (providers that offer health services to uninsured or other vulnerable patients). Under the current immigration reform bill these ACA provisions will continue to apply. Provisions that exclude undocumented immigrants from the U.S. health care system have implications that impact public health.¶ There is no guarantee that undocumented immigrants have been inoculated for the same diseases the U.S. seeks to control within its borders. Immigration law requires those seeking to immigrate, or change their status to permanent resident, provide proof of vaccination against vaccinepreventable diseases, but this does not apply to undocumented immigrants. The failure to address immigrant health care means there are few options available to adequately and quickly address preventable disease and illness. Because this population tends to live in the shadows of society, tracking and preventing disease in immigrant communities poses numerous difficulties. Undocumented immigrants may avoid agencies that require selfidentification, and fear visiting a health clinic will draw the attention of immigration officials . There is greater risk of exposure to contagious disease when access to health care is limited. As drug-resistant diseases become more prevalent around the world, the U.S. can protect itself by providing undocumented immigrants with access to health care. As immigration reform is being considered, Congress has a second opportunity (the first was during the debate on the ACA) to have a robust debate on the public health benefits of insuring undocumented immigrants and enabling them to obtain better access to health care. Providing such benefits will widen the pool of insured persons and offer the potential to decrease the spread of disease and per capita cost. There is also significant potential to cut costs by lowering the use of emergency care. And most importantly, immigration health reform can prevent disease and illness in undocumented immigrants, thereby protecting the health of the entire U.S. population. Disease spread causes extinction Collins 98’ (Columnist-Sunday Mirror (UK), “Doomsday fear as we over-use antibiotics,” 4/12, Lexis) THE golden age of antibiotics, the 20th Century's wonder drug, is over. Scientists now fear a Doomsday scenario, where infection spreads rapidly across the globe. One in six prescriptions written out by GPs is for antibiotics, yet they no longer work on many extremely dangerous bacteria - or are only effective when used in amounts so high that they can cause serious side-effects. Some bugs like salmonella and TB have become resistant to the antibiotics used to destroy them because of over-use. And other bacteria, such as the deadly hospital superbug MRSA (right) which kills 5,000 patients a year, are actually the product of the microscopic war against germs. The more doctors have bombarded the bugs with antibiotics the faster they have mutated to produce resistant strains, like MRSA. Richard Young, head of The Soil Association's Antibiotics Group which is investigating the crisis, said: "The problem of antibiotic resistance is very worrying and could potentially lead to a public health problem of apocalyptic proportions. The misuse of antibiotics is threatening us all." Plan reestablishes trust in local law enforcement- Uniquely decreases violent crime rates Gascon 13 (George Gascon is the District Attorney in San Francisco, “Why cops should back immigration reform,” 6/19/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/opinion/gascon-immigration- policing/, SZ) When immigrants -- unauthorized or authorized - feel isolated from the protection of law enforcement, the entire community suffers. I saw this evidenced during my tenure as police chief in Mesa, Arizona, where local Sheriff Joe Arpaio's reign of terror over the Latino community led to increased crime rates in his county. Arpaio blamed most crimes in Maricopa Country on undocumented immigrants and made racial profiling a common practice. He frequently detained people who "looked Latino" until they could prove their status in the country. In direct contrast to this approach, I worked side by side with community groups and civil rights organizations to foster a sense of trust between the Latino community and the Mesa Police Department. The effects of a broken immigration system were a constant thread in the stories of Latino mothers, fathers and workers who refused to report crime for fear of being detained or deported. In Mesa, we lowered crime by some 30%, according to FBI data -- a result of the trust our police department created with all communities, and not because of immigration enforcement. Law enforcement should focus on community safety, not enforcing immigration laws. That is not just my opinion, but that of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Arizona's SB1070, and of many police officers and law enforcement officials around the country. When undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, they become wary of law enforcement, crimes go unreported, perpetrators remain on the loose, and the safety of our communities is affected. Anti-immigrant forces have long scapegoated undocumented immigrants as the reason for higher crime rates and the need for greater border security. We in law enforcement must come together and inform our senators that immigrants are a valuable part of our communities. Research shows that areas with a high immigrant population often have much lower rates of crime than similar areas without high immigrant representation. Our borders are also more secure than they have ever been, with the United States already spending more than $17 billion annually on immigration and border enforcement. Adv 2 – Immigration Federalism State sovereignty over immigration has been crushed by ICE’s use of state and local police Cox and Miles 2014 † Professor of Law, NYU School of Law; Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics and Walter Mander Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School. (Adam and Thomas, “The Real World of Immigration Federalism”, http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Adam%20Cox%20The%20Rea l%20World%20of%20Immigration%20Federalism_2.pdf)//AN Writing about immigration federalism has, like much federalism scholarship, long been stuck with an outdated model of federalstate relations. Under that old model, states wield power principally by possessing regulatory autonomy. But the reality today is quite different: as a number of writers have begun to document, state and local governments today are often empowered not by their autonomy, but instead by their incorporation into federal statutory schemes . According to these accounts, sovereignty-based federalism is the past; cooperative federalism is the future. 1 This turn in federalism theory has often been overlooked in immigration law, perhaps because attention has focused on high-profile battles like the recent one between Arizona and the federal government. Frustrated by what it saw as a lack of federal initiative on immigration policy, Arizona decided to go it alone, passing a controversial law that created state penalties for violations of federal immigration law. Nearly all of Arizona’s law was invalidated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Arizona—a decision that many interpreted as a paean to old notions of dual sovereignty. The reality, however, is that arguments over state or local immigration sovereignty are largely a sideshow. The most pressing questions of immigration federalism today pretty much all concern “cooperative” arrangements between the federal government and nonfederal officials.2 This is driven by the fact that immigration law has, in recent years, increasingly incorporated state and local law enforcement officials into federal immigration enforcement. This is the deep irony of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona. Largely overlooked in all of the controversy surrounding Arizona’s law is a surprising fact: even while the Justice Department was arguing to the Supreme Court that local law enforcement officials in Arizona lacked authority to participate in immigration enforcement, the federal government was busy rolling out a program that incorporated those same officials into the federal enforcement scheme. That program, known as “Secure Communities,” has a straightforward goal: to ensure that every person arrested for a crime by local police anywhere in the country is screened by the federal government for immigration violations. Secure Communities is in many ways an ideal testing ground for many of the theories that dominate the contemporary federal literature. One such theory is that cooperative arrangements give local officials to much control over federal policy. This is among the charges leveled by critics of Secure Communities: they argue that especially in a world where immigration policy is determined largely through the exercise of enforcement priorities, turning every local criminal arrest into an immigration screening event puts local officials in charge of those priorities. Changes to ICE’s 287g now compel state and local police to cooperate in surveilling for immigration through task forces AND technological gathering – This crushes immigration federalism Kalhan 2013 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, “Immigration Policing and Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy”, Vol. 74:6, pg. 1134, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14-Kalhan.pdf)//AN C. Informational End Runs and the Eroding Boundaries of Immigration Federalism Automated immigration policing has enabled massive levels of state and local involvement in immigration enforcement that could never have been achieved under earlier programs. The NCIC Immigration Violators File, for example, now makes over 298,900 records of potentially deportable individuals accessible to state and local over twenty-eight million sets of fingerprints have been transmitted to DHS since the program’s inception—“thousands” of fingerprints per day, according to one official, including fingerprints of all individuals born outside the United States or whose place of birth is unknown—from which DHS has identified over 1.4 million matching police nationwide.111 Under Secure Communities, records in IDENT. ICE has returned or formally removed 279,482 of these individuals, with the number of removals attributable to Secure Communities jumping from 14,364 in 2009, representing four percent of the 287(g) program, one of the cornerstones of the previous generation of federal immigration policing initiatives. In order to achieve these numbers, these initiatives have all removals, to 83,815 in 2012, representing one-fifth of all removals.112 In light of these numbers, the Obama Administration has decreased its reliance on task force agreements under forcefully challenged and eroded the equilibrium on immigration federalism that has been emerging in recent years, illustrating the powerful ways in which the technological architecture of federalism itself can shape and govern the institutional relationships among different levels of government.113 While sharing with its predecessors the goal of reducing the federal government’s information deficit vis-à-vis states and localities in the identification of potentially deportable noncitizens, automated immigration policing departs from those earlier initiatives by precluding states and localities from making affirmative, calibrated, and negotiated choices about the level of immigration policing assistance they wish to furnish. Instead, these initiatives—while nominally still tethered to “voluntary” forms of federal–state cooperation— affect informational end runs around those choices through the use of technology. Both programs tightly weave immigration policing mechanisms into established, deeply ingrained systems designed to facilitate criminal investigation, prosecution, and sentencing—transforming the process of monitoring and verifying immigration status into a routine, seamless part of virtually all ordinary law enforcement encounters with members of the This approach erodes the conception of immigration federalism that has emerged in recent years by narrowing the space for states and localities to make affirmative choices concerning their cooperation on immigration policing that are independent from other decisions—initially made decades earlier—to exchange public. identification and criminal history records for wholly separate criminal justice purposes. With the NCIC, given the manner of its extensive use by state and local police, the inclusion of immigration records means that individual police officers will automatically receive immigration status information when making routine queries, even if their jurisdictions have policies—which are likely immune from preemption— police officers may then be induced to detain or arrest suspected civil or criminal immigration law violators without regard to their formal immigration arrest authority, which Arizona v. United States now clarifies to be highly constrained, or the extent to which their jurisdictions have affirmatively chosen to cooperate with ICE.114 Secure Communities goes even further , inducing and routinizing the assistance of state and local police en masse. Here, the informational end run proceeds in the opposite direction from the flow of information using the NCIC. Rather than sending immigration status information to law enforcement officials, DHS automatically extracts identification and criminal history information from state and local law enforcement agencies when they routinely transmit that information to the FBI for purposes that are unrelated to civil immigration enforcement, but understood as essential for criminal law enforcement.115 DHS then uses that information for immigration enforcement purposes—without regard to whether those jurisdictions have affirmatively chosen to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in helping to identify potentially deportable individuals whom they encounter. While prohibiting or restricting officers from collecting that information from members of the public they encounter. Once presented with that information, technology—being “plastic,” as Lawrence Lessig has emphasized— likely could be designed to preserve the room for state and local choices that existing federal immigration policing initiatives contemplate, these automated immigration policing initiatives are early components in a broader federal strategy that instead appears poised not simply to erode existing conceptions of immigration federalism even further, but to expand these surveillance mechanisms to encompass even larger numbers of U.S. citizens.116 Federal officials have championed Secure Communities not just as an immigration policing program, but as the first phase of the FBI’s Next new Generation Identification (NGI) initiative, a biometric database system intended to upgrade and replace IAFIS, which will enable the collection, storage, processing, and exchange of unparalleled quantities of biometric and biographic information of both U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike.117 The scope of NGI’s database system is enormous, encompassing multimodal biometric records of fingerprints, multiple photographs, iris scans, palm prints, voice data, and potentially other biometric identifiers along with detailed biographical information, and populated with data from a multiplicity of sources—including not only law enforcement agencies, but potentially also commercial databases, security cameras, publicly available sources, social networking platforms, private employers, and individuals. Using powerful facial NGI not only enables more sophisticated means of immediately identifying particular individuals, but also makes it “trivially easy” to locate, identify, and track individuals remotely for investigative, intelligence gathering, or preventive purposes.118 To the extent that DHS stores the fingerprints of U.S. citizens collected under Secure Communities, as discussed above, the implications of Secure Communities for U.S. citizens will become even more consequential under NGI and any other programs that might involve broader sharing of those fingerprints and other biometrics along with any personal recognition and search tools, information that may be linked to those biometric records. The comprehensive immigration reform bill recently adopted by the Senate also proposes to use technology in a manner that promises to reshape existing conceptions of immigration federalism. The bill would require employers to verify employees’ identities against DHS databases using an enhanced version of E-Verify, DHS’s existing online employment eligibility verification system, which incorporates a “photo tool” containing photos and personal information drawn from state driver’s license and identification bureaus.119 With all of these automated initiatives, manner in which information from different database systems and regulatory domains is routinely aggregated and blurs the lines between immigration control and other regulatory domains, on the one hand, and the institutional lines between federal, state, and local institutions , on the other.120 the exchanged Federal limiting of state and local police cooperation with the ICE solves immigration federalism Kalhan 2013 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, “Immigration Policing and Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy”, Vol. 74:6, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14-Kalhan.pdf)//AN B. Immigration Federalism and Information Federalism One important means of fostering and facilitating these kinds of constraints—of creating “friction in [the] system” in aid of the public good— may be to harness the existing potential for conflicts over information control between the federal government and states and localities.219 While it is customary, in immigration as in other areas, to think of the federal government as a “bulwark” against rights violations by states, federalism also establishes multiple centers of power with the capacity to exert independent checks upon federal authority . Particularly in the face of broad exercises of federal power, state and local institutions can play important roles in the protection of rights and liberties—as focal points for the expression of political opposition to national policies , as “seedbed[s] for political change at the national level,” as sources of alternative and potentially broader conceptions of federal rights, and as potentially moderating influences on the federal actors who seek their cooperation.220 Immigration scholars have long discounted these possibilities, devoting greater attention to more restrictive subfederal impulses. However, in recent years, scholars increasingly have recognized that states and localities can and do play affirmative and constructive roles in integrating, protecting, and otherwise affirmatively engaging their noncitizen residents.221 Indeed, with respect to the collection, processing, storing, and dissemination of immigration status and other personal information for immigration enforcement purposes, states and localities have long played precisely this kind of role—for example, by fashioning policies that constrain the collection of that information or its dissemination to federal immigration officials .222 Automated immigration policing initiatives such as Secure Communities directly respond to these forms of resistance by reducing the need for affirmative state and local assistance in collecting information about potentially deportable noncitizens in their custody. However, as both surveillance and federalism scholars might have predicted, that resistance itself has persisted in the form of efforts to limit the ability of federal immigration officials to use that information.223 A growing number of states and localities have adopted policies limiting their cooperation with ICE at the next stage of the enforcement process, when ICE issues detainers to facilitate apprehension of individuals identified through Secure Communities. For example, California recently adopted the Trust Act, which, except in cases involving individuals charged with or convicted of serious criminal offenses, prohibits law enforcement officials within the state from detaining individuals for immigration enforcement purposes, at ICE’s request, if those individuals are otherwise eligible for release.224 The significance of these anti-detainer policies and the extent to which they take hold in other jurisdictions remain to be seen. However, the broader trajectory leading to their adoption suggests that as state and local institutions— including hospitals, educational institutions, and others—increasingly collect and maintain personal information that might be relevant to immigration enforcement, analysis of immigration federalism may benefit from greater understanding of and attention to the dynamics of information control. Moreover, like the fingerprints collected through Secure Communities, the information sought by federal immigration authorities to identify potentially deportable individuals need not even directly include immigration status itself. As databases become increasingly interoperable and capable of aggregating information from a variety of different sources, federal officials may well regard other forms of personal information—whether or not personally identifiable—as amply sufficient to serve their immigration enforcement purposes.225 Accordingly, while states and localities may still find that restrictions on collection and dissemination of immigration status information play an important and useful role, they also will likely find those limitations insufficient to fully achieve the immigration-protective objectives they have sought to advance with those laws. Beyond immigration, these episodes raise the question of whether conflicts over information control might be harnessed to help protect social interests in privacy and constrain federal surveillance activities. Scholars have critically assessed the potential for states and localities to protect privacy interests as regulators.226 Separately, scholars have also assessed the prospects for aligning the interests of companies collecting personal information with interests in privacy.227 Since, as discussed above, states and localities increasingly possess large volumes of information that federal authorities seek for their own surveillance and enforcement purposes, the institutional role of states and localities as holders of this information warrants critical examination as well. For example, Robert Mikos has recently argued that under prevailing understandings of Tenth Amendment principles , federal efforts to compel states to provide this information should be foreclosed as an impermissible form of commandeering .228 While anticommandeering doctrine itself has limits, as Mikos acknowledges, his analysis points to the possibility of information federalism as a constraint on federal surveillance , whether as a matter of constitutional doctrine, legislation, or technological design.229 Federal policy is already discriminatory against undocumented people— state experimentalism with immigration is best because impacts are small and states can foster better policies for the future Huntington 2008 Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. Columbia Law School; (Clare, “The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism”, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)// AN To demonstrate how a statutory preemption understanding of federal exclusivity works in practice, consider the laws restricting landlords from renting their premises to unauthorized migrants. 225 Under a statutory preemption view of immigration authority, these laws would not be struck down simply because they affect immigration. Local governments share immigration authority with the other levels of government and thus may act absent federal statutory preemption.226 This approach would only be the Using a federalism lens, courts, policymakers, and legal scholars could understand the issues at stake more fully and assess the constitutionality of the ordinances in a more refined manner. The beginning of the constitutional analysis. competing values of federalism-uniformity, experimentalism, efficiency and effectiveness, protection of fundamental rights, increased political participation and political restrictions permit a locality to demonstrate a level of hostility toward certain non-citizens, which may run contrary to the interests of the national government in establishing at least some minimum level of welcome. On the other hand, the ordinances apply only to unauthorized migrants, not to legally present non-citizens. The national government already has determined that non-citizens who do not enter the country legally or who have overstayed their visas are deportable. 227 In this way, the ordinances do not contradict national policy and, debatably, help reinforce that policy by making accountability, and a check on federal power-would guide the analysis. The interest in national uniformity may weigh against these ordinances. The life more difficult for unauthorized migrants. Alternatively, it could be argued that the national government purposefully has chosen to under enforce immigration laws and in this way has consented to the presence of the unauthorized migrants. Despite the political appeal of this argument, unauthorized migrants, in legal terms, are in the United national government already has decided that the non-citizens affected by these ordinances should have no level of welcome whatsoever. 228 Viewed in this light, the ordinances are simply a local expression of a national sentiment. 229 Experimentalism may weigh in favor of these ordinances. Such laws States contrary to the will of the national government. The help to inform states and localities about more and less effective means of encouraging and discouraging migration. If unauthorized migrants choose not to settle in localities if, as in Colorado and Riverside, New Jersey, anti-immigrant laws thwart other interests, particularly economic interests, 230 localities would learn about the costs of such measures before adopting them. Allowing these competing interests to be played out on a local, rather than national, level may be preferable. If the experiment is too costly in social and economic terms, it will not be repeated more widely, and the harm will have been limited geographically. with these ordinances, other localities would know that these laws are effective. Similarly, Immigration federalism is key to international perception, policy experimentalism, and individual rights—also none of their turns apply either—It’s a “self-check” system that prevents states from enacting racist policies—this card is fire Huntington 2008 Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. Columbia Law School; (Clare, “The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism”, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)// AN B. Immigration through a Federalism Lens The federalism debate, raging for more than two centuries, provides a rich vocabulary and nuanced landscape against which to examine questions of the division of power. To date, this debate has not been applied in a systematic way in the immigration context. To be sure, some commentators have singled out certain federalism values, but the selection tends to be both outcome determinative and dependent on the substantive commitments of the commentator. Thus, commentators who believe that state and local enforcement of immigration law enhances national security identify decentralization values in immigration regulation-the importance of drawing on a wider array of law enforcement resources than those in the federal government. 172 By contrast, commentators concerned about discrimination against non-citizens identify national uniformity as a goal that precludes a state role in immigration regulation. 173 In this Section, I do not take sides on the substantive issues, but rather demonstrate the relevance and robustness of traditional federalism debates to the novel questions raised by immigration federalism. Uniformity versus experimentalism. Of all the competing values in the immigration context, uniformity and experimentalism are most clearly in tension. There are strong practical arguments for a uniform rule of pure immigration law. For example, although I argued above that the concern about a state embroiling the United States in an international conflict should not lead to a rule of structural preemption, 174 the concern is important. There are good reasons for preventing states from asserting themselves in the international arena, but this concern can be accounted for by weighing the interest in a uniform rule of pure immigration law more heavily than the interest in experimental immigration laws. The federal government, through statutory preemption, already has precluded a role for states and localities in pure immigration law. 175 Therefore, the federalism argument is simply a backstop. Moving a decentralized system has some advantages. In a world where some 177 it is by no means clear that the national government will better protect the interests of non-citizens. At other points in history, however, the roles have been reversed. Indeed, all levels of government can and have expressed both hostility and openness to non-citizens. In short, there is no structural reason to believe that one level of government will be more or less welcoming to non-citizens and therefore, on this basis, to favor uniformity over experimentalism. Decentralizing and devolving decisionmaking beyond pure immigration law and looking at immigration regulation more generally, states are offering in-state tuition to unauthorized migrants 176 while the federal government is seeking to construct a wall along the southern border, regarding noncitizens may accommodate, and reflect a greater variety of views on, non-citizens and perhaps even mitigate pressure on the federal government to enact legislation that reflects ardently held views of a small but vocal portion of the population. 178 Decentralization and devolution might ensure, for better or worse, that the national government does not enact legislation reflecting extremes at either end of the political spectrum. A system that allows states and localities to express divergent views on the benefits and costs of immigration would permit the development of a variety of policies, rather than a single, national policy, creating the proverbial laboratories from which the national government (or states and localities) can learn. This devolution also would allow for greater tailoring of immigration policy. For example, giving senators from Alaska a voice in determining the demographic make-up of the work force in the agricultural southwest dilutes the ability of those states and localities to shape immigration regulation to reflect their needs and interests. State and local experiments in immigration regulation can lead to quick lessons. There is mounting evidence that the divergent state and local laws are affecting the movement of non-citizens. For example, after Colorado passed a spate of laws in 2006 making life more difficult for unauthorized migrants by requiring certain forms of identification and curtailing many public benefits, 179 the state saw a dramatic decrease in the number of migrant workers available to work on farms, to the great dismay of potential employers.180 Riverside, New Jersey, had a similar experience, leading the town to repeal its anti-immigrant ordinance.181 Further, permitting states and localities to have a role in determining levels of immigration law enforcement would acknowledge the important economic and social stake that subnational governments have in immigration. To the extent that the national policy does not address these concerns, the subnational governments should be able to do so. If state and local governments discourage the presence of non-citizens to their economic and social detriment, this experimentalism should correct itself quickly . On the other hand, emphasizing uniformity might lead to the conclusion that the federal government-and not Farmers Branch, Texas, or Escondido, California-should determine the appropriate level of enforcement of the country's immigration laws. If, for a variety of political, social, and economic reasons, the United States chooses not to remove all unauthorized migrants and not to seal the border completely, then this determination arguably should bind states and localities. Efficiency and effectiveness. The experimentalism If one state determined that welcoming non-citizens was to its economic and social advantage, and this prediction held true, then that state would be rewarded by its immigrant-friendly policies . A state drawing a different conclusion might be rewarded when its prediction came true. Conversely, if the predictions were inaccurate, then the states would lose out economically and socially. Allowing states that would be fostered under devolution and decentralization might promote the values of efficiency and effectiveness. and localities to encourage or discourage the presence of non-citizens also would allow these subnational governments to tailor their laws to their labor needs. For example, one state might want to encourage noncitizens to work in agriculture while another state might prefer to bolster the workforce in the technology industry. Indeed, the relationship between immigration law and the demands for labor has deep roots,18 2 and permitting experimentation simply would bring this connection to a local level, allowing for a more finely tuned supply and demand of labor. On the other hand, these localized results and the potential efficiencies might run afoul of national interests. For example, if every state passed laws discouraging non-citizens' presence, admittance into the country from the national government might have little practical effect. A non-citizen could cross the border but would not be welcomed by any state. In this way, states and localities could thwart national immigration policy. Setting aside the constitutional aspect of unencumbered interstate travel,18 3 the free movement of people may be essential to a robust economy. Permitting state and local governments to express varying degrees of welcome and hostility to non-citizens a uniform rule may be more efficient and may ward off state and local parochialism that could threaten national interests. This latter argument often is advanced in favor of structural preemption. My point is that we need not set immigration law apart from mainstream constitutional law with a rule of structural preemption. Instead, we can account for these concerns through a federalism lens . Protection of individual rights.18 4 Although some commentators contend that non-citizens are at greater risk when the states take a more active role in the regulation of could discourage non-citizens from moving where they wish to go, perhaps in search of better economic opportunities. For these reasons, immigration,18 5 this hypothesis has not always proven true as an empirical matter. 8 6 In light of the explicitly race-based federal immigration laws in effect as late as 1952, there is no particular reason to think that the federal government is better at protecting individual rights. 8 7 Some recent state and local laws explicitly have sought to protect non-citizens' individual rights: many major cities have "sanctuary laws" that prohibit law enforcement officers from specified conduct, such as inquiring into a person's immigration status.188 Although one of the goals of such policies is to encourage unauthorized migrants to report crimes without fear of detection, the policies also protect non-citizens from racial discrimination in the enforcement of laws.18 9 Increased political participation and political accountability. A traditional argument is that political participation increases with the localization of government1 90 but that such decisionmaking likely will be parochial, increasing the chance that negative externalities will be imposed on communities that cannot participate in the decisionmaking process. 191 In the context of immigration, however, this traditional trade-off is complicated by the fact that non-citizens cannot vote at any level of government. 92 To be sure, other forms of participation are available,1 93 but direct participation is elusive, and therefore, the benefit of decentralization and devolution is not obvious. By contrast, the potential for imposing externalities on other communities remains strong. Through its regulation, a state or locality could affect patterns of immigration beyond its borders. Whether, in each case, the effect was a negative or positive externality would be a matter of debate, but the potential to affect others exists. Federalism in the context of immigration will have to account for these peculiarities. With regard to political accountability, there is no reason to believe that either the federal government or states and localities will be more accountable to non-citizens. 194 Again, non-citizens cannot vote at any level of government. The interests of non-citizens may be asserted by former non-citizens who have naturalized and thus can now vote. In light of the uneven distribution of former non-citizens around the country, some states and localities arguably will be more responsive to current non-citizens. Where former non-citizens make up a greater proportion of the divergent standards set under the authority delegated by the PRWORA-with some states providing more generous benefits than those given by the federal government-is evidence that subnational levels of government are capable of responsiveness to the interests of non-citizens. Indeed, permitting states and localities to determine their own level of welcome to noncitizens might open the door for non-citizens to reward the population, they may have greater influence. 195 Further, the more welcoming states and localities with their presence. Permitting states and localities to express their preferences also would help to inform non-citizens what to expect in a given location. Check on federal power. The power sharing envisioned by the federal system was intended to ensure that the states were seen as legitimate sources of power and therefore would retain their citizens' loyalty, which would translate If authority over an important area like immigration were shared, it would make states and localities more important in the eyes of their citizens, thus into the ability to check federal excesses in any field of regulation. 196 serving a legitimating function. Sharing immigration authority means that states and localities also will be able to counteract federal immigration regulation. Although the federal government could preempt state and local laws, to the extent it has not done so, states and localities would remain free to enact laws that run counter to federal policies. 197 In the international context, allowing for a range of immigration regulation would let other countries know that there is a diversity of opinion among U.S. citizens with regard to non-citizens. Although this would mean that a state could send an anti-immigrant message to other countries, contrary to the views of the U.S. government, it also would mean that, in the face of a national antiimmigrant policy, a state could send a more positive message. The need of the United States to speak with one voice would be served by the national government's ability to preempt state and local action.1 98 In this way, the preemption function would serve as an important test of the strength of national policy: if the national government truly believes that a particular policy is essential for international relations, it can preempt contrary state and local legislation. The tolerance of divergent views by states and localities would be telling evidence of the strength of the national commitment to the policy.199 In sum, once we recognize that federal exclusivity is not constitutionally mandated, classic federalism arguments work well in determining the appropriate allocation of authority among levels of government. Moreover, if the federal government wishes to prevent state and local governments from undertaking particular immigration regulations, it always can statutorily preempt specified conduct. A state based approach to immigration is vital to solve the division of high skilled labor through state sponsored visas Fuller and Rust 2014 Research scholar at New York University and deputy director of the Urbanization Project at the NYU Stern School of Business. Rust is a practicing attorney and a recent graduate of Temple University’s Beasley School of Law (Brandon and Sean, “State-Based Visas A Federalist Approach to Reforming U.S. Immigration Policy”, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa748_web_1.pdf)//AN U.S. immigration policy currently prevents many productive foreign workers and entrepreneurs from contributing to the American economy. To help move American immigration policy in a more open direction, policymakers should consider including principles of federalism as part of immigration reform. By allowing states a greater say in managing immigration, the U nited S tates can reap economic benefits by allowing state experimentation with different levels of immigration. State-based visas would be temporary work visas that allow the visa holder to live and work anywhere within the sponsoring state. Law-abiding visa holders would be eligible for renewal and free to apply for permanent residency during their stay in the United States. Under the work permit, the migrant worker would be unable to work for an employer outside of the state, but if the program would allow state governments to work with local governments and employers to tailor a state-based immigration strategy to meet their local economic demands . Successful regional visa programs in Canada and migrant becomes a permanent resident, he or she would be able to travel freely around the United States. Although overseen by the federal government, the Australia have aided economic and population growth in formerly depressed regions. American policymakers could apply lessons learned in those countries when creating a similar program in the United States. Based on the experiences of Canada and Australia with their regional visa programs, we outline many of the options that are open to American policymakers for designing and implementing a state-based visa There are millions of hard working and talented people throughout the world who would gladly move to the United States if given the chance. There are also many states within the United States that would be happy to welcome them but program. THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF STATE-BASED IMMIGRATION are currently prevented from doing so because of federal immigration restrictions. A federalist approach to immigration policy would give states a greater say in the numbers and types of foreign workers that they State-based visas would allow those states that want immigration to recruit the foreign workers that best meet their local economic needs. If a state does not want additional immigrants, it would simply choose not to issue any statebased visas. If the migrants who enter on a state-based visa eventually allow in. earn lawful permanent residency (LPR) status then they would be able to move to other states, but not all workers would choose LPR status and they would likely move to areas with economic growth, which are also likely to be areas that support statelevel guest-worker visas. In short, state-based visas would be good for the United States because they would funnel additional immigrants to parts of the country where they will generate the largest benefits. American nominal and real wages are also affected by immigration. A worker’s nominal wage is the dollar amount of his paycheck, while the real wage is the actual quantity of Immigration has modest positive effects on the nominal wages of most American workers because immigrants do not generally compete with many Americans for the same jobs. Rather, immigrants tend to complement the work of natives and thereby increase their wages.1 Americans of varying skill levels are impacted differently. In the short run, there are positive effects on wages for U.S.-born workers with at least a high-school degree but small negative nominal goods and services that his paycheck can buy. wage effects on those without a highschool degree.2 However, in the long run there is a modest positive wage effect on all workers as the rest of the economy adjusts to the presence of the immigrants, likely outweighing the short-run negative impact on the wages of U.S.-born workers who have not completed high school.3 The wages of U.S.-born highschool dropouts relative to those of U.S.-born high-school graduates have remained nearly constant since 1980, despite pressures from immigrant inflows that increase the relative supply of low-skilled labor.4 Real wages generally increase as a result of immigration services such as child care, gardening, housekeeping, and home health care make relatively intensive use of immigrant workers. In the absence of immigration, the prices of such services would be higher for natives.5 Beyond wages, immigrants can because it lowers the costs of certain goods and services by expanding supply. For example, firms that provide shore up faltering housing markets on the demand side. Jacob Vigdor, a professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, finds that immigrants substantially boost housing demand— each immigrant in the United States adds, on average, 11.6 cents to the value of a home in their local county.6 Immigration is especially beneficial for less desirable neighborhoods. Drawn by lower housing prices, the immigrants who arrive in such neighborhoods help to create a virtuous circle in which the vitality of the neighborhood improves and the area once again begins to attract middle and working class Americans. Immigrants were particularly effective in staunching the decline of population in New York City over the past few decades.7 Immigrants tend to avoid areas where the price of housing is higher and move to areas where housing supply is more elastic—bringing old housing back onto the market rather than driving up the price for existing housing.8 There are negative externalities associated with housing vacancies, so an immigration driven increase in population is going to have much higher positive spill-over effects in areas where population is declining—like in the Rust Belt.9 This is a major reason why mayors in cities such as Dayton, Ohio, and Baltimore, Maryland, are experimenting with policies designed to attract and retain immigrants.10 In January 2014, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder proposed carving out a share of federal EB-2 employment green cards specifically for the city of Detroit.11 In contrast, areas in which the supply of housing is more inelasticand housing vacancy rates are near zero, such as San Francisco, will experience crowding from additional migrants, be they immigrants or newcomers from elsewhere in the United States. That is not to suggest that a city like San Francisco does not benefit from immigration, just that cities like Dayton have comparatively more to gain from attracting immigrants. Immigrants tend to be especially entrepreneurial and innovative. They are 30 percent more likely to start a business than non-immigrants12 and were founding members of 25 percent of venture-capital-backed companies that went public between 1990 and 2006.13 Immigrants or children of immigrants founded 40 percent of the Fortune 500 companies in the United States.14 On the innovation side, immigrant college graduates are more likely to file a patent than similarly educated nativeborn Americans. A 1 percent increase in the share of immigrant college graduates increases patents per capita by about 15 percent, after accounting for the fact that the presence of high-skilled immigrants tends to increase innovation by the native born.15 In addition to starting new businesses and developing new technologies, immigrants help to facilitate trade and investment links with their home countries.16 Immigration also affects government finances. Taxes paid by immigrants and their children generally exceed the costs of the public services that they use on the federal level. High-skilled immigrants are particularly beneficial for the federal treasury. Relaxing green card and H-1B constraints would produce net positive effects on the federal budget running into the tens of billions of dollars over a 10- year period.17 Even lower-skilled immigrants generally have a positive impact on the federal budget, often consuming fewer government services than their educationally similar U.S.-born counterparts and having higher labor-force participation rates.18 Although immigrants produce a fiscal surplus at the federal level, the U.S.-born citizen children of immigrants are a fiscal cost at the local level due primarily to school costs.19A federalist approach to immigration is preferable to one states can better understand the fiscal costs and benefits of additional immigrants. Because state and local governments incur much of the short-term fiscal costs of immigration, it is important that they have a say in directing the optimal flow.20 A state-based visa entirely dominated by the federal government because program will allow states to harness additional economic gains from immigration without relying upon the federal government to change immigration policy for the entire nation. While not all immigrants who agricultural workers are highly mobile due to the migratory and seasonal nature of their labor, so they are most likely to illegally leave the states they are permitted to work in for work opportunities elsewhere. States could solve this issue by entering into voluntary agreements with each other to share agricultural guest workers by allowing them to move back and forth. For instance, California farmers could be allowed to hire an individual guest worker for the spring and summer while Washington farmers would be able to hire the same worker in the fall to help enter on state-based visas would stay in the state they initially settled in, evidence from Australia and Canada suggests that out movement would be minor. In the United States, with the harvesting of different crops. In addition to state agreements to manage guest workers, it is important that a state-level guest-worker visa for agricultural workers operate similarly to an earlier agricultural visa: the so-called Bracero program. Under Bracero, about five million Mexican farm workers legally entered the United States for work from 1942 to 1964 and returned home in a process called circular migration.21 One deficiency of Bracero was the legal difficulty of a migrant changing employers, which should be corrected. After Bracero was ended in 1964, the resulting unauthorized immigrants that still worked in agriculture continued to circularly migrate: from 1965 to 1985, there was an estimated 26.7 million entries of unauthorized Mexican migrants into the United States and 21.8 million departures to Mexico.22 Circular migration ended when increased border security after 1986 raised the cost of moving back and forth, incentivizing permanent settlement in the United States.23 Legal changes could also incentivize compliance with the terms of the visa. For instance, following the visa regulations should guarantee the guest worker the ability to return the next year. In addition, a bond system for migrant workers, funded by migrant and employer contributions whereby the migrant and employer lose their contributions if the migrant violates the terms of his work visa, would also disincentivize illegal work.24 Further incentives to follow the law are also provided by the market. Authorized immigrants realize a wage premium relative to unauthorized immigrants of around 6 to 25 percent, so working in the black market would come with a steep and immediate wage penalty.25 Higher and more mid-skill professions are less mobile so it is unlikely that these rules would be needed for those guest workers there. States can judge the costs and benefits of immigration better than the federal government can. The federal government dictates immigration policy in the United States but state and local governments occasionally pursue immigration- These policies often create conflict between the objectives of the federal immigration policy and the objectives of the state and local governments.26 A state-based visa program would enforcement policies that affect the flow of immigrants to their jurisdictions. allow states to choose to offer lawful immigration opportunities instead of the enforcement-only policies that some of them currently pursue. For example, in 2010 the state of Arizona passed Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070) in an effort to stop the flow of unauthorized immigrants into the state and force the ones settled there to leave.27 Among other things, the law required immigrants to carry immigration docu-ments and made it illegal for an immigrant to apply for work without federal authorization.28 The federal government challenged SB 1070 in court, and the Supreme Court found that much of the bill was discriminatory and preempted by federal law.29 Arizona was determined to deter unauthorized immigrants but other localities want to attract them. Cities such as Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York, and Dayton are passing laws local pro-immigration strategies often reflect desires to spur population and economic growth.30 Pro-immigration measures include prohibiting police and local services from asking about an individual’s immigration designed to make it easier for immigrants to live and work in their jurisdictions. The status, issuing state identification cards, and limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to that required by law.31 States should be able to go even further by creating legal immigration opportunities. Federal immigration reform pits median voters in pro-immigration states against median voters in anti-immigration states. Some voters feel vulnerable to the additional inflows of immigrants favored by pro-immigration states, and pro-immigration states feel that their economic development prospects are hamstrung by the restrictions favored by antiimmigration states. A state-based visa provides an opportunity to mitigate these differences on the state level as each state pursues its own policies, even though there will be some unavoidable immigrant movement between states. By creating a state-based visa program, the United States would not be stepping into the unknown with an untested approach to immigration policy. Similar policies have worked well elsewhere. Independently, specialized immigration visas are key to foster scientific growth—that solves science diplomacy Pickering and Agre 10 (Thomas R., Advisory Council – Civilian Research and Development Foundation, and Dr. Peter, Director – Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute and President – American Association for the Advancement of Science, "More opportunities needed for U.S. researchers to work with their foreign counterparts", Partnership for a Secure America, 2-9, http://www.psaonline.org/article.php?id=634)//AN Leverage Science Diplomacy Now to Boost U.S. Foreign Policy In 1979, a science and technology agreement between the United States and China paved the way for bilateral scientific cooperation that continues to benefit American science and society more broadly. Now, science diplomacy may help America open a door toward improved relations with Pyongyang, too. In December, six Americans representing leading scientific organizations sat down with their North Korean counterparts. The meeting took place on the heels of U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Bosworth's first official bilateral meeting with North Korea. Science, an international enterprise that relies on a lively exchange of ideas and data, can help build trust and expand understanding when government-to-government contacts may be strained. The North Korea visit, plus the first-ever U.S. science envoys, represent a fine beginning to a new era of international research cooperation. But the White House, the State Department and Congress must do far more to bolster science diplomacy. In U.S. government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for specialized foreign workers such as doctors, scientists and engineers . Their particular, the contributions are critical to improving human welfare as well as our economy. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities also become informal goodwill we urgently need to expand and deepen links between the U.S. and foreign scientific communities to advance solutions to common challenges. Climate change, sustainable development, pandemic disease, malnutrition, protection for oceans and wildlife, national security and innovative energy technologies all demand solutions that draw on science and technology. Fortunately, U.S. technological leadership is admired worldwide, suggesting a way to promote dialogue with countries where we ambassadors for America globally - an important benefit in the developing world, where senior scientists and engineers often enter national politics. More broadly, otherwise lack access and leverage. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that only 11 percent of Moroccans surveyed had a favorable overall view of the United States - but 90 percent had a positive view of U.S. science and technology. Only 15 percent of Jordanians had a positive overall view, but 83 percent registered admiration for U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries show that favorable views of U.S. science and technology exceed recent mission to North Korea exemplified the vast potential of science for U.S. diplomacy. Within the scientific community, after all, journals routinely publish articles co-written by overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points. The scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a common language for professional discourse. Basic values of transparency, vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all inherent to science. Nations that cooperate on science strengthen the same values that support peaceful conflict resolution and improved public safety. U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a thaw in the U.S. government is off to a good start in leveraging science diplomacy, with 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements now in force. The Obama administration further elevated Cold War through scientific exchanges, with little government support other than travel visas. The science engagement, beginning with the president's June speech in Cairo. Then, in November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. She also announced the Global Technology and Innovation Fund, through which the These steps are commendable, but the White House and the State Department need to exercise even greater leadership to build government capacity and partnerships that advance U.S. science diplomacy globally. Congress should lead as well, with greater recognition of science engagement and increased funding for science capacity-building. Both chambers must work together to give the executive branch the resources it needs. In an era of complex global challenges, science diplomacy is a critical tool for U.S. foreign policy. The opportunity to strengthen that tool and advance our diplomatic goals should not be missed. Overseas Private Investment Corporation will spur private-sector investments in science and technology industries abroad. Science diplomacy is key to solve a litany of impacts Federoff 8 – professor of biology at Penn State University known for her research on biology and life sciences, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (April 2008, “International Science and Technology Cooperation: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,” Committee on Science and Technology, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm) mj Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S. Department scientific strength is both a tool of ``soft power''--part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary's transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge , and leading the way internationally of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our through science diplomacy and engagement. The Public Diplomacy Role of Science Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability, Science is inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly trans-national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional fragile and cause states to fail. or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among stillgrowing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies, and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for U.S. science diplomacy. An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people's lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the w eapons of m ass d estruction and prevent what has been dubbed `brain drain.' Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability. Additionally, the Adv 3 – Human Rights Credibility Current methods of HR promotion are ineffective due to a lack of U.S. credibility on Human Rights – only the plan’s increase in U.S. credibility can restore effective HR promotion Cihangir-Tetik 14 (Damla Cihangir-Tetik is a Ph.D Candidate in Political Science, Sabanci University/Istanbul as well as Project Coordinator for Transparency International Turkey, pg online @ http://idsmagazine.org/human-rights-and-democracypromotion-as-foreign-policy-tools-of-transatlantic-partners-by-damla-cihangirtetik/ //um-ef) Regarding human rights protection and democracy promotion, the “discrepancy of the West” argument reached its peak with the “war on terrorism” policy of the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Western democracy promotion and human rights norms deteriorated with the US-led operation in Afghanistan in order to fight against global terrorism and with the invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain. Additionally, the treatment of prisoners by the US officials in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib was perceived as aggressive, paternalistic, neo-imperialist and a combination of all those by the rest of the international community (Burnell 2010, the US are faced with an important credibility problem at the moment concerning their efforts towards international human rights protection 2). Importantly, the EU and especially and “Credibility refers to the fact that democratization is hardly ever the only foreign policy goal of those governments who provide democracy assistance” (Burnell 2010). As Bermeo explains, even though the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on democracy and good governance in Egypt, its democracy promotion in the rest of the world. military aid, which is much more higher than the ones for democratization, increases the scepticism towards the priority of the US in Egypt (Bermeo 2009). Democracy promotion can therefore only succeed if it is embedded within the overall set of foreign policies of the promoting country and if the promoting country itself adheres to the rules, norms and values it claims to want to become more widespread ” (Burnell 2010). Similarly, concerning international human rights protection, the US fails to accede to the ICC with others – including China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia – and this discourages these states and also the others from engaging in “ activities that promote human rights (Muftuler-Bac and Peterson 2014). As a result, at the moment it is not expected from the US to be a global leader of human rights protection internationally. and democracy promotion However, one has to keep in mind that the US under President Wilson’s administration was leading both bilateral and multilateral means of democracy promotion at the beginning of the 20th century. The US has established USAID in 1961 and the National Endowment for Democracy as its main democracy promotion instruments. In the mission statement of the State Department, democracy promotion is underlined as a political purpose for the US; “…advance freedom for benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and different US administrations have different modes of democracy promotion and human rights protection. While in the 1990s President Clinton act responsibly within the international system” (US Department of State 2007). As Babayan mentions, made democracy promotion one of the three main pillars of his foreign policy, President George W. Bush adopted a different democracy promotion rhetoric, which is combined Obama later distanced himself from (Babayan 2013, Babayan and Huber 2012, 3). Even though he continues to apply human rights and democracy promotion policies, he is much more cautious than his predecessors because of increasing multipolarity in global security environment and increasing domestic pressures. According to discussed outcomes of diverse Western-led human rights protection and democracy promotion with military means and which President policies there is no certain, clear answer to the question of “do human rights protection and democracy promotion policies of the West work?” The answer is both “yes” and “no”. As Gravingholt et. al. mention, the foremost reason for this blurriness is the unknown precise rules of democratization (Gravingholt et. al. 2009). It is the same for human rights protection, an area where international legal norms and rules are not specified, internationalized and applicable until now, even though some improved steps regarding the the US and the EU have different approaches regarding human rights protection and democracy promotion and several disagreements on some issues, ranging from counterterrorism policies to private data collection and their shared security measures . As mentioned above, even though there is a continuation of the “discrepancy of the West” and/or the “credibility problem of the West”, the transatlantic partners still lead human rights protection and democracy promotion internationally. Therefore, they have been pushing other states, IOs and non-state creation of enforceable rules of International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Even actors for the creation of international norms in the multilateral framework. However, this leadership perception is now insufficient to abolish the question: Has the West dropped human rights protection as a norm in response to the emergence of alternative and democracy political regimes to the Western democracy, especially by the rise of China and Russia as global powers? The U.S.’s immigration policy has failed to meet HR guidelines – critics from Human Rights Watch and US citizens Huffington Post 14 (1/24/2014, “Human Rights Watch Blasts U.S. Immigration ‘Abuses,' Again,” The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/human-rights-watchimmigration_n_4661308.html) The failure of Congress and the White House to address the country’s immigration problems drew fire from a prominent human rights watchdog this week -- again. Human Rights Watch criticized the U.S. government in its “World Report 2014,” released Tuesday, for what it called “abuses” related to the incarceration and deportation of undocumented immigrants. The organization echoed similar faults it found with U.S. immigration policy in world reports from past years. The authors criticize the U.S. government’s human rights record, calling it “marred by abuses related to criminal justice immigration, national security and drug policy.” The report names immigrants and ethnic minorities as among the “most vulnerable members” of U.S. society. The report also notes that U.S. detention centers now hold approximately 400,000 undocumented immigrants each year, with hundreds in solitary confinement. “Many of those prosecuted have minor or no criminal history and have substantial ties to the U.S. such as U.S. citizen family members they were seeking to rejoin when arrested,” the report says. “The federal government has portrayed these programs as focused on dangerous criminals, but most immigrants deported through Secure Communities are non-criminal or lower level offenders,” the report says. “These programs also exacerbate distrust of police in immigrant communities.” Despite polling reflecting consistent public support for immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, the U.S. Congress has yet to pass legislation and the White House continues to deport undocumented immigrants at a recordsetting pace. Passing ICE immigration reform is key to U.S. Human Rights Credibility Singh ’12 (Sharon, “Key Human Rights Challenge to 2012 U.S. Presidential Candidates”, OCTOBER 2, 2012, http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/key-human-rights-challenge-to-2012-us-presidential-candidates//JC) (Washington, D.C.) –Amnesty International is challenging the 2012 U.S. presidential candidates to commit to a set of 12 human rights goals that will help secure the place of human rights in their administrations. “This is a defining moment in U.S. history,” said Suzanne Nossel, executive director for Amnesty International USA. “The United States’ global claim to human rights leadership took a major hit in the early part of the twenty-first century. Ten years later, Guantanamo remains open for business, indefinite detention persists and other serious problems remain.” “The next four years will be pivotal in determining whether the United States will be a human rights trailblazer, or just an occasional actor when principles coincide with a narrow conception of U.S. national interests,” said Nossel. “The United States’ clout in promoting human rights around the world is only as good as its own record at home and in its international dealings. If the next president is going to profess a commitment to human rights, it needs to be backed by a pledge to improve the United States’ own record.” Amnesty International’s “12 for 2012” includes domestic and foreign affairs issues. In the first presidential debate focused on domestic issues, the human rights organization asks the candidates their solutions to several key national challenges, including massreform legislation that protects the human rights of documented and undocumented immigrants. “While human rights issues may not be top of mind for swing voters, these questions will help determine the shape and strength of U.S. society and global credibility for decades to come,” said Nossel. The three domestic-focused questions are listed below. For the full list of questions, please go to http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/12for2012Final.pdf 10) Will you commit to prioritizing passage in the Congress of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would protect undocumented immigrants from exploitation by traffickers and unscrupulous employers; create opportunities for immigrants to attain legal status in the United States; bolster oversight and accountability for the conduct of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers; and provide families with avenues to be reunited or remain together? 11) Will you issue an Executive Order on Human Rights to ensure that full spectrum human rights promotion and enforcement are prioritized among all federal agencies and incarceration and racial disparities in the United States’ criminal justice system and comprehensive immigration departments and in all legislative policy and regulatory decisions; and by monitoring and accountability offices throughout the United States government? Will you commit to rigorous follow up on recommendations made by international human rights bodies and meaningful periodic consultations with civil society on the implementation of the U.S.’s human rights obligations? Collapse of human rights norms causes global WMD conflict Burke-White 4 – William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. at Cambridge, “Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Correlation”, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy . It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security . Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction ( WMD ). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues. Solvency The shift from Secure Communities to Priority Enforcement has led to no improvement – Local police entanglement creates illegal detainment, racial profiling and community distrust – It must end. Pasquarella 6/27/15 -- J.D. with a Certificate in Refugee and Humanitarian Emergencies from Georgetown University Law Center, ACLU Southern California (JENNIE “ICE Plays Name Game”, https://www.laprogressive.com/ice-priority-enforcement-program///JC) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) rolled out a new immigration enforcement program this month that it bills as an improved approach to using city and county police and jails for immigration enforcement. The new program, known as “Priority Enforcement Program,” or “PEP,” is intended to address many of the violations that caused ICE to abandon its “Secure Communities” program last November. But PEP has left in place many of the same problems that caused federal courts to find that Secure Communities violated the constitution. Under Secure Communities, federal officials issued “immigration detainers” – or detention requests – asking city and county jails to detain people after their scheduled release date so ICE could have extra time to pick them up and investigate whether the individual should be deported. ICE has not corrected the fundamental failings of the immigration detainer, which makes compliance with it unconstitutional. A series of federal court rulings last year made clear that immigration detainers were voluntary requests and suggested that any local police agency that complied with them may be violating the Fourth Amendment for making an unlawful arrest (one that is not supported by probable cause) and can be held liable for damages. Under Secure Communities, thousands of people were illegally detained for days, weeks, and sometimes months after their scheduled release dates. In addition to court scrutiny, the program faced criticism for its dragnet effect, sweeping up anyone who was arrested, regardless of whether or not they were charged or convicted of any crime, and for tearing families apart and encouraging racial profiling. In light of these court decisions, and citing harm to community policing efforts, hundreds of local law enforcement agencies across the country rejected immigration detainer requests and adopted policies prohibiting compliance with immigration detainers without a judicial warrant or judicial determination of probable cause. In response, ICE rebranded Secure Communities, announcing in November that it was terminating the program and replacing it with PEP. It announced that it would replace detainers with “notification requests;” that is, instead of asking for extended detention from local jails, it would now only ask that the jails advise ICE when a person will become eligible for release so that they can pick them up, but said it would still use detainers in “special circumstances” and only when it had “probable cause” for the arrest. That’s why we were dismayed when earlier this month ICE released its new forms for detainer and notification requests under PEP and these limitations on detainer use were not reflected. Significantly, ICE has not corrected the fundamental failings of the immigration detainer, which makes compliance with it unconstitutional. The new detainer forms do not require a judicial warrant, judicial determination of probable cause, or even an individual, particularized statement of probable cause. Moreover, nothing in the new detainer form appears to limit immigration detainers to special circumstances. The ACLU and immigrant rights groups sent a letter to DHS this month in response, urging the agency to discontinue use of detainers entirely, in light of these continued constitutional problems with their use. PEP, like its predecessor, plainly fails to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s basic protections. Under PEP, immigration agencies and local law enforcement will continue to face liability for these illegal detentions. Not only is PEP illegal, it is completely out of step with the national conversation on the need for policing and criminal justice reform. The ACLU questions why DHS is continuing to entangle local police in immigration enforcement when the president’s own Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended that DHS “decouple” federal immigration enforcement from routine local policing. The Secure Communities program led to an erosion of police-community trust. PEP appears to be no different. New changes in policy mean no link uniqueness, but are wrought with loopholes – Only complete disentanglement solves IRLC ’15 (“Life After “PEP-Comm” - Immigrant Legal Resource Center”, http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/ilrc_organizers_advisory-201501_06.pdf.//JC) On November 20, 2014, Presid”ent Obama announced executive reforms to the immigration system, including: (i) changes to immigration enforcement policy; (ii) deferred action expansion; and (iii) other changes to procedures in the legal immigration system.1 This alert focuses on changes to how the Department of Homeland Security will enforce immigration laws, with a particular focus on interior enforcement.2 While the President’s announcement has the potential to change the landscape of immigration enforcement, advocates need to understand these changes in order to safeguard the gains we have worked so hard to achieve, and continue gaining more ground. What has changed? ICE Holds: Perhaps the biggest change, ICE states that it will stop using ICE holds due to constitutional concerns except in “special circumstances.” This means that jails in most cases will not be asked to hold individuals for ICE past the time they should otherwise be released (either because the judge released them with no bail, they post bail money, or complete their sentence). Previously, when ICE issued holds, it asked local law enforcement to hold an individual extra time beyond their criminal release so that ICE could have extra time to pick them up. According to ICE’s planned changes, ICE says that they will stop issuing ICE holds except in special circumstances. So far, no one knows how “special circumstances” will be defined. Advocates should be vigilant about monitoring this and holding ICE accountable. ICE states that hold requests will be replaced with requests for notification of release dates. This means that ICE wants notice of when an individual will be released from jail, so that ICE agents can be ready to pick up the person as they walk out of jail. This practice had already begun to happen in many locations where jails have stopped responding to ICE holds. While these notification requests have always been a part of ICE holds, this shift further solidifies communication between federal and local and state law enforcement officials. ICE further claims that these requests for notification will only be for those who fall within certain priorities. These priorities will include those who have been convicted of one “significant” misdemeanor (including DUIs and DV assaults), three or more misdemeanors, any felony or “aggravated felony,” and any person who poses a “risk to national security” including those with convictions for gang- related crimes. In other words, most people in local jails will likely still be targeted. One of the outstanding challenges from these new directives is that ICE should not be targeting people until they fall into the enforcement priorities – that is, not until after they have a conviction making them a priority. But ICE will continue to be getting information from local law enforcement immediately upon arrest and thereafter because of its’ relationships with jails and probation departments, in addition to cooperation through CAP and 287(g). Requiring ICE to follow the directions in the enforcement priorities and preventing them from issuing notification or hold requests on people who have not been convicted will require close monitoring. TIP→ Advocates should stay alert as to how and when these requests for notification will occur. So far, we don’t know if ICE has developed instructions or protocols. It is unclear how ICE will monitor cases to find out when people have been convicted, or what community pressure will be needed to force them to follow that part of the enforcement priorities directive. We do not know if they will use a form, or whether these notifications happen orally. We don’t know whether communication will happen through an ICE Call center (LESC) or from the local ICE offices. There is a lot that we don’t know so it is important for advocates on the ground to remain vigilant and to record what they are seeing. Attempt to Address Biased Policing: Biased policing is when law enforcement uses an individual’s race or ethnicity as a key factor in enforcement. ICE claims that it will address biased policing in its enforcement practices. To do this, ICE states it will monitor its new activities, including analyzing data, to detect for biased policing and then will “establish effective remedial measures” in response to any evidence of biased policing. Many organizations have made similar recommendations in the past and DHS has recognized the need to address biased policing in immigration enforcement.3 We must now hold ICE accountable for further exacerbating racial profiling and biased policing practices. ICE’s practices have facilitated local law enforcement’s efforts to further target immigrant communities. We must continue pushing for a complete disentanglement between local law enforcement and ICE. Post plan, the raids of immigrants will end – ICE doesn’t have the resources Golash-Boza 12’ (Tanya [Associate Professor at UC Merced] Racial Profiling and Mass Deportation of Black and Latino Men,http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2012/05/15/racial-profiling-and-mass-deportation-of-black-and-latino-men/) Immigration law enforcement agents generally do not have license to walk up and down the streets of U.S. cities and demand proof of U.S. citizenship from pedestrians. The Border Patrol is only authorized to work in U.S. border areas. And, ICE, only has 20,000 employees overall, only a fraction of whom are officers engaged in raiding homes and worksites arresting illegally present immigrants. ICE does not have the staff or resources to patrol the county. Instead, ICE works closely with criminal law enforcement agencies to apprehend immigrants. Plans Plan: Immigration and Customs Enforcement should curtail its local law enforcement surveillance Plan: Immigration and Customs Enforcement should curtail its local police surveillance Plan: The United States federal government should curtail its Immigration and Customs Enforcement Surveillance performed by local law enforcement Plan: The United States federal government should curtail its Immigration and Customs Enforcement Surveillance performed by local police Plan: Immigration and Customs Enforcement should curtail its surveillance that is based on immigration status Plan: The United States federal government should curtail its surveillance that is based on immigration status *Advantage LONG Organized Crime Local enforcement of ICE immigration law drives racial profiling, undermines trust of police, and overstretches police resources Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas Program.)//lb Like its other criminal alien programs, ICE claims that through the 287(g) program it aims to protect against threats to the community. In its description of the 287(g) program, ICE says the local law enforcement officials should be cross-designated as immigration agents because "during the course of daily duties, they will often encounter foreign-born criminals and immigration violators who pose a threat to national security or public safety." The program gives local police the "necessary resources and latitude to pursue investigations related to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling, and money laundering." The 287(g) program has led to widespread concerns about racial profiling, reduced community trust, inadequate prioritization of dangerous criminals, and misplaced law enforcement resources. A study of the operation of the program in North Carolina found that it has been used to "purge towns and cities of 'unwelcome' immigrants." The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement report noted: "Instead of focusing on those people who commit the violent crimes as stated by ICE, local law enforcement officers seem to be targeting drivers of a particular race or national origin and stopping them for traffic violations. For example, during the month of May 2008, 83% of the immigrants arrested by Gaston County ICE-authorized officers pursuant to the 287(g) program were charged with traffic violations. This pattern has continued as the program has been implemented throughout the state. The arrest data appears to indicate that Mecklenburg and Alamance Counties are typical in the targeting of Hispanics for traffic offenses for the purposes of a deportation policy." These problems were also highlighted in a January 2009 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. The GAO report discovered that despite ICE's claims that the program would target dangerous criminal aliens, the agency did nothing to ensure that the police and sheriff deputies it cross-designated prioritized immigrants who were suspected of "posing a threat to national security or public safety." GAO concluded: "While ICE officials have stated that the main objective of the 287(g) program is to enhance the safety and security of communities by addressing serious criminal activity committed by removable aliens, they have not documented this objective in program-related materials consistent with internal control standards. As a result, some participating agencies are using their 287(g) authority to process for removal aliens who have committed minor offenses, such as speeding, carrying an open container of alcohol, and urinating in public. None of these crimes fall into the category of serious criminal activity that ICE officials described to us as the type of crime the 287(g) program is expected to pursue." The GAO found that ICE didn't even attempt to ensure that the local officers it trained and designated as immigration agents used their authority only for arrested immigrants. Of the 287(g) agreements studied by GAO, not one of the 29 "mentioned that an arrest should precede use of 287(g) program authority." In other words, cross-designated local police have been investigating the immigration status of people they stop or otherwise encounter even when there is no crime involved. A March 2008 report by Justice Strategies, Local Democracy on ICE, also pointed to the broader problem of mixing immigration law and criminal law. In their report, Aarti Shahani and Judith Greene warned: "287(g) represents the fusion of two separate systems of law enforcement power. Once in place, it can lead to further entanglement of these powers as state and local politicians jump into the campaign to 'crack down' on immigrants. But civil immigration and criminal law are fundamentally incompatible . The grey area between civil and criminal law creates a situation ripe for abuse. The Constitution's protections against arrest without probable cause, indefinite detention, trial without counsel, double jeopardy, and selfincrimination, as well as the statute of limitations, do not apply equally (or in some cases at all) in the civil immigration context." ICE’s Section 287 specifically overstretches the police & prevents solving serious crime HRI 12 (HRI is the Human Rights Initiative, “The Misguided Expansion of § 287(g) Agreements Allowing Local Police to Perform Immigration Duties,” Published September 2009, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.hrionline.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/287gFINALFINAL.pdf, SZ) Section 287(g) programs undermine local law enforcement’s ability to work with immigrants to prevent and solve crimes and keep communities safe. There are two primary ways in which 287(g) agreements make communities less safe. First, 287(g) agreements are unsuccessful at ridding communities of serious criminals rather than those who commit minor infractions, such as traffic violations. Second, 287(g) agreements and similar programs often cause undocumented immigrants to fail to report serious crimes due to a fear of deportation, thus leading to the failure to apprehend criminals. With respect to the first issue, DHS admits that ―although ICE has developed priorities for alien arrest and detention efforts, it has not established a process to ensure that the emphasis of 287(g) efforts is placed on aliens that fall within the highest priority level.‖18 For example, in a sample collected by the DHS, only 9 percent of individuals arrested through the 287(g) program fell into the Level 1 category, while 44 percent of the individuals were categorized as Level 2. This means that almost half of those arrested via 287(g) agreements are being arrested for minor ―crimes‖ such as traffic violations. DHS admits that these results ―do not show that 287(g) resources have been focused on aliens who pose the greatest risk to the public.‖19 A study of the Criminal Alien Program (―CAP‖) in Travis County, Texas, has produced analogous findings. CAP is similar in effect to the 287(g) jail enforcement model. In both programs, law enforcement officials are granted access to county jails to identify deportable noncitizens.20 The primary difference between CAP and the jail enforcement model of 287(g) is that ICE officials investigate an individual’s residency status under CAP, whereas local law enforcement officials trained by ICE carry out this duty under 287(g).21 Indeed, CAP’s implementation in Travis County has primarily impacted individuals without criminal records. For instance, an October 2009 DHS report shows that 57 percent of immigrants identified through CAP had no criminal convictions.22 Similarly, a recent study in Irving, Texas, by the Warren Institute found that 98 percent of all arrestees placed under detainer (an instrument that flags an inmate as a deportable non-citizen) in 2007 through CAP had been arrested for misdemeanor offenses, rather than felonies or serious crimes.23 These figures provide convincing evidence that programs targeting removable aliens do not significantly increase the safety of communities, and instead primarily affect individuals with minor (if any) criminal histories. Additionally, the evidence suggests that 287(g) agreements prevent undocumented immigrants from working with law enforcement to catch serious criminals. For instance, in Travis County, ―social service providers and community organizations in Austin have noted a climate change in the immigrant community‖ coinciding with local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE.24 These observations are corroborated by the Proyecto Defensa Laboral (―PDL,‖ Worker’s Defense Project), a non-profit center that helps low-wage workers improve their working conditions, which has recorded numerous calls from members afraid to contact police. One example of such a case occurred when a female member’s 13-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted, but waited several days before reporting the incident due to the presence of ICE in Travis County. Only after speaking with PDL did the member seek help.25 Plan reestablishes trust in local law enforcement- Uniquely decreases violent crime rates Gascon 13 (George Gascon is the District Attorney in San Francisco, “Why cops should back immigration reform,” 6/19/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/opinion/gascon-immigration- policing/, SZ) When immigrants -- unauthorized or authorized - feel isolated from the protection of law enforcement, the entire community suffers. I saw this evidenced during my tenure as police chief in Mesa, Arizona, where local Sheriff Joe Arpaio's reign of terror over the Latino community led to increased crime rates in his county. Arpaio blamed most crimes in Maricopa Country on undocumented immigrants and made racial profiling a common practice. He frequently detained people who "looked Latino" until they could prove their status in the country. In direct contrast to this approach, I worked side by side with community groups and civil rights organizations to foster a sense of trust between the Latino community and the Mesa Police Department. The effects of a broken immigration system were a constant thread in the stories of Latino mothers, fathers and workers who refused to report crime for fear of being detained or deported. In Mesa, we lowered crime by some 30%, according to FBI data -- a result of the trust our police department created with all communities, and not because of immigration enforcement. Law enforcement should focus on community safety, not enforcing immigration laws. That is not just my opinion, but that of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Arizona's SB1070, and of many police officers and law enforcement officials around the country. When undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, they become wary of law enforcement, crimes go unreported, perpetrators remain on the loose, and the safety of our communities is affected. Anti-immigrant forces have long scapegoated undocumented immigrants as the reason for higher crime rates and the need for greater border security. We in law enforcement must come together and inform our senators that immigrants are a valuable part of our communities. Research shows that areas with a high immigrant population often have much lower rates of crime than similar areas without high immigrant representation. Our borders are also more secure than they have ever been, with the United States already spending more than $17 billion annually on immigration and border enforcement. US organized violent crime spills over to other countries Feere and Vaughan 8 (Jon Feere is a legal policy analyst, Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, “Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs,” Published September 2008, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs, SZ) The recent emergence and spread of several Hispanic street gangs, most notably MS-13 and 18th Street, has attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies and political leaders nationwide. Many gangs are made up of small-time troublemakers, but others have a reputation for grisly violence. They are responsible for virtually the entire spectrum of criminal activity, from nuisance crimes like graffiti to murder. Some are becoming increasingly well-organized and operating as sophisticated crime syndicates across national borders. Transnational gangs generally are defined as those gangs that are criminally active and operational in more than one country, whose activities are sometimes controlled or planned by individuals in another country, whose members are mobile and adaptable in new areas, and whose members tend to be involved in cross-border or international crime or violations with a nexus to the border. 11 The countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are considered to be the epicenter of the gang crisis, as most of the criminal transnational gang members in the United States have ties to these countries. Murder rates in these countries are extremely high; in 2004, the estimated murder rate per 100,000 people was 45.9 in Honduras, 41.2 in El Salvador, and 34.7 in Guatemala (compared with a 2004 murder rate in the United States of only 5.7 murders per 100,000 people). Salvadoran police estimate that at least 60 percent of the 2,756 murders committed in El Salvador in 2004 were gang-related. The gang population in Central American countries is estimated to be about 500,000. 12 Organized crime hurts the economy and national security Finklea 09 (Kristin M. Finklea is an analyst in domestic security part of the Congressional Research Service, “Organized Crime in the United States: Trends and Issues for Congress,” 4/16/09, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R40525_04162009.pdf, SZ) Organized crime threatens multiple facets of the United States, including the economy and national security. In fact, the Organized Crime Council was recently reconvened for the first time in 15 years to address this continued threat. Organized crime has taken on an increasingly transnational nature, and with more open borders and the expansion of the Internet, criminals endanger the United States not only from within the borders, but beyond. Threats come from a variety of criminal organizations, including Russian, Asian, Italian, Balkan, Middle Eastern, and African syndicates. Policymakers may question whether the tools they have provided the federal government to combat organized crime are still effective for countering today’s evolving risks. In the wake of the economic downturn, organized crime could further weaken the economy with illegal activities (such as cigarette trafficking and tax evasion scams) that result in a loss of tax revenue for state and federal governments. Fraudulent activities in domains such as strategic commodities, credit, insurance, stocks, securities and investments could further weaken the already-troubled financial market. On the national security front, experts and policymakers have expressed concern over a possible nexus between organized crime and terrorism. Despite the difference in motivation for organized crime (profit) and terrorism (ideology), the linking element for the two is money. Terrorists may potentially obtain funding for their operations from partnering directly with organized crime groups or modeling their profitable criminal acts. Even if organized crime groups and terrorist organizations do not form long-term alliances, the possibility of short-term business alliances may be of concern to policymakers. Organized crime destroy economic development – proves plan is key UN 12 (United Nations General Assembly, “Thematic Debate of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Drugs and Crime as a Threat to Development On the occasion of the UN International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking,” 6/26/12, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/66/Issues/drugs/drugs- crime.shtml, SZ) As economic development is threatened by transnational organized crime and illicit drugs, countering crime must form part of the development agenda, and social and economic development approaches need to form part of our response to organized crime. If we are to ensure that the MDGs are achieved, we must strengthen strategies to deliver these goals, including stepping up efforts to address Organized crime and drugs impact every economy, in every country, but they are particularly devastating in weak and vulnerable countries. Weak and fragile countries are particularly issues such as money laundering, corruption and trafficking in wildlife, people and arms, and drugs. vulnerable to the effects of transnational organized crime. These countries, some devastated by war, others making the complex journey towards democracy, are preyed upon by crime. As a result, organized crime flourishes, successes in development are reversed, and opportunities for social and economic advancement are lost. Corruption, a facilitator of organized crime and drug trafficking, is a serious impediment to the rule of law and sustainable development. It can be a dominant factor driving fragile countries towards failure. It is estimated that up to US$40 billion annually is lost through corruption in developing countries. Drugs and crime undermine development by eroding social and human capital. This degrades quality of life and can force skilled workers to leave, while the direct impacts of victimisation, as well as fear of crime, may impede the development of those that remain. By limiting movement, crime impedes access to possible employment and educational opportunities, and it discourages the accumulation of assets. Crime is also more “expensive” for poor people in poor countries, and disadvantaged households may struggle to cope with the shock of victimisation. Drugs and crime also undermine development by driving away business. Both foreign and domestic investors see crime as a sign of social instability, and crime drives up the cost of doing business. Tourism is a sector especially sensitive to crime issues. Drugs and crime, moreover, undermine the ability of the state to promote development by destroying the trust relationship between the people and the state, and undermining democracy and confidence in the criminal justice system. When people lose confidence in the criminal justice system, they may engage in vigilantism, which further undermines the state. Extinction Richard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, “The World Without America,” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-ofamerican-power-by-richard-n--haass The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable future is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and slow economic growth – in short, the domestic foundations of American power . Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in America’s difficulties. Let me posit a radical idea: Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples of inconsistency between America’s practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But, America’s failure to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price. Indeed, the rest of the world’s stake in American success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth accelerates, America’s capacity to consume other countries’ goods and services will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and Asia is slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic recovery . The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the world’s citizens communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was like most temptations, the urge to gloat at America’s imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for. made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class the US has long been a leading example of what market economies and democratic politics can accomplish. People and governments around the world are far more likely to become more open if the American model is perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world economic order that promotes trade and investment to universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More fundamentally, regulating practices in cyberspace, improving global health, and preventing armed conflicts These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out . . While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of geopolitics . Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global responses to global challenges. Don’t get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the world’s problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back to the argument that the US must put its house in order – economically , physically, socially, and politically – if it is to have the resources needed to promote order in the world . Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that is not led at all . Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by chronic crisis and conflict . That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planet ’s inhabitants. Nuclear terror kills billons Brill and Luongo ‘12 [Kenneth C. Brill is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A. Kenneth N. Luongo is president of the Partnership for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a nonpartisan nongovernmental organization. “Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger” The New York Times, 3/15/12 ln] There is a consensus among international leaders that the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection. President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious threats to global security and stability. At least four terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in such material. There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material. In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material. A terrorist nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in damages and undermine the global economy. Former Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism “would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty” and create “a second death toll throughout the developing world.” It is also preventable with more aggressive action. Add-ons 4th amendment rights ICE targets minorities in violation 4th amendment rights Benin 13 (Cynthia Benin NYU grad school. "Randomizing Immigration Enforcement: Exploring a New Foruth Amendment Regime." New York University Law Review. November 2013. 88 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1735. Lexis.)//lb It should be noted at the outset that the Fourth Amendment applies to noncitizens. n72 There are, however, some limitations. The Court's plurality opinion in United States v. VerdugoUrquidez suggested the Fourth Amendment does not apply to most noncitizens searched abroad and may not apply to noncitizens within the territory who lack "substantial connections" to the United States. n73 Furthermore, since immigration hearings are civil proceedings, the exclusionary rule does not prevent the government from using unlawfully obtained evidence of a noncitizen's unauthorized status to deport him, except in very limited circumstances. n74 These limitations, however, have little bearing on the proper analysis of immigration checkpoints: Any diminished constitutional status that noncitizens may possess [*1748] should not alter decisions about an enforcement regime that will undoubtedly affect citizens alike. n75 Nevertheless, although the Fourth Amendment applies in immigration cases, courts have exhibited a willingness to depart from the traditional requirements of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Within 100 miles of the border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may stop cars at fixed checkpoints along the road without any suspicion, n76 and officers may refer individuals to secondary inspection on the basis of criteria that would not satisfy a reasonable suspicion requirement. n77 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS agency responsible for enforcement in the interior, conducts many investigations via suspicionless, purportedly consentbased questioning that looks very much like a seizure. n78 At least one court has dispensed with individualized suspicion in favor of group-based suspicion in issuing a workplace raid warrant. n79 In short, Fourth Amendment standards in the immigration enforcement context are non-traditional, ill-defined in places, and seem to welcome overhaul. 2. Racial Profiling Run Wild The enormous discretion immigration officers are afforded often results in racial profiling. n80 During the famous Swift & Company raids, in which hundreds of federal agents dressed in riot gear arrested over 1200 workers in meatpacking plants across the country, witnesses reported that agents singled-out individuals who appeared to be [*1749] Hispanic or of other minority ethnicity. n81 Reports abound of ICE officials entering homes in Hispanic areas without probable cause. n82 Local law enforcement officers with authority to make immigration arrests pursuant to formal agreements with the federal government n83 have been accused in several jurisdictions of targeting Hispanics. n84 As one commentator states, racial profiling in immigration law is so prevalent that "no one familiar with the realities of immigration enforcement would suggest the contrary." n85 ICE undermines the 4th amendment- breaks into people’s homes based on racial profiling Ruiz 9 (Albor Ruiz- M.A., Political Science and Philosophy. "ICE Raid LEave Dissenters Cold" Daily News New York. July 23, 2009 Sports Final Adition. Suburban: Pg. 2. Lexis.)//lb Heavily armed men in uniforms, breaking into private homes before dawn, seizing people without probable cause. This has become the routine behavior of immigration agents during raids - without warrants or other authorization - on the homes of the undocumented, says a new report released yesterday. "Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations" was conducted by the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. The study found that it is not uncommon for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to seize residents without legal basis. This practice, which smacks of racial profiling, is not new. Many people have known about it for a long time. But the study makes clear that it is more widespread than anybody suspected. "This report reveals an alarming pattern of federal immigration officials breaking into people's homes and bedrooms in the predawn hours in flagrant violation of the Constitution," said Peter Markowitz, the Immigration Justice Clinic director and co-author of the report. One has to wonder if those who keep repeating, "We are a country of laws" in order to demand the harshest possible treatment for undocumented immigrants will now ask with similar fervor for ICE home raids to cease in the name of the Constitution. Imagine the terror of children and parents who wake up at dawn to find their homes invaded by seven-person teams of armed ICE agents. The display of force is such that one would think agents were about to confront dangerous terrorists, not detain poor, powerless immigrants. "When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn't working, and we need to change it," then-candidate Barack Obama eloquently told the National Council of La Raza last July during his presidential run. He was right, of course. The system is indeed broken and in need of repair. Scrapping the raids would be a great first step. Although the ICE home raids are intended to target dangerous criminals, as many as two-thirds of those arrested are civil immigration violators who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the report found. Similar results have been found with the 287(g) program that turns local police into surrogate immigration agents. Although 287(g) is under intense scrutiny for blatant racial profiling and human rights violations, Washington, inexplicably, is expanding it. The study also reveals that there is "a pattern of ICE agents physically pushing and breaking their way into private homes in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution." "There is an established pattern of misconduct by ICE agents in the New York and New Jersey Field Offices," the report concludes. It may very well be a national problem, the study says. In its response to the report, ICE said in a statement, "We do our job professionally and humanely," adding that the agency recognizes the impact its actions have on people. Jaya Vasandani, a co-author of the report, points out what may be the crux of the problem. "If the government were engaged in these types of systematic and widespread constitutional violations toward any other group in society, there would be a national outcry," Vasandani said. "Because these abuses have targeted the most vulnerable segments of our population they have gone largely unnoticed." Ours is a country of laws. Where is the outrage? Children’s mental health Children mental health is disrupted by the separation of families due to ICE raids Hing 09’ (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631) Family separation and the special damage to children have been particularly tragic consequences of the ICE raids.57 Most of the children impacted by raids were U.S. citizens and most were very young—about two-thirds were under ten and about one-third were under age five.58 In three sites studied by the National Council of La Raza, researchers found that “families and relatives scramble[d] to rearrange care, children spent at least one night without a parent, often in the care of a relative or non-relative babysitter, in some cases neighbors and in some cases even landlords; some children were cared for by extended families for weeks and months.”59 Families directly affected by the raid also suffered economic hardship and financial instability that “creates conditions that are detrimental to children’s development.”60 The National Council of La Raza study also analyzed the emotional and mental side effects upon children. While the long-term effects of the raids are still unraveling, psychologists have already observed and are concerned about longterm depression and other mental illness in family members. The report found that younger children translated the temporary parental absence as abandonment. One parent reported that her child feared that her father “love[s] money more than he loves me.”61According to Dr. Amaro Laria, Director of the Lucero Latino Mental Health Training Program at the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology and faculty of the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, “[o]ne of the most well established facts in mental health is that abrupt separation of children from their parents, particularly their mothers, are among the most severely traumatic experiences that a child can undergo.”62 He testified that in the case of the raid, the “traumatic separations [were] perpetrated and sanctioned by our nation’s law enforcement agencies, ironically in the name of protecting citizens.”63 In his opinion, ICE had engaged in terrorism against these families and children. Crime Reporting Latin American Immigrants in the status quo are less likely to help law enforcement when their immigration status is in question Menjivar and Bejarano 04( Cecilia Menjivar, Cynthia Bejarano, professor at the school of family dynamics Arizona State University, Janurary 2004, “Latino Immigrants’ perceptions of crime and police authorities in the United States: A case study from the Phoenix Metropolitan area, Vol.27 No.1 Ethnic and Racial Studies”)//AS To contextualize our work we have borrowed from the bodies of literature on fear of crime and attitudes towards the police because both inform the central themes in this study. Studies on victimization and immigration have examined the circumstances under which immigrants are more or less prone to report crime. Research on fear of crime has identified important factors that influence whether people will be more or less fearful of crime. These studies have contributed to dispelling notions about crimes committed and vulnerability to criminal activities, but few have focused on the particular experiences of immigrants and how these influence not only the immigrants’ relations with authorities, but even their very definition of what crime is. Perceptions of and experiences with police authorities are central, for these determine whether people will be likely to report crime; they are 05 RERS27-01-0005.fm Page 124 Thursday, 2015 Latino immigrants’ perceptions of crime 125 also an indication of underlying relations within a hierarchical system of authority and subordination. Race and ethnicity (Covington and Taylor 1991; Hagan and Albonetti 1982; Webb and Marshall 1995; Cao, Frank, and Cullen 1996; Walker, Spohn and DeLone 2000) plus age (Walker 1997), as well as gender and class (Crenshaw 1995) powerfully influence perceptions of the police (Decker 1981). Walker (1997) observes that the young do not express the deference or fear that characterizes older Hispanics, but are less assertive than either whites or African Americans. Hispanics, often unfamiliar with the system, may not use it fully to their advantage; thus, respondents have expressed strong deference to the police and fear of retaliation, particularly when their immigration status is in limbo. ¶ November 20, 2003 1:09 PM Downloaded by [] at 11:01 07 July Undocumented immigrants are reluctant to report criminal activity Arnold 07 – J.D. Candidate, University of Arizona (Carrie; Racial Profiling in Immigration Enforcement: State and Local Agreements to Enforce Federal Immigration Law; 2007; HeinOnline)//AJ On the other hand, many immigrants are unaware of the laws and do not realize that police officers cannot arrest them for civil immigration violations. 69 For example, when three people were killed inside a Houston Vietnamese restaurant in July 2002, most of the witnesses ran away, not only because they were afraid that they might be implicated in the crime, but also because many of them were in the country illegally. The police were able to get witnesses to come forward only after they spoke to the Vietnamese community during a popular Vietnamese-language radio show and assured people that they were only seeking information. 71 The International Association of Chiefs of Police ("IACP") has never adopted a policy or resolution about state and local enforcement of immigration law because members of the law enforcement profession are not in agreement. 72 Members of the IACP who oppose local involvement in immigration enforcement have expressed concern over the "chilling effect" that involvement would have on the willingness of immigrants to report criminal activity and to assist in criminal investigations.73 Other members believe that local law enforcement has a duty to assist the federal government in apprehending law violators, even if the area of law is immigration. Domestic/Sexual Abuse Domestic and Sexual violence goes unreported because of fear of deportation Foley 4-21-15 (Elise, “Fear Of Deportation May Be Keeping Latino Victims Of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault From Seeking Help”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/latinos-domestic-violence_n_7112130.html) WASHINGTON -- A new study of the Latino community's views on domestic violence and sexual assault found that, as in surveys of the population as a whole, many believe Latino victims don't come forward because they fear losing their children or facing more violence. But the study, released Tuesday, found that many Latinos think victims also may be afraid to go to police for a different reason: concern that it could lead to them being deported. The study was commissioned by the Avon Foundation on behalf of No More and Casa de Esperanza. It was conducted by Lake Research Partners. The results will be used as the groups shape the No Más campaign with Verizon this fall, aimed at spreading awareness of domestic violence and sexual assault and encouraging bystanders to intervene. The poll found that more than half of Latinos, 56 percent, said they knew someone who had been a victim of domestic violence. Twenty-eight percent said they knew someone who had been a victim of sexual assault. Asked what might be keeping Latino victims from coming forward, 41 percent of those polled said the primary reason was likely fear of deportation. That was the case for Delfina Rojas Ayona, 46, an immigrant from Mexico who spoke Tuesday at a briefing on the new poll on Capitol Hill. She said through a translator that she was abused by her former husband for more than two decades before she got help from police. At one point, while she was living in the U.S. without authorization, her boss noticed the bruises on her neck, and his secretary told her she could go to the police, she said. "I didn't do it because I was terrified that I would be deported and his family would end up doing something to my children," Ayona said through a translator. Immigration advocates often cite domestic violence as a key reason to keep police out of immigration matters . Police sometimes arrest both parties at first and then charge only the abuser, but simply taking the victim's fingerprints could put the victim at risk of deportation . Law enforcement in many jurisdictions has resisted working with immigration authorities in part to encourage victims to feel safe in coming forward. Health Deaths Fear of law enforcement prevents access to emergency care Lehman ’14 (Shereen, “Language barriers and fear of police may prevent minority 911 calls, Fri Dec 26, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/26/us-health-minorities-cpr-idUSKBN0K414U20141226) In poor, mostly Latino areas of Denver, Colorado, people who suffer cardiac arrest are less likely to get help in part because distrust of law enforcement and language barriers stop bystanders from calling 911 or learning CPR, researchers say. “We always sort of take it for granted the people will call 911, and this is the first study to really take a step back and say, gosh there's real barriers that we need to talk about,” said Dr. Comilla Sasson, who led the new study. People who live in poor and minority neighborhoods are more likely to suffer cardiac arrest outside of a hospital, and less likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or to survive, Sasson and her colleagues write in Annals of Emergency Medicine. The results of the survey point out several misconceptions that need to be addressed in such communities, like the fear that first responders “aren’t going to help you unless you’re documented or that they’re going to arrest you,” Sasson, an emergency physician at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, told Reuters Health. “It's something we spent a lot of time here in Denver really talking to our police officers and talking to our community members to let them know that if you call 911 we're not going to ask for identification - we're here to help you,” Sasson said. For their study, Sasson and colleagues recruited residents of five low-income, primarily Latino neighborhoods in Denver to form focus groups and do individual interviews to find out what might prevent them from calling 911, learning CPR or performing it. A total of 55 people participated in six focus groups, along with an additional nine individual interviews. The researchers identified six major barriers to calling 911, including the fear of law enforcement if the bystander was undocumented or had a criminal history. Participants also misunderstood or were not aware of Good Samaritan laws and worried that law enforcement or the victim’s family would blame them if the person did not survive. Cultural and language issues were also important. For instance, there was considerable concern about the propriety or safety of touching another person, especially a stranger, in the chest area or on the mouth. “I don’t know if it’s limited to Hispanic culture or not, but the hesitancy to touch another person, especially in the chest, and if it’s a woman, oh my goodness . . . Uh, there is great hesitation on the older people’s part,” said one participant. Many also expressed the fear of not being able to communicate with an emergency dispatcher. “One of the things we found that’s specific to the Latinos in Denver, and I think it's something that's important for people to know, is when you do call 911 how to say the right words to get through faster,” Sasson said. It can take 5 to 10 minutes for the dispatcher to communicate with somebody who doesn't speak English while trying to figure out the medical emergency, Sasson said, so she trains people in the community to say “heart stopped, Spanish interpreter” when they call 911. “It's not rocket science by any means, but ‘heart stopped’ triggers that this is a medical emergency,” Sasson said, and saying “Spanish interpreter” immediately lets the operator know they don’t speak English. The main reasons people gave for not learning CPR included the cost, lack of classes and not being aware of how CPR can save lives. “We know from the research we've done that Latinos are 30 percent less likely to have CPR performed and what the study really showed it was not that Latinos don't want to do CPR or that they're afraid of it,” Sasson said. “It's truly, I think, that we haven't gotten the messaging out on how important it is and how easy it is to do, especially now that you can do it without breathing into somebody’s mouth - you can do hands-only CPR.” Sasson said the American Heart Association has a Spanish-language website at heart.org/rcp with training materials and a 60second video that people can watch to learn how to do hands-only CPR in Spanish. “Cardiac arrest is a major public health problem and bystander CPR significantly improves your odds of survival on the order of tripling (them) and there's large disparities in who receives bystander CPR,” Dr. Ben Bobrow, who wasn’t involved in the study, told Reuters Health. “There’s both economic and racial disparities in who has access to life-saving therapy like CPR and it’s unacceptable that people shouldn't have access to simple life-saving interventions like CPR,” said Bobrow, who is medical director of the EMS and Trauma System in the Arizona Department of Health Services and the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson. Institutionalized Racism ICE institutionalizes racism versus immigrant populations Hing 09’ (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631) This Article contends that the evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which immigration laws operate have institutionalized bias against Latino immigrants—Mexicans in particular—and Asian immigrants. This has occurred through laws that initially manifested racist intent and/or impact, amendments that perpetuated that racism, and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations reinforcing the racism. Racism has been institutionalized in our immigration laws and enforcement policies. Kwame Ture (a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) coined the phrase “institutional racism” in the 1960s. He recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Institutional racism has come to describe societal patterns that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. In the United States, institutional racism resulted from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic structure still stands to this day. By understanding the fundamental principles of institutionalized racism we begin to see the application of the concept beyond the conventional black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating against certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices. Structures and social arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a way as to support or acquiesce in acts of racism. Institutional racism can be subtle and less visible, but is no less destructive than individual acts of racism. Charles Lawrence’s discussion of unconscious racism also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much racism lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb attitudes and stereotypes that influence behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. “Unconscious prejudice . . . is not subject to self- correction within the political process.”70 The forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration laws.71 As these laws are enforced, they are accepted as common practice, in spite of their racial effects. We may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their harshness or their violations of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism because we are not cognizant of the dominant racial framework. Understanding the evolution of U.S. immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better awareness of the institutional racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws and enforcement policies. The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the stage for the Mexicans and the Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to enforcement through employer sanctions enacted in 1986. Organized Crime – Economy Organized crime destroy economic development – proves plan is key UN 12 (United Nations General Assembly, “Thematic Debate of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Drugs and Crime as a Threat to Development On the occasion of the UN International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking,” 6/26/12, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/66/Issues/drugs/drugs- crime.shtml, SZ) As economic development is threatened by transnational organized crime and illicit drugs, countering crime must form part of the development agenda, and social and economic development approaches need to form part of our response to organized crime. If we are to ensure that the MDGs are achieved, we must strengthen strategies to deliver these goals, including stepping up efforts to address Organized crime every economy, in every country, but they are particularly devastating in weak and vulnerable countries. Weak and fragile countries are particularly issues such as money laundering, corruption and trafficking in wildlife, people and arms, and drugs. and drugs impact vulnerable to the effects of transnational organized crime. These countries, some devastated by war, others making the complex journey towards democracy, are preyed upon by crime. As a result, organized crime flourishes, successes in development are reversed, and opportunities for social and economic advancement are lost. Corruption, a facilitator of organized crime and drug trafficking, is a serious impediment to the rule of law and sustainable development. It can be a dominant factor driving fragile countries towards failure. It is estimated that up to US$40 billion annually is lost through corruption in developing countries. Drugs and crime undermine development by eroding social and human capital. This degrades quality of life and can force skilled workers to leave, while the direct impacts of victimisation, as well as fear of crime, may impede the development of those that remain. By limiting movement, crime impedes access to possible employment and educational opportunities, and it discourages the accumulation of assets. Crime is also more “expensive” for poor people in poor countries, and disadvantaged households may struggle to cope with the shock of victimisation. Drugs and crime also undermine development by driving away business. Both foreign and domestic investors see crime as a sign of social instability, and crime drives up the cost of doing business. Tourism is a sector especially sensitive to crime issues. Drugs and crime, moreover, undermine the ability of the state to promote development by destroying the trust relationship between the people and the state, and undermining democracy and confidence in the criminal justice system. When people lose confidence in the criminal justice system, they may engage in vigilantism, which further undermines the state. Extinction Richard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, “The World Without America,” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-ofamerican-power-by-richard-n--haass The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable future is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and slow economic growth – in short, the domestic foundations of American power . Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in America’s difficulties. Let me posit a radical idea: Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples of inconsistency between America’s practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But, America’s failure to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price. Indeed, the rest of the world’s stake in American success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth accelerates, America’s capacity to consume other countries’ goods and services will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and Asia is slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic recovery . The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the world’s citizens communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was like most temptations, the urge to gloat at America’s imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for. made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class the US has long been a leading example of what market economies and democratic politics can accomplish. People and governments around the world are far more likely to become more open if the American model is perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world economic order that promotes trade and investment to universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More fundamentally, regulating practices in cyberspace, improving global health, and preventing armed conflicts These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out . . While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of geopolitics . Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global responses to global challenges. Don’t get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the world’s problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back to the argument that the US must put its house in order – economically , physically, socially, and politically – if it is to have the resources needed to promote order in the world . Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that is not led at all . Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by chronic crisis and conflict . That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planet ’s inhabitants. Police Overstretch ICE’s Section 287 specifically overstretches the police & prevents solving serious crime HRI 12 (HRI is the Human Rights Initiative, “The Misguided Expansion of § 287(g) Agreements Allowing Local Police to Perform Immigration Duties,” Published September 2009, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.hrionline.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/287gFINALFINAL.pdf, SZ) Section 287(g) programs undermine local law enforcement’s ability to work with immigrants to prevent and solve crimes and keep communities safe. There are two primary ways in which 287(g) agreements make communities less safe. First, 287(g) agreements are unsuccessful at ridding communities of serious criminals rather than those who commit minor infractions, such as traffic violations. Second, 287(g) agreements and similar programs often cause undocumented immigrants to fail to report serious crimes due to a fear of deportation, thus leading to the failure to apprehend criminals. With respect to the first issue, DHS admits that ―although ICE has developed priorities for alien arrest and detention efforts, it has not established a process to ensure that the emphasis of 287(g) efforts is placed on aliens that fall within the highest priority level.‖18 For example, in a sample collected by the DHS, only 9 percent of individuals arrested through the 287(g) program fell into the Level 1 category, while 44 percent of the individuals were categorized as Level 2. This means that almost half of those arrested via 287(g) agreements are being arrested for minor ―crimes‖ such as traffic violations. DHS admits that these results ―do not show that 287(g) resources have been focused on aliens who pose the greatest risk to the public.‖19 A study of the Criminal Alien Program (―CAP‖) in Travis County, Texas, has produced analogous findings. CAP is similar in effect to the 287(g) jail enforcement model. In both programs, law enforcement officials are granted access to county jails to identify deportable noncitizens.20 The primary difference between CAP and the jail enforcement model of 287(g) is that ICE officials investigate an individual’s residency status under CAP, whereas local law enforcement officials trained by ICE carry out this duty under 287(g).21 Indeed, CAP’s implementation in Travis County has primarily impacted individuals without criminal records. For instance, an October 2009 DHS report shows that 57 percent of immigrants identified through CAP had no criminal convictions.22 Similarly, a recent study in Irving, Texas, by the Warren Institute found that 98 percent of all arrestees placed under detainer (an instrument that flags an inmate as a deportable non-citizen) in 2007 through CAP had been arrested for misdemeanor offenses, rather than felonies or serious crimes.23 These figures provide convincing evidence that programs targeting removable aliens do not significantly increase the safety of communities, and instead primarily affect individuals with minor (if any) criminal histories. Additionally, the evidence suggests that 287(g) agreements prevent undocumented immigrants from working with law enforcement to catch serious criminals. For instance, in Travis County, ―social service providers and community organizations in Austin have noted a climate change in the immigrant community‖ coinciding with local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE.24 These observations are corroborated by the Proyecto Defensa Laboral (―PDL,‖ Worker’s Defense Project), a non-profit center that helps low-wage workers improve their working conditions, which has recorded numerous calls from members afraid to contact police. One example of such a case occurred when a female member’s 13-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted, but waited several days before reporting the incident due to the presence of ICE in Travis County. Only after speaking with PDL did the member seek help.25 state economies Immigration enforcement undermines local economies- expensive detention procedure Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb Local immigration enforcement is costly for city budgets and local economies. One joint federal-local enforcement program, 287(g), costs many local governments more than a million dollars in unreimbursed costs a year. Mecklenburg County, NC, spent an estimated $5.3 million to set up and operate the 287(g) program in its first year. According to the Government Accountability Office, 62 percent of local law enforcement agencies that participate in 287(g) receive no federal reimbursement for any costs associated with the program. The federal government reimburses cities for less than a quarter of city and county costs for jailing immigrants who have committed crimes, an expense incurred under all the federal-local enforcement programs. Immigrants produce 20 percent of the economic output in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. When immigration enforcement programs succeed in pushing local immigrant populations underground, local economies suffer: businesses close, jobs and tax revenue are lost. Immigration enforcement undermines the economy- immigrants stay in to avoid police, hurting businesses Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb Immigration enforcement undercuts the vital contributions immigrants make to urban economies. In “Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the Middle Class,” the Drum Major Institute finds that immigrants produce goods and services, pay taxes and support small businesses, and as such are an integral part of the American economy.50 In the Chicago metropolitan area alone, undocumented immigrants spend nearly $2.9 billion each year on goods and services, creating an additional 31,908 jobs in the local economy.51 When immigration enforcement goes local, undocumented immigrants may fear that everyday activities could result in contact with police, and by extension, immigration authorities. As a result, many avoid public places, to the detriment of neighborhood businesses. In Irving, Texas, a large Dallas suburb, initial enforcement of the Criminal Alien Program drove many Latino immigrants underground. After controversial arrests of undocumented immigrants at a local barbeque, the Dallas Consul General of Mexico went so far as to warn Mexican immigrants to stay away from the suburb completely.52 Soon after, newspapers reported that small businesses dependent on immigrant customers took a noticeable hit. An article from the Houston Chronicle sheds light on the fallout: The bottom dropped out of Mike Granger’s snack business almost immediately after the Mexican consul general in Dallas warned people to avoid this sprawling suburb. ‘I’m picking up stales…My customers have disappeared.’ … Joe Reyes, a worker at Nico’s Discount Tires on Story Road, said: ‘The cops are stopping everybody around here,’ Reyes said, motioning to a stretch of inexpensive restaurants, auto repair shops and beauty shops. ‘People who used to come here now go to Grand Prairie, anyplace else,’ he said. His boss, manager Rafael Romero, said Nico’s business is down 50 percent.53 The same effect was observed on businesses in metropolitan Atlanta after 287(g) was implemented. From bridal shops to apartment complexes, business in Cobb and Gwinnett counties that catered to Latino immigrant customers registered serious and sometimes “staggering losses.” One Atlanta-based grocery distributor reported that lagging business post-287(g) forced him to cut the number of Latino grocery stores supplied from 30 to 5.54 A similar effect was observed in Frederick County and Prince William County, two 287(g) participants in the Washington, D.C metropolitan area.55 In Maricopa County, Arizona, one local politician actually touted depressed business activity as proof of 287(g)’s success. According to former Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas: We have a lot of anecdotal evidence of areas in the Valley that have a large number of presumed illegal immigrants leaving (and) businesses that cater to illegal immigrants suffering or going out of business entirely…So you have all of this evidence that supports the conclusion that illegal immigration is being curbed significantly, and I believe the main reason for that is the crackdown efforts of law enforcement and particularly the sheriff’s office and our office.56 This result was no doubt a negative for Maricopa business owners who relied on the economic support of undocumented immigrants and their families. Cities and metropolitan areas grappling with fiscal crises can scarcely afford to pursue immigration enforcement policies that risk reducing immigrants’ economic activities (this would need state/local economies k2 natl economy & U.S. econ k2 global econ) Economic decline causes nuclear war Geoffrey Kemp 10, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4 The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population. AT: Offcase AT: states CP State level immigration laws are unconstitutional and result in economic damage Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security, '12 (United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Securit; 2012; www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg91385/pdf/CHRG112shrg91385.pdf; 7-12-15; mbc) Tomorrow the Supreme Court is going to be considering whether the Arizona law, known as SB 1070, is constitutional. Specifically, the Court will be deciding if States can enact comprehensive immigration enforcement laws designed to promote the self-deportation of illegal immigrants. Five States—Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah—have crafted laws following Arizona’s example. Court challenges have been filed against all five of those laws, and the outcome of those cases will likely be dictated by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Arizona case. Discussing both the constitutionality and prudence of these laws is necessary because the Supreme Court will base its decision upon what the Senate had previously said about the role of State and local government in enforcing federal immigration law. The wisdom of the Arizona law is also currently being debated around the country. For instance, SB 1070 has recently been endorsed as a model for the country by Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for President. Others such as Marco Rubio have said they do not believe the Arizona law should be expanded nationwide. In 2 my view, these State laws are both counterproductive and unconstitutional. In terms of being counterproductive, the statistics could not be any clearer in terms of the economic damage these laws cause. In Arizona, studies have shown that after SB 1070 was passed, the convention and tourism industries lost as much as $140 million. Moreover, the agriculture industry has seen much of its crops destroyed due to a lack of labor. In Alabama, a study by the University of Alabama found that the Alabama law is projected to shrink Alabama’s economy by at least $2.3 billion annually and cost the State $70,000 per year—sorry, 70,000 jobs per year. In terms of being unconstitutional, our Founding Fathers gave Congress plenary power over immigration law. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and their manner of execution are committed solely to the Federal Government. Even though some on the other side want to limit the Federal Government’s power and increase the power of the States, immigration is not and never has been an area where States are able to exercise independent authority. This makes sense, both legally as a matter of constitutional interpretation and practically as a matter of sound public product. Immigration involves international commerce and sensitive foreign relations. Just as we would never allow 50 States to have their own inconsistent and independent trade laws, we should not have 50 States establishing and enforcing their own inconsistent immigration laws. And even if States like Arizona say they are only helping the Federal Government to enforce the law, this issue is much like federal tax law where the Federal Internal Revenue Service interprets and enforces the law as opposed to 50 State agencies going to people’s houses to ensure that they have properly filed their federal tax returns. Only federal comprehensive immigration reform can accomplish the three objectives most Americans want to see achieved with regard to immigration: first, ending illegal immigration; second, fixing our dysfunctional legal immigration system; and, third, addressing the status of people here without legal status. Reforms in the immigration system are key to the economy – prefer Aff’s ‘dynamic’ budget analyses Holtz-Eakin '13 (Douglas; April 2013; Immigration Reform, Economic Growth, and the Fiscal Challenge; Douglas J. "Doug" Holtz-Eakin is an American economist. He was formerly an economics professor, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign; americanactionforum.org/sites/default/files/Immigration%20and%20the%20Economy%20an d%20Budget.pdf; 7-13-15; mbc) Immigration reform can raise population growth, labor force growth, and thus growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, immigrants have displayed entrepreneurial rates above that of the native born population. New entrepreneurial vigor embodied in new capital and consumer goods can raise the standard of living. These channels suggest that any discussion of immigration reform that omits the benefits on economic performance is incomplete. Similarly, there will be direct feedback from better economic growth to more revenues, fewer federal outlays, and “dynamic” improvement in the federal budget. Traditional “static” budget analyses of immigration reforms’ impacts will be similarly incomplete. A rudimentary analysis of these impacts suggests that in the absence of immigration, the population and overall economy will decline as a result of low U.S. birth rates. A benchmark immigration reform would raise the pace of economic growth by nearly a percentage point over the near term, raise GDP per capita by over $1,500 and reduce the cumulative federal deficit by over $2.5 trillion. Introduction The United States faces interrelated challenges of weak economic growth and dramatic levels and projected growth in federal debt. The threats posed by this environment on economic opportunity and the social safety net have been the focus of recent federal policy debates. Recently, there has arisen bipartisan interest in reform of the laws that govern U.S. immigration policy, covering the core criteria used to grant visas, specialized programs for agriculture and hi-tech industries, border security and visa-tracking capabilities, temporary work programs, the future of undocumented adults and children already present in the U.S., systems for employer verification of work eligibility, and other dimensions. Inspection of the breadth of the impacts of immigration reform suggests that it will have important economic impacts. This represents an economic policy opportunity at the same time; indeed the degree to which immigration policy is economic policy has been traditionally underappreciated in the United States. In this way, immigration reform can be thought of as another tool to address its growth and fiscal challenges. This short paper examines the linkages between immigration reform, economic growth and budgetary performance. The mechanics of reform and the research literature suggest that immigration reform can raise the overall pace of population growth – indeed, in the absence of immigration, low birth-rates mean that the U.S. population will actually shrink. Because foreign-born individuals tend to have higher rates of labor force participation, this translates into an even more rapid pace of growth in the labor force. At historic rates of population growth, this immediately translates into more rapid overall growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). There are, however, two reasons for even further impacts. Immigrants have traditionally displayed an entrepreneurial bent, with rates of small business ownership above that of the native born population. New entrepreneurial vigor offers the potential for productivity-enhancing innovations. In addition, to the extent that new innovation is “embodied” in new capital and consumer goods, more rapid economic growth per se means that more output will have these advances embedded within, and productivity per worker will rise. Taken as a whole, these channels of impacts suggest that any discussion of immigration reform that omits the benefits on economic performance is incomplete. Similarly, there will be direct feedback from better economic growth to more revenues, fewer federal outlays, and improved budgetary performance. These links are fundamentally “dynamic” in the jargon of federal budgeting. They stem from the fact that policy changes reshape the growth environment, and thus in turn reshape the budget. Traditional “static” budget analyses will be similarly incomplete. The remainder is organized as follows. I begin with a brief review of some key facts on U.S. demography and immigration policy, followed by a review of the links between demography and economic performance. In the next sections, I connect the dots and look at the impacts of immigration reform on the economy and the budget. The final section is a summary. To anticipate the results, in the absence of immigration reform the low levels of U.S. birth rates indicate that the population and overall economy will decline. A benchmark immigration reform would raise the pace of economic growth by nearly a percentage point over the near term, raise GDP per capita by over $1,500 and reduce the cumulative federal deficit by over $2.5 trillion. ICE is the root cause of racial profiling among local police Chanin et al. 11 (Robert Chanin writes with others at the Leadership Conference, a 501(c)(4) organization that engages in legislative advocacy. It was founded in 1950 and has coordinated national lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957.. "Restoring a National Consensus: The Need to End Racial Profiling in America." The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. March 2011. www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/racial_profiling2011.pdf)//lb Unfortunately, these clear statements of intent have not guided the operation of the 287(g) program. Combined with the 2002 OLC "inherent authority" opinion, the program has been used by state and local law enforcement authorities to stop, detain, question, and otherwise target individual Hispanics and entire Hispanic communities in a broad way to enforce federal immigration laws, thus racially profiling vast numbers of Hispanics—most of whom are U.S. citizens or legal residents—as suspected undocumented immigrants. In New Jersey, a wide-ranging study found that despite a 2007 directive issued by the state attorney general that limited police to questioning about immigration status only those individuals arrested for indictable offenses or driving while intoxicated, officers routinely ignored these limitations, stopping and questioning tens of thousands of Hispanic motorists, pedestrians, passengers, and others who had committed no crime. During the six-month period following issuance of the directive, police referred 10,000 individuals who they believed were undocumented to ICE. Some of those turned over to ICE were crime victims. Others were jailed for days without charges. Many of those referred to ICE turned out to be legal residents or U.S. citizens. Only 1,417 individuals were charged with immigration offenses by the federal government. "The data suggest a disturbing trend towards racial profiling by the New Jersey police," said Bassina Farenblum, a lawyer for the Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall University Law School, which conducted the study.76 A familiar and troubling pattern has emerged in some jurisdictions operating under 287(g) MOAs pursuant to which local police make traffic stops of Hispanic drivers for minor infractions, if any, and then arrest the driver rather than issue the customary citation. Once an arrest is made, a federal background check can be conducted to determine if the driver is an undocumented immigrant. ICE gives local police authority to discriminate- leads to civil unrest- only abolishing state power solves Lewis et. Al. 12 (Paul G. Lewis from Arizona State Univeristy, Doris Marie Provine from Arizona State Univeristy, Monica W. Varsanyi from John Jay College, and Scott H. Decker from Arizona State Univeristy. “Why Do (Some) City Police Departments Enforce Federal Immigration Law? Political, Demographic, and Organizational Influences on Local Choices.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. October 4, 2012.)//lb Over the past decade or so, this arrangement began to change. Enabled by changes in federal legislation and by rising popular pressure to “do something” about unauthorized immigration, an increasing number of local governments authorized or required their police departments to participate in the identification of unauthorized immigrants and to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts led by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security. As such, local governments now hold a limited legal ability to discriminate against people on the basis of citizenship status and to take an active part in ascertaining that status. Some localities, however, have taken the opposite approach, discouraging or forbidding their police from inquiring about immigration status or collaborating with ICE. Local decisions regarding immigration enforcement are sometimes met with considerable controversy, including protests from both pro- and anti-immigrant groups. States sometimes enter the fray, asserting their authority to make policies more uniform. The passage in 2010 of Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 law, for example, was the state legislature’s attempt to limit the discretion of municipalities in the state to determine their own policies toward immigrants; legislators expressed frustration with cities that had instructed officers not to ask about immigration status. Local law enforcement capabilities are inherently racist – rollout targeted Hispanic communities Cox and Miles 13 (Adam B. Cox-J.D., University of Michigan Law School, summa cum laude, 1999, B.S.E, Princeton University, summa cum laude, 1996- and Thomas J. Miles -PhD from UChicago, JD Suma Cum Laude from Harvard. “Policing Immigration.” The University of Chicago Law Review. Vol. 80, No. 1 (Winter 2013) , pp. 87-136 http://www.jstor.org/stable/41825870)//lb In all of these contexts, the benefits of centralizing discretion often come with hidden costs. As Bernard Harcourt and others have noted in the criminal context, for example, these more "rational" models of policing can often obscure the ways in which seemingly neutral rules can in practice concentrate the burdens of law enforcement on minority communities.92 Our findings about Secure Communities suggest that this may be precisely what happened during the program's rollout. Early activation under the program is highly correlated with the size of a county's Hispanic population - a possibility that has been obscured by both the official justifications for Secure Communities and the less-than-transparent "risk -based" model that DHS has said it used to set activation priorities.93 The tight correlation under Secure Communities between activation and ethnicity is obviously troubling. Nor can it be dismissed as an artifact of the government's focus on the border or on areas containing large pockets of noncitizens. Instead, as the detailed analysis in Part III demonstrated, the correlation between activation and Hispanic population is extremely persistent: it remains large and statistically significant even when we control for border proximity and myriad other factors on which the government might have relied in deciding where to target its limited enforcement resources. Immigration enforcement encourages racism- only eliminating it can solve local profiling Lewis et. Al. 12 (Paul G. Lewis from Arizona State Univeristy, Doris Marie Provine from Arizona State Univeristy, Monica W. Varsanyi from John Jay College, and Scott H. Decker from Arizona State Univeristy. “Why Do (Some) City Police Departments Enforce Federal Immigration Law? Political, Demographic, and Organizational Influences on Local Choices.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. October 4, 2012.)//lb The involvement of local police in immigration enforcement has potentially significant ramifications, both for immigrants and for broader police-community relations. Local immigration enforcement can put at risk relationships of trust that police have sought to build with immigrant communities. Since the emergence of community policing as a professional philosophy, police have sought to gain the trust and confidence of local community members by emphasizing close communication and collaboration between police and residents, an approach that has become the archetype for police work (Herbert 2006; Oliver and Bartgis 1998; Skogan 2006). Enforcing civil immigration laws may also encourage racial profiling (Romero and Serag 2005), particularly as immigration enforcement remains linked to antiterrorism efforts (Johnson 2004). Even though many police departments have developed policies that prohibit profiling, immigration enforcement may encourage officers to focus on people who “look Mexican” or are heard to speak a foreign language (see Gardner and Kohli 2009 for a pertinent case study). states<federal States only act under federal authority Tidwell 14 (Natashia has a J.D. from New England Law in Boston. "FRAGMENTING THE COMMUNITY: IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF LOCAL POLICE NON-COOPERATION POLICIES." St.John's Law Review 88.1 (2014): 10542. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2015.)//lb In the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), the most comprehensive piece of federal immigration legislation to date,21 Congress granted local and state police arrest authority for certain violations of immigration law, such as alien smuggling and unlawful entry or reentry.22 Other INA provisions authorize local police to arrest previously deported felons but only upon receipt of approval to act from federal immigration authorities.23 Even in the absence of an express congressional grant of authority, the federal government, through the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), has long recognized and sanctioned the power of local police to detain, for limited periods, those individuals suspected of violating criminal immigration laws.24 In a 1996 advisory opinion issued by its Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"), the DOJ expressed its support for the states' willingness to assist in the federal immigration enforcement effort while simultaneously affirming its belief that such matters should ideally be left in the hands of federal law enforcement officials.25 4th amendment ICE violates 4th amendment Secure Communities Act promotes racial profiling in search of undocumented citizens – violates 4th amendment rights Fischer 13 (Amelia Fischer from UT School of Law. "Secure Communities, Racial Profiling, & Suppression Law in Removal Proceedings" Texas Hispanic Journal of Law and Policy. Spring 2013. 19 Tex. Hisp. J.L. & Pol'y 63. Lexis.)//lb Of course, SComm has not been implemented that way. Despite the program's purpose of "identifying and removing the most serious criminal offenders," 60% of the people SComm has been responsible for deporting had no criminal history or had committed only minor offenses, like a traffic violation. n14 The percentages in some jurisdictions are higher. In Travis County, Texas, for example, 82% of those deported had a clean or minimal criminal record. n15 The numbers suggest strongly that police are not targeting criminals, but instead stopping and arresting people whom they suspect are in violation of immigration laws based on the way they look. The fear (and accusation, by many) is that, by giving police a role in immigration enforcement, SComm has opened the door to widespread civil rights violations, such as racial profiling and pretextual and wrongful arrests. n16 The fear is not unfounded. Many reputable sources have echoed the concern. Dean Kevin R. Johnson from the University of California Davis School of Law, an expert both in immigration law and racial profiling, has expressed that "besides frightening immigrant communities from reporting crime and otherwise assisting community law enforcement, state and local involvement in [immigration] enforcement will worsen the existing problems with racial profiling in law enforcement." n17 And the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) in a recent report warned that "any contact with the police, no matter how trivial, can result in immigration enforcement and removal. Police may initiate stops for the sole or primary purpose of enforcing immigration laws, and may engage in racial profiling or other abusive practices to accomplish this." n18 [*68] Additionally, several studies have found compelling evidence to support the contention that SComm's implementation in many cases violates people's basic civil rights, particularly the right to not be judged by their race. The Berkeley Law School's Warren Institute recently published an in-depth study on the matter, focusing on the ICE and law enforcement partnership in Irving, Texas. n19 Among other things, the Institute found that after the implementation of SComm and similar programs, arrests of Hispanics for petty offenses and traffic violations skyrocketed by 150% and 223%, respectively. n20 The authors concluded that there was "strong evidence to support claims that Irving police engaged in racial profiling of Hispanics in order to filter them through" their immigration screening systems. n21 Another study, conducted by AILA, took a sampling of immigration cases from across the country, focusing on how the immigrant in each case had gotten into removal proceedings. n22 The cases solidly suggested that SComm and similar programs "encourage those police officers who would choose to engage in questionable practices to do so." n23 Because many of the cases involved arrests based on fabricated charges or people being stopped or questioned without cause and then held for ICE, the study indicates that the "prime motivation for the stop may have been to assess the person's immigration status," showing powerful evidence of racial profiling. n24 The report cites cases where, for example, "individuals were accused of rolling through a stop sign at an intersection where no stop sign exists or driving while intoxicated when testing showed a 0.0 blood/breath alcohol level." n25 In another case, a man was arrested for burning leaves in his yard, something that was not even against the law. n26 The potential for and evidence of state and local law enforcement officers' racebased actions in carrying out what they believe to be their SComm duties cannot be ignored and should have serious bearing on the state of suppression law in removal proceedings. The conversion of state and local law enforcement into quasi-immigration officials and the different degrees of applicability of the exclusionary rule, depending on the forum where the suppression is litigated, create troublesome ambiguities regarding the acceptability of the use of race in traffic stops and the kinds of stops state and local law enforcement are allowed to make. Those ambiguities allow police officers to engage in race-based behavior that would be impermissible in any other context. For example, in In re Quinteros the respondent brought a suppression claim in immigration court challenging the lawfulness of a police officer's stop of his vehicle. n27 The stop at issue was a [*69] quintessential SComm traffic stop, the kind analyzed at length by the AILA study discussed above. Even though it was evident that the police officer had engaged in unlawful race-based behavior, the immigration judge refused to even address the claim, stating that the police officer's actions were unrelated to the immigration proceedings and thus irrelevant to the respondent's case. n28 The involvement of state and local police in the immigration enforcement arena along with the racial profiling opportunities created and clearly capitalized upon present a real danger to the undocumented population. As this paper will discuss, justifying in legally acceptable terms what is actually a race-based stop for immigration enforcement purposes is not difficult, and the limited way in which the Fourth Amendment applies in removal proceedings provides little hope for meaningful remedies. Taken together, these phenomena create a world where immigration courts not only sanction but encourage unlawful and reprehensible behavior by state and local law enforcement agencies in their encounters with the immigrant community. This world is unacceptable and inconsistent with our constitutional values, and it must be made right. Marshaling the complete protections of the Fourth Amendment in immigration court is a good place to start. ICE is unconstitutional and leads to racial profiling Al-Khatib 14 (Alia Al-Khatib is a Senior Staff Member, American University Law Review, Volume 64; J.D. Candidate 2015, American University Washington College of Law; B.A., 2008, Vassar College. "Putting a Hold on ICE: Why Law Enforcement Should Refuse to Honor Immigration Detainers" October 2014. American University Law Review. 64 Am. U.L. Rev. 109)//lb The immigration detainer, also known as an ICE hold, is one tool used by ICE to facilitate the deportation of noncitizens with criminal convictions. Immigration detainers are requests made by ICE to local law enforcement agencies to maintain custody of noncitizens, who are already detained for state or local charges, for a forty-eight hour period beyond that required in their criminal case. The practice of enforcing immigration detainers has led to the mistaken detention of U.S. citizens and the prolonged detention of noncitizens, including those with minor, nonviolent criminal convictions. By issuing detainers without sufficient probable cause, ICE violates the Fourth Amendment rights of both noncitizens and U.S. citizens held under immigration detainers . Local law enforcement agencies violate the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals subject to immigration detainers when they enforce these detainers without probable cause. Local law enforcement agencies also violate due process rights of noncitizens when they prolong their detention under immigration detainers beyond the permitted forty-eight hour period. Additionally, enforcing immigration detainers presents serious policy concerns. First, it diminishes immigrant communities' trust in law enforcement, a consequence that threatens public safety. Second, it may trigger local law enforcement officers' implicit racial biases such that they may target individuals for minor criminal offenses based solely on the belief that they may be deportable noncitizens. Third, enforcing detainers places an enormous financial cost on state and local law enforcement because the federal government does not pay for their enforcement according to the relevant regulation. Human Rights A2: Alt Causes to US Violations Detention and racial profiling are the nadir of HR violations – UN Council Dakwar 5-15 (Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU's Human Rights Program, reporting for the Huffington Post, “UN Issues Scathing Assessment of U.S. Human Rights Record,” 5-15-2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamil-dakwar/un-issuesscathing-assess_b_7294792.html) The UN Human Rights Council adopted a scathing report today, consisting of 348 recommendations that address myriad human rights violations in the United States. The report came out as a part of a mechanism called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which examines the human rights record of all UN member states. The council questioned the United States on its record earlier this week. Although many of these recommendations in the report are redundant or too general to offer tangible solutions to the human rights situation in the U.S., they echo many of the concerns raised by U.S. civil society groups like the ACLU, who attended the review and offered concrete recommendations to reverse policies that are inconsistent with international human rights principles. For example, the report adopted a recommendation made by Sweden to "halt the detention of immigrant families and children, seek alternatives to detention and end use of detention for reason of deterrence." The report also adopted several recommendations calling on the Obama administration to independently investigate allegations of torture documented in the recent Senate torture report and provide reparations to victims. Denmark, for instance, recommended that the United States "further ensure that all victims of torture and ill-treatment -- whether still in US custody or not -- obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological assistance." In addition, the report included many fitting recommendations to address police brutality and excessive use of force as well as ending racial profiling against minorities and immigrants. Mexico recommended that the U.S. "adopt measures at the federal level to prevent and punish excessive use of force by law enforcement officials against members of ethnic and racial minorities, including unarmed persons, which disproportionately affect Afro American and undocumented migrants." Ireland, for its part, directly touched on the broken trust between American law enforcement and communities of color and recommended that the U.S. "continue to vigorously investigate recent cases of alleged police-led human rights abuses against AfricanAmericans and seek to build improved relations and trust between U.S. law enforcement and all communities around the U.S." While in some areas, like LGBT rights and freedom of speech, the United States' human rights record fares far better than that of other parts of the world, in many areas -- including national security, criminal justice, social and economic rights, and immigration policy -- the U.S. has an abysmal record compared to other liberal democracies. This report sends a strong message of no-confidence in the U.S. human rights record. It clearly demonstrates that the United States has a long way to go to live up to its human rights obligations and commitments. This will be the last major human rights review for the Obama administration, and it offers a critical opportunity to shape the president's human rights legacy, especially in the areas of racial justice, national security, and immigrants' rights. The Obama administration has until September to respond to the 348 recommendations. At that time, the administration will make a direct commitment to the world by deciding which of the 348 will be accepted and implemented over the next four years, and which will be rejected. While many of the recommendations fall outside the constitutional powers of the executive branch -- such as treaty ratification and legislative actions on the national, state, and local levels -- the Obama administration should use its executive powers to their fullest extent to effectuate U.S. human rights obligations. The U.S. record for implementing UN recommendations has thus far been very disappointing, but if President Obama really cares about his human rights legacy, he should direct his administration to adopt a plan of action with concrete benchmarks and effective implementation mechanisms that will ensure that the U.S. indeed learns from its shortcomings and genuinely seeks to create a more perfect union. The world will be watching. A2: Solved Now Little expectation to change HR Provo 14 (Kelsey Lynn [J. D., Law, 2014, University of Oregon], “Immigrants Without Rights: Questioning the Role of International Human Rights Law in U.S. Detention and Deportation Policies,” Thesis for a Master of Arts degree, University of Oregon’s Theses and Dissertations Library, http://hdl.handle.net/1794/18401, pg. 7-8, 2014) 2. International Human Rights Laws in Immigration Proceedings and the Role of International Law in U.S. Immigration Policies This thesis seeks to examine the role of international human rights law in U.S. immigration policies and, specifically, its role in U.S. immigration, detention and deportation policies. U.S. domestic immigration laws are complex and rigid, with limited judicial discretion in immigration proceedings and limited due process protections for immigrants. U.S. immigration policies prioritize detention, deportation and militarization of the border as the main mechanisms to control and regulate immigration. Because the U.S. immigration system is so rigid and the federal government has relatively unfettered control over immigration law, much of the academic legal literature (Kanstroom, GolashBoza, Acer and Goodman, Cook) looks outside of domestic laws to international human rights law as the solution to the incredible human rights abuses immigrants face in the United States. While the literature is clear that the United States is violating international human rights laws in the way it detains and deports immigrants, the United States federal government remains unwilling to change its deportation system. The Obama administration continues to focus on detention and deportation as the primary mechanisms for enforcing immigration laws and the government continues to increase spending for further militarization of the border and border enforcement. Even though the United States is violating its obligations under international law, and even though the literature is clear that the U.S. government must incorporate international human rights standards into its detention and deportation practices, the U.S. has yet to do so, and it appears it will not do so in the future. A2: Doesn’t Solve Realignment is best for human rights – balances rights and policy Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 296-298, Feb 2014) Given the extent to which the US immigration detention system as a whole is out of line with international human rights standards, significant realignment is necessary to guarantee the presumption against detention and adequate protection of liberty. Limits must be imposed on the various components of immigration detention, as described in the following sections, [*297] using the international human rights standards to interpret US statutory and constitutional law. However, scaling back immigration detention to bring the system in line with international standards does not mean that the United States cannot exercise control over immigration. n230 The United States might most effectively assert control over immigration by recreating the entire system to legalize logical immigration flows, thus making harsh enforcement of outdated laws, including through detention, much less necessary. n231 In any case, the United States may continue to engage in immigration enforcement, so long as it does so with respect for human rights and without resorting to detention automatically.For example, nothing in the international human rights standards prevents the initial apprehension of migrants believed to be removable from the United States. n232 Currently, many removals each year take place shortly after such an arrest through abbreviated proceedings or decisions to return voluntarily without a formal deportation order. n233 The United States could continue to remove individuals in this way as a function of immigration control, and the arrests would be justified as necessary to facilitate immediate deportation so long [*298] as due process and other human rights were protected. n234 As an alternative means of enforcement, the United States could also focus its resources on accomplishing the removal of non-detained individuals who have already received a final order of deportation rather than on detaining them pending a final decision on deportability and immigration status. The government has largely ignored such a strategy, but it could be effective. n235 The United States has instead become reliant on detention as its principal means of immigration enforcement, and the conflation of detention and immigration control has led to the current presumption of detention that violates international human rights standards. n236 US immigration law and practice must disentangle detention and enforcement and restore the use of detention to its proper limited role. ICE hurts HR cred ICE’s policies violate international human rights – detention and lack of due process of law Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 249-252, Feb 2014) While many concerns exist regarding immigration detention conditions, including the harsh prison-like environment at many facilities, inadequate health care and the remote placement of facilities that impedes access to counsel and family visitation, n24 I do not consider those issues in this Article. n25 Instead, the Article focuses on the fact and extent of [*250] migrant detention, regardless of the conditions of the specific detention placement. The analysis does treat all US immigration detention as "hard" detention, implicating the full panoply of liberty concerns involved in civil detention. In other words, no adult immigration detention facilities in the United States allow free movement out of the facility or otherwise have conditions that call into question their classification as detention facilities. n26 Nor does the Article explore the very real negative consequences of detention for migrants, because the deprivation of liberty itself must be understood as having a severe impact that demands justification, without a showing of further harm. If there were any doubt, however, the harm caused by detention has been well-documented. Among other impacts, studies show that detention leads to deterioration of the mental and physical health of detained migrants as well as their families. n27 Additional studies show that migrants in detention are much less likely to obtain counsel and are much more likely to lose their immigration cases. n28 [*251] Finally, this Article focuses on those individuals who are detained pending a decision as to whether they will be deported or will gain the ability to remain in the United States. Most detained migrants with a final decision ordering deportation, either through an abbreviated process or after full proceedings to adjudicate immigration status, are removed quite quickly. They therefore remain in detention for a short period of time pending execution of the deportation. n29 US law already imposes time limits and procedural requirements on the detention of such migrants with a final removal order, although problems remain with the implementation of these rules. n30 The justification for detention of migrants after issuance of a removal order is also more obvious, including under international human rights standards. n31 The US government has already decided that these migrants must leave the United States, and only physical removal remains. This group of detainees does not present the same considerations regarding the appropriateness of detention as those detainees with a pending decision in their cases. With these premises in mind, the Article first describes the current state of immigration detention in the United States in Part I. Part II then traces the recent unfolding of well-developed international human rights standards regarding immigration detention and sets out the human rights law framework for evaluating immigration detention. Part III proceeds to consider the relevance of the international standards in analyzing US immigration detention. It first explores the binding nature of the international human rights standards, at least as a question of international law. Next, it compares the international human [*252] rights framework to US law on civil detention in non-immigration contexts, concluding that the standards are almost fully in line with one another. Given these similarities, as well as the importance of complying with international obligations, I conclude in this Part that the United States should realign the US immigration detention system so that it meets the international standards. Specifically, I propose that courts should intervene, where necessary, to protect liberty and due process by giving substance to the international standards through the interpretation of US statutory and constitutional provisions. Part IV engages in a detailed analysis of the US immigration detention system and its various components as measured against international human rights standards. Significant incompatibilities with international human rights law are identified, and this Part urges delimitation of US law to resolve these incompatibilities and curb the excesses of immigration detention in the United States. Current U.S. immigration standards are viewed as human rights violations Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 246-249, Feb 2014) The United States detained 429,000 migrants like BM and FH during 2011, the last year for which definitive numbers are available. n13 These 429,000 detainees were held during proceedings to determine whether they would be deported or allowed to remain in the United States and, in some cases, until physical deportation could take place. n14 They were held in the custody of ICE, the federal entity within the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") charged with enforcing the immigration laws. n15 Detention of migrants has followed a significant and steady upward course over the last two decades as detention has expanded and become the presumptive norm in immigration cases. n16 This trend has proceeded largely unchecked despite efforts at reform by advocates concerned with the humanitarian and financial impact of such a large-scale [*247] detention program that lacks cogent contours. n17 The trend currently shows no sign of reversal. n18 In the meantime, human rights bodies have overcome their traditional reluctance to adjudicate claims touching on central aspects of statehood and sovereignty and have developed meaningful international human rights law standards for assessing immigration detention practices. The newly-developed standards call into question many aspects of the current immigration detention system that leads to the widespread detention of asylum seekers and other migrants in the United States. n19 The international standards provide a helpful legal framework for considering immigration detention in the United States, particularly as they derive from binding international legal norms and have much in common with US law regarding civil detention in contexts not as contentious as immigration. n20 [*248] Human rights law analysis should therefore spur positive changes to immigration detention in the United States that will bring rationality back to our system and protect liberty. While immigration detention has ballooned in the United States, the available scholarship includes few efforts to analyze the various components that interact to create such a massive detention system. There is even less scholarship available analyzing the new international human rights standards as applied to US immigration detention. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, some scholars analyzed the detention framework that evolved after Congress adopted restrictive immigration measures in 1996 that increased detention. n21 However, that literature involved only a guess at what was to come and could not address the current reality of detention expanded beyond any expectation. Nor could that scholarship incorporate a human rights analysis, since the human rights standards developed with specificity only in recent years. Much more recently, scholars in the United States have begun to use human rights law to consider immigration detention, but they have done so mainly by analyzing discrete aspects of immigration detention in the United States. n22 Meanwhile, international scholars have begun to evaluate immigration detention laws and policies from a human [*249] rights perspective. n23 However, that work has not focused on the particularities of the US immigration detention system. This Article represents a first effort, then, to synthesize and present the recently-developed international human rights standards and apply those rules to the US immigration detention system in a systematic manner. In so doing, the Article demonstrates how the application of international human rights law standards can bring rationality and humanity to US immigration detention by revitalizing the right to liberty, which constitutes a core conception in both international human rights law and US law. The Article does not suggest that immigration detention in the United States should be abolished. It does urge realignment of US law in a way that would scale back immigration detention in order to bring the detention system and its components into line with international human rights norms and with the US tradition of liberty that treats civil detention as an exceptional situation. Enforcement abuses human rights - too many immigrants detained in the squoBranche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb ICE ACCESS programs funnel thousands of immigrants per year into a larger immigration system that desperately needs to be reformed. According to expert observers, human rights violations plague immigration detention, including inadequate medical care, mistreatment and sexual abuse by guards.209 In 2009, the Obama administration committed to major reforms in the interest of creating a more civil detention system. Recent evaluations find there is much work to be done, in part because the sheer size of the detention population impedes fast and effective reform. Moreover, immigrants in detention or facing deportation often lack due process during the adjudication process. Immigrants who can’t afford lawyers don’t have the right to representation, which leaves 84 percent of detained immigrants facing complex proceedings without legal counsel. 210 This can have serious consequences: if an individual is wrongly flagged by Secure Communities and subsequently acquitted of a crime, he could be deported because he isn’t able to prove his legal status without the counsel of a lawyer. Even immigrants who do have attorneys are detained in facilities hundreds of miles from home, which complicates access to the legal guidance and resources needed to effectively argue their cases. Finally, increasing numbers of immigrants detained as a result of local immigration enforcement only adds to the staggering backlog in the nation’s immigration court system. By the end of September 2010, there were 261,083 cases awaiting resolution before the immigration courts, an all-time high.211 A report from the American Bar Association says that given its massive workload, the immigration courts have too few judges and resources to consistently make fair, well-researched decisions. This problem is compounded by basic inequities in immigration law.212 XT – Immigration Policy violates HR Current U.S. immigration standards are viewed as human rights violations Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 246-249, Feb 2014) The United States detained 429,000 migrants like BM and FH during 2011, the last year for which definitive numbers are available. n13 These 429,000 detainees were held during proceedings to determine whether they would be deported or allowed to remain in the United States and, in some cases, until physical deportation could take place. n14 They were held in the custody of ICE, the federal entity within the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") charged with enforcing the immigration laws. n15 Detention of migrants has followed a significant and steady upward course over the last two decades as detention has expanded and become the presumptive norm in immigration cases. n16 This trend has proceeded largely unchecked despite efforts at reform by advocates concerned with the humanitarian and financial impact of such a large-scale [*247] detention program that lacks cogent contours. n17 The trend currently shows no sign of reversal. n18 In the meantime, human rights bodies have overcome their traditional reluctance to adjudicate claims touching on central aspects of statehood and sovereignty and have developed meaningful international human rights law standards for assessing immigration detention practices. The newly-developed standards call into question many aspects of the current immigration detention system that leads to the widespread detention of asylum seekers and other migrants in the United States. n19 The international standards provide a helpful legal framework for considering immigration detention in the United States, particularly as they derive from binding international legal norms and have much in common with US law regarding civil detention in contexts not as contentious as immigration. n20 [*248] Human rights law analysis should therefore spur positive changes to immigration detention in the United States that will bring rationality back to our system and protect liberty. While immigration detention has ballooned in the United States, the available scholarship includes few efforts to analyze the various components that interact to create such a massive detention system. There is even less scholarship available analyzing the new international human rights standards as applied to US immigration detention. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, some scholars analyzed the detention framework that evolved after Congress adopted restrictive immigration measures in 1996 that increased detention. n21 However, that literature involved only a guess at what was to come and could not address the current reality of detention expanded beyond any expectation. Nor could that scholarship incorporate a human rights analysis, since the human rights standards developed with specificity only in recent years. Much more recently, scholars in the United States have begun to use human rights law to consider immigration detention, but they have done so mainly by analyzing discrete aspects of immigration detention in the United States. n22 Meanwhile, international scholars have begun to evaluate immigration detention laws and policies from a human [*249] rights perspective. n23 However, that work has not focused on the particularities of the US immigration detention system. This Article represents a first effort, then, to synthesize and present the recently-developed international human rights standards and apply those rules to the US immigration detention system in a systematic manner. In so doing, the Article demonstrates how the application of international human rights law standards can bring rationality and humanity to US immigration detention by revitalizing the right to liberty, which constitutes a core conception in both international human rights law and US law. The Article does not suggest that immigration detention in the United States should be abolished. It does urge realignment of US law in a way that would scale back immigration detention in order to bring the detention system and its components into line with international human rights norms and with the US tradition of liberty that treats civil detention as an exceptional situation. Detention must be a last resort – the US’s consistent practice violates universal HR law Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 269-270, Feb 2014) [*269] Human rights law further establishes the overarching principle that immigration detention must be a last resort. The bodies of the universal and inter-American human rights systems have established a presumption against detention for all migrants in application of the right to liberty guaranteed in the respective human rights treaties. In connection with its review of detention in the United States, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights looked to the right to liberty and explicitly established "the paramount principle" that detention during proceedings is an "exceptional measure." n102 The Inter-American Commission expounded on this principle establishing that: "member States must enact immigration laws and establish immigration policies that are premised on a presumption of liberty--the right of the immigrant to remain at liberty while his or her immigration proceedings are pending-and not on a presumption of detention." n103 Similarly, in analyzing the application of the right to liberty to migrants, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteurship on the Human Rights of Migrants have concluded that detention of migrants must be a "last resort." n104 In interpreting states' treaty obligations to asylum seekers and refugees, UNHCR has established this same "presumption against detention." n105 The UNHCR Detention Guidelines establish that "detention of asylum-seekers should normally be avoided" and should be a "measure of last resort, with liberty being the default position." n106 International human rights law establishes the principle of detention as a last resort as both a global rule for assessing the overall structure of a state's detention system n107 and a decision-making rule for states to apply in individual determinations. n108 [*270] So, a state may not rely systemically on detention as a primary means of immigration control. At the same time, the presumption against detention must be a touchstone for individual immigration detention determinations. n109 It follows that a detention system will violate the principle that treats detention as a last resort if it consistently fails to employ the presumption against detention in individual proceedings. n1102 Detention must be a last resort – the US’s consistent practice violates universal HR law Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 269-270, Feb 2014) [*269] Human rights law further establishes the overarching principle that immigration detention must be a last resort. The bodies of the universal and inter-American human rights systems have established a presumption against detention for all migrants in application of the right to liberty guaranteed in the respective human rights treaties. In connection with its review of detention in the United States, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights looked to the right to liberty and explicitly established "the paramount principle" that detention during proceedings is an "exceptional measure." n102 The Inter-American Commission expounded on this principle establishing that: "member States must enact immigration laws and establish immigration policies that are premised on a presumption of liberty--the right of the immigrant to remain at liberty while his or her immigration proceedings are pending-- and not on a presumption of detention." n103 Similarly, in analyzing the application of the right to liberty to migrants, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteurship on the Human Rights of Migrants have concluded that detention of migrants must be a "last resort." n104 In interpreting states' treaty obligations to asylum seekers and refugees, UNHCR has established this same "presumption against detention." n105 The UNHCR Detention Guidelines establish that "detention of asylum-seekers should normally be avoided" and should be a "measure of last resort, with liberty being the default position." n106 International human rights law establishes the principle of detention as a last resort as both a global rule for assessing the overall structure of a state's detention system n107 and a decision-making rule for states to apply in individual determinations. n108 [*270] So, a state may not rely systemically on detention as a primary means of immigration control. At the same time, the presumption against detention must be a touchstone for individual immigration detention determinations. n109 It follows that a detention system will violate the principle that treats detention as a last resort if it consistently fails to employ the presumption against detention in individual proceedings. n1102 Proportionality is key – the US’s elongated detention and separation of families falls outside of HR standards Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 270-272, Feb 2014) A final general rule of international human rights law holds that detention of migrants in connection with immigration status determinations "should never involve punitive purposes." n111 The human rights bodies have made clear that detention is allowed solely as an administrative measure, during the process of determining immigration status or incident to removal following a decision to deport. n112 Applying this principle, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has equated immigration detention with "pre-trial" or "preventive" detention permitted only in nonpunitive circumstances. n113 Where a state deploys detention without adequate connection to these limited administrative purposes, detention is punitive and impermissible under international law. n114 [*271] As to asylum seekers, the Refugee Convention also precludes punitive detention. n115 The Refugee Convention explicitly sets forth that States "shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees." n116 If there were any doubt about the reach of this treaty provision, n117 UNHCR has made clear that its prohibition on punitive measures includes detention and applies broadly to most asylum seekers. n118 The general principles just outlined underlie the concrete framework for considering immigration detention, which requires that detention be reasonable, necessary and proportional in order to comply with international human rights obligations. Numerous decisions, resolutions and interpretations by international human rights bodies have confirmed this trilogy of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. The UN Special Rapporteurship on the Human Rights of Migrants has established that detention of migrants must be "necessary, reasonable and proportional to the objectives to be achieved." n119 In the seminal immigration detention case of A v. Australia, the UN Human Rights Committee also required a "proportionality" analysis for immigration detention and held [*272] that immigration detention is arbitrary and thus violative of the right to liberty protected in the ICCPR "if it is not necessary." n120 The InterAmerican Court reached an almost identical holding in Velez Loor v. Panama, providing that a custodial measure would be arbitrary unless applied only when "necessary and proportionate." n121 The Inter-American Commission has also concluded that "standards of necessity and proportionality should be applied" to detention of migrants. n122 In the refugee context, the UNHCR Detention Guidelines establish that states may resort to detention of asylum seekers only if detention is "necessary," "reasonable in all the circumstances," and "proportionate to a legitimate purpose." n123 A recent analysis of the current state of international law on immigration detention commissioned by UNHCR notes the importance of each of the requirements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality: "In assessing whether detention is necessary and reasonable in all the circumstances, the standard of proportionality is applied." n124 The U.S.’s immigration policy has failed to meet HR guidelines – critics from Human Rights Watch and US citizens Huffington Post 14 (1/24/2014, “Human Rights Watch Blasts U.S. Immigration ‘Abuses,' Again,” The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/human-rights-watchimmigration_n_4661308.html) The failure of Congress and the White House to address the country’s immigration problems drew fire from a prominent human rights watchdog this week -- again. Human Rights Watch criticized the U.S. government in its “World Report 2014,” released Tuesday, for what it called “abuses” related to the incarceration and deportation of undocumented immigrants. The organization echoed similar faults it found with U.S. immigration policy in world reports from past years. The authors criticize the U.S. government’s human rights record, calling it “marred by abuses related to criminal justice immigration, national security and drug policy.” The report names immigrants and ethnic minorities as among the “most vulnerable members” of U.S. society. The report also notes that U.S. detention centers now hold approximately 400,000 undocumented immigrants each year, with hundreds in solitary confinement. “Many of those prosecuted have minor or no criminal history and have substantial ties to the U.S. such as U.S. citizen family members they were seeking to rejoin when arrested,” the report says. “The federal government has portrayed these programs as focused on dangerous criminals, but most immigrants deported through Secure Communities are non-criminal or lower level offenders,” the report says. “These programs also exacerbate distrust of police in immigrant communities.” Despite polling reflecting consistent public support for immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, the U.S. Congress has yet to pass legislation and the White House continues to deport undocumented immigrants at a recordsetting pace. The US’s “bed quota” system of immigration policy undermines human rights Seattle Times 6-16 (Editoral, The Seattle Times, 6-16-2015, “Stop detaining immigrants to fill quotas in ICE facilities”) SCATHING watchdog report by the Detention Watch Network and the Center for Constitutional Rights adds fuel to the growing criticism against exorbitant taxpayer funding for private prison contractors. Detention of any civil prisoner should be based on the severity of the alleged crimes, not on a bed quota that guarantees private prisons make a profit at the expense of human rights of detainees. Congress should end the practice of guaranteeing minimum profits for corporations that now operate many U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities. The United States spends more than $2 billion a year to detain immigrants, and there are few signs that investment improves public safety. The contracts between ICE and the private industry lack accountability or transparency. We do know that Congress requires ICE to operate at least 34,000 daily detention beds nationwide, and much of that work is farmed out to for-profit prison corporations. These contractors are paid regardless of whether the bed minimum is met. Here in Washington, the GEO Group runs the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma and is guaranteed a minimum of at least 1,181 beds. (ICE reports about 1,400 prisoners are currently detained there.) Congress needs to get rid of this bed quota now and start exploring more alternatives to incarceration that have proved to reduce costs and keep families together. Remember: Many of these detainees pose no threat to society and have committed civil violations, such as overstaying a visa. Federal elected officials also should ban a “tiered pricing” system that allows the contractors to give ICE discounted pricing when the number of detainees exceeds minimum guarantees. The report reveals troubling examples of how this practice leads some federal officials to pressure their employees to fill the beds. With a bed quota and discount pricing in place, there’s no real incentive for ICE agents to explore non-prison options like community monitoring that cost a fraction of the estimated daily $164 price tag of locking up each detainee. Last month, The Seattle Times editorial board pushed for Congress to support a bill to end unnecessary detentions. In Tacoma, reports of human-rights abuses have lingered for months, leading to hunger strikes and prison conflicts. The GEO Group’s contract to run the center expired in April, but it has been extended through June 30 as negotiations continue. The company insists it meets industry standards, providing “high quality services in safe, secure and humane environments, and … strongly refutes allegations to the contrary.” Nonetheless, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, DBellevue, recently wrote to ICE Director Sarah Saldaña imploring her to consider alternatives to detention. Short of this, he appropriately encouraged her to increase transparency in the negotiations with GEO Group and to set stricter standards that ensure human rights are not being abused. Detainees should be more than a number to meet a quota. Unjust detention and deportation from US – Meneses Meneses 12 (Adriane [St. Mary's University School of Law, J. D. Candidate, May 2012], “COMMENT: THE DEPORTATION OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS FOR OLD AND MINOR CRIMES: RESTORING JUDICIAL REVIEW, ENDING RETROACTIVITY, AND RECOGNIZING DEPORTATION AS PUNISHMENT,” 14 Scholar St. Mary L. R. on Minority Issues 767, Symposium 2012, pg. 770-773) The law governing the effect of criminal activity on aliens is a hodge-podge of legislation and reinterpretations spanning over a century. Legislation is found in sources ranging from major immigration reform initiatives n7 to laws aimed at creating a "drug-free America." n8 All noncitizens in the United States are subject to removal and the consequences of immigration [*771] law. n9 The phrase "non-citizens" describes a broad category of people - ranging from lawful permanent residents, including veterans of our armed forces and children adopted from abroad, to those who have entered without inspection and remain "undocumented." n10 Surprisingly, the immigration consequences for criminal conduct committed by lawful permanent residents or "Green Card holders" are often more severe than the consequences for aliens who entered illegally and remain unlawfully present; this effectively penalizes aliens lawfully admitted to the United States more harshly than those who entered without inspection. n11 Certain activity can also create grounds for denying admission to aliens seeking to enter the United States legally, even without conclusive proof or a conviction, and even for activity committed when the alien was a child. n12 More troubling, existing laws hinge the "loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living" n13 on terms that have no definition, n14 assigns counterintuitive meanings to others, and create new grounds of [*772] removal based on conduct committed more than a half century ago. n15 There is no statute of limitations governing when removal proceedings must be initiated, and often proceedings are not brought until many years after the incident triggering them is committed. n16 Unfortunately, courts find that these delays in proceedings do not to give rise to estoppel arguments, n17 except where the actions of the government constitute affirmative misconduct that prejudiced the alien. n18 Trial judges adjudicating criminal matters have been divested of a long-standing discretionary power to make recommendations against deportation of non-citizen defendants. n19 The result has been an explosion in the number of aliens facing deportation in removal hearings, with a current estimated backlog of nearly 300,000 cases to be handled by only 272 immigration judges n20 --a task one immigration judge likened to "holding death penalty cases in traffic court." n21 In addition to the increased workload for immigration proceedings, Kumar Kibble, Deputy Director, Immigration and Customs [*773] Enforcement stated that: "It costs approximately $ 12,500 to arrest, detain, and remove an individual from the United States." n22 Status quo detention fails to enforce immigration laws – only deprives persons of human rights Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 299-300, Feb 2014) [*299] As noted, the government need not rely on expansive detention to enforce immigration laws. n237 Conversely, presumptive use of detention does not necessarily further enforcement goals. The US immigration system foresees the possibility that, after an initial arrest, some migrants will undergo contested immigration proceedings where they may assert challenges to the government's allegations of deportability or otherwise seek authorization to remain in the United States. n238 The opportunities to raise claims to avoid deportation reflect the rights due to migrants and policy decisions about which migrants should hold lawful immigration status in the United States. n239 The detention regime must reflect this reality that not all migrants placed in removal proceedings will merit expulsion from this country. There can be no presumption, then, that detention during immigration proceedings is justified as a means of achieving deportation in enforcement of the immigration laws. n240 To comply with international human rights standards, the detention system must instead require that the government justify ongoing detention after arrest in connection with immigration proceedings. n241 The government must do so based [*300] on individualized determinations, with adequate review, regarding the existence of a flight risk or danger to the community. The government must also consider all possible alternatives to detention that might address such risks. n242 International human rights conventions created provisions for immigration – liberty, due process, and refugee status Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 266-267, Feb 2014) 1. Rights that Form the Basis of the International Human Rights Standards The international human rights standards relating to immigration detention rely on bedrock rights guaranteed in international human rights instruments. The human right to liberty is a principal source of law. The right to liberty and freedom from "arbitrary" detention is set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the "ICCPR") n86 as well as in the American Convention on Human Rights (the "American Convention"), n87 which further develops the right as originally set out in the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man ("the American Declaration"). n88 The right to due process protected in the ICCPR, the American Convention and the American Declaration, also serves as a vital source of law for international standards on immigration detention. Each treaty establishes that no individual shall be deprived of physical liberty except as established by law; additionally each of the treaties includes a separate provision guaranteeing due process in legal proceedings. n89 [*267] As to refugees and asylum seekers, the limitations on immigration detention derive from the same human right to liberty guaranteed to all migrants but also from specific provisions in the refugee treaties. n90 These treaty provisions prohibit punishment of or undue restrictions on the rights of those seeking protection. n91 The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the "Refugee Convention") n92 provides that states "shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who enter or are present in their territory without authorization." n93 The treaty further provides that states may not apply "restrictions other than those which are necessary" to irregular migrants claiming refugee status. n94 International HR law is the best way to guide USfg action – credibility and constitutional frameworks Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 287-290, Feb 2014) C. The Use of the International Human Rights Standards to Interpret US Law International human rights law standards should therefore be used in the United States to ensure adequate protection of the right to liberty and due process in the immigration detention context. This Article urges a moderate route by which the courts would use the international standards to inform their interpretations of the US Constitution and the relevant US statutes regulating immigration detention. This proposal acknowledges that not all of the international human rights standards are fully binding and judicially enforceable as a matter [*288] of US law, even where they do constitute international obligations. n190 However, as noted above, the potential problems with direct applicability, under US law, do not affect the international obligations of the United States in connection with the human rights standards set out in Part II. n191 As such, the proposal maintains that it is feasible and desirable for courts to interpret US law in a manner that allows compliance with those obligations. n192 This approach responds to the suggestion by scholars that US courts are most likely to use international law, and are on the most stable ground in doing so, when international law informs their interpretations of statutes and the Constitution rather than serving as a direct source of US law. n193 The proposal finds specific support in the work of international law scholars who have suggested that US courts should reference international law in circumstances such as those presented in the immigration detention context, where [*289] international human rights standards bind the United States and do not run counter to basic principles of US law. n194 The use of international human rights standards relating to immigration detention fits particularly well with the framework proposed by Sarah Cleveland, which outlines principles for the application of international law in constitutional interpretation. n195 Two central criteria identified by Cleveland for the use of international law in US courts inquire about: 1. the level of US acceptance of the international law norms; and 2. the degree of receptivity in the US Constitution to the norms. n196 The principle giving weight to the degree of US acceptance of the international rule argues in favor of the applicability of the international standards here. n197 As discussed above, the human rights standards constitute "'US international law obligations'" which are '"binding on the United States.'" n198 The constitutional receptiveness principle is met as well, because the international standards do not "depart from the established constitutional rule." n199 Rather they match the "historical interpretation" given to the rights of liberty and due process found in the US constitution. n200 US courts have even [*290] acknowledged the benefits of interpreting US law in light of the applicable international norms on immigration. n201 The US is under obligation to its HR treaties and organizations – own acceptance Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 280-283, Feb 2014) A. US Obligations Under International Human Rights Law It is appropriate for the US courts to apply international human rights law standards in interpreting statutes and constitutional guarantees to ensure that the United States does not fail to uphold international obligations that it has assumed. n155 Regardless of their direct domestic effect, the [*281] United States is bound by the treaties that underlie the international human rights standards relating to immigration detention and thus has an international obligation to comply with those standards. n156 The United States became bound by the Refugee Convention through accession in 1968 to the Refugee Protocol. n157 The United States has recognized its legal obligations under the Refugee Convention and has adopted legislation to codify the Convention in US law in order to ensure compliance with its terms. n158 The ICCPR also creates legal obligations for the United States, as a treaty duly ratified by the United States in 1992. n159 The United States did not limit its legal obligations under the ICCPR in the context of immigration detention by entering any relevant reservations, understandings or declarations to the relevant provisions, in articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR, relating to the right to liberty and due process. n160 While the United States Senate declared the ICCPR non-self-executing at the time of ratification, n161 that fact does not dilute the international obligations imposed. n162 While direct domestic judicial enforcement of the ICCPR may not be possible without domestic implementing legislation, the international legal [*282] obligation to comply with the treaty remains binding on the United States. n163 Through its membership in the OAS and ratification of the legally binding OAS Charter, the United States accepted binding obligations to protect the human rights set forth in the American Declaration. n164 While the United States questions the exact nature of its obligations, which are well-established as a matter of international law, the government acknowledges that the American Declaration does serve as a source of obligation. n165 The US government has accepted the applicability of the American Declaration as a source for reviewing its actions in matters brought before the bodies of the inter-American human rights system. n166 The United States has also explicitly undertaken [*283] a "political commitment to uphold the American Convention" and has agreed that violations of the American Declaration constitute a failure to fulfill that obligation. n167 International human rights law have greater power than immigration law – comes first Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 267-268, Feb 2014) Based on these core rights, international human rights law establishes general principles on immigration detention. These principles impose human rights limitations on government authority to control immigration, require that immigration detention be used as a last resort, and mandate the non-punitive nature of immigration detention. In turn, these general principles lead to a framework requiring that immigration detention be reasonable, necessary, and proportional in order to comply with international human rights obligations. Thus, international human rights law standards on immigration detention start from the premise that governments may control immigration and may expel or exclude non- [*268] citizens. n95 However, this ability to control migration is limited by the requirement that, even in carrying out immigration control, states must abide by international human rights norms and refugee law protections. n96 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held succinctly that "States may establish mechanisms to control the entry into and departure from their territory of individuals who are not nationals, as long as they are compatible with the norms of human rights protection." n97 Further developing this rule of law, the court has noted that, "international law has placed certain limits on the application of migratory policies that must always be applied . . . whatever the legal situation of the migrant may be." n98 US detention standards go against international human rights standards Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], “REALIZING LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED STATES,” 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 294-295, Feb 2014) IV. INCOMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN THE IMMIGRATION DETENTION REGIME IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS Having established the relevance and role of the international human rights standards, it is now necessary to measure the US immigration detention system against those standards. Detention in the United States takes place pursuant to pre-established law and so meets that basic requirement of international human rights law. Unfortunately, the overall detention system in the United States, as well as specific components of that system, conflict with multiple other international standards. The system thus fails to adequately protect liberty and due process. This Part will first address systemic violations created by the approach of the US detention system as a whole. It will then consider the main categories of detention n223 that deprive migrants of liberty pending a decision in their immigration cases by the US immigration courts: 1. detention of individuals in limited or abbreviated proceedings known as expedited removal and reinstatement of removal; 2. detention of "arriving aliens" who are placed into immigration proceedings upon arrival at a port of entry into the United States; 3. mandatory detention of individuals suspected of [*295] criminal activity or involvement in terrorism; and 4. discretionary detention of all other individuals undergoing immigration proceedings. n224 Bed Quota Local surveillance contributes to bed-filling quota – aff is key Shah 13 (Silky Shah- Detention Watch Network, Grassroots Leadership Previous WBAI Radio - Asia Pacific Forum, Democracy Now! Productions, Grassroots Leadership, Bachelors from University of Texas at Austin. “Immigration reform could still leave thousands in detention” MSNBC. Oct. 25, 2013. http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/MediaCoverage_DetentionBedManda te_2015_06_01.pdf)//lb In just a few weeks, President Obama’s administration will hit the two-million mark in deportations. During his time in office, we’ve also seen a massive expansion of the number of people detained in immigration jails, to more than 400,000 a year. The impact of this increased enforcement has fueled the drive towards comprehensive immigration reform, which the president said Thursday he expects the House to take up again after considerable movement in the Senate last summer. Unfortunately, for the detention system, immigration reform won’t mean much. Currently, the detention system is run on a quota that requires at least 34,000 immigrants be detained daily. This quota mandated by the Congressional Appropriations committee each year will mean that even if immigration reform results in relief for some of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., many will still be targeted to fill immigration jail beds. When people are detained they are taken from their families and communities. Local economies are impacted and families often lose their chief breadwinner. When someone isn’t there to support children of those detained, they are often shipped off to the foster care system. Policies like the detention bed quota effectively force immigration and local police to find people that are deportable in order to make sure beds are filled. With a network of more than 250 jails and detention centers operated by federal, state, and local government, as well as by private industry, the system exacts a grim toll on immigrant communities (emotional, physical and financial) at the taxpayers’ expense, (more than $2 billion was spent on immigration detention in fiscal year 2012). Immigrants in detention are often denied basic needs, such as adequate food and hygiene, and access to fresh air and sunlight and many are subjected to solitary confinement. To exacerbate the issue, immigrants in detention have no access to counsel, meaning that more than 80% end up representing themselves in immigration court. During the shutdown, this was even more intensified due the furloughing of legal orientation programs that educate immigrants about their legal options. Beyond that, the everexpanding immigration case backlog was most likely affected with several courts closed during the shutdown. The repercussions of the shutdown are still unclear, but there is no doubt that immigrants in detention were affected. Not surprisingly, detaining immigrants has become good business. Prison corporations lobby heavily to secure these government contracts to increase their profits in a billion-dollar industry, while county jails benefit by using money earned from detaining immigrants to fill gaps in their shrinking budgets. Of the 34,000 detention beds, 50% are operated by private prison companies, such as Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group. ICE requires local law enforcement to detain a minimum number of undocumented immigrants – leads to deportation of citizens Miroff 13 (Nick Miroff is a Latin America correspondent for The Washington Post, roaming from the U.S.-Mexico borderlands to the southern cone of South America. He has been a staff writer since 2006. Miroff has a master's degree from the UC Berkeley School of Journalism and studied Spanish and Latin American literature at UC Santa Cruz. He grew up in Albany, New York.. "Controversial Quota Drives Immigration Detention Boom." The Washington Post. October 13, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/controversial-quota-drives-immigration-detentionboom/2013/10/13/09bb689e-214c-11e3-ad1a-1a919f2ed890_story.html)//lb KARNES CITY, Tex. — In the past five years, Homeland Security officials have jailed record numbers of immigrants, driven by a little-known congressional directive known on Capitol Hill as the “bed mandate.” The policy requires U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to keep an average of 34,000 detainees per day in its custody, a quota that has steadily risen since it was established in 2006 by conservative lawmakers who insisted that the agency wasn’t doing enough to deport unlawful immigrants. But as illegal crossings from Mexico have fallen to near their lowest levels since the early 1970s, ICE has been meeting Congress’s immigration detention goals by reaching deeper into the criminal justice system to vacuum up foreign-born, legal U.S. residents convicted of any crimes that could render them eligible for deportation. The agency also has greatly expanded the number of undocumented immigrants it takes into custody after traffic stops by local police. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials say that they are not needlessly jailing immigrants to meet a quota and that they find plenty of candidates for detention and deportation by targeting criminals who pose a threat to public safety and border security. But critics of the mandate note that the majority of ICE detainees are not violent offenders. Immigration judges eventually allow many to remain in the United States, but the detainees may spend months in costly federal custody, even when far cheaper alternatives are available, such as ankle bracelets and other forms of electronic monitoring. With federal spending on immigration detention and deportation reaching $2.8 billion a year, more than doubling since 2006, the mandate has met growing skepticism from budget hawks in both parties, particularly after DHS officials told Congress during the “sequestration” debate in April that the agency could save money by lowering the bed mandate to 31,800 and relying on cheaper alternatives to jails. But House Republicans successfully pushed back, set the mandate at 34,000 detainees and ordered ICE officials to spend nearly $400 million more than they requested. Detention Center bed quotas cause human rights violations Planas 15 (Roque Planas is a Huffington Post Editor with a Masters from NYU. "Bed Quota Fuels 'Inhumane' And 'Unnecessary' Immigrant Detention: Report" Huffington Post. 4.15.15. www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/private-prison-immigrantdetention_n_7072902.html)//lb The private prison industry’s growing role in immigrant detention is due in part to Congress' requiring the federal government to maintain some 34,000 detention beds, according to a report released Wednesday. The report, drafted by Grassroots Leadership, a nonprofit based in Austin, Texas, calls on Congress to eliminate the immigrant detention quota from its 2016 appropriations request. The detention bed mandate was first inserted into the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010. Today, private companies control about 62 percent of the immigrant detention beds used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the report. That's up from 49 percent in 2009. The rest of the beds are operated by the federal government. Of the 10 largest immigrant detention centers in the country, nine are operated by private companies. “We simply detain too many people, and the federal mandate certainly drives a lot of that,” Rep. Adam Smith (DWash.) said Wednesday on a call with reporters organized by Grassroots Leadership. “Frankly, I think if you eliminate the bed mandate, that’s the first step toward eliminating privatization, because that’s a huge thing that’s driving their profits.” The two largest private prison companies involved in detention -- Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group -have lobbied Congress in order to push up the number of required immigrant detention beds, according to the study. CCA and the GEO Group together took in nearly half a billion dollars from immigrant detention services in 2014 alone, according to Grassroots. CCA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Pablo Paez, a spokesman for the GEO Group, denied that the company plays a role in promoting immigrant detention. "As a matter of long-standing policy, GEO's governmental advocacy focuses on promoting the benefits of public-private partnerships and does not encompass immigration policies, which are set exclusively by the federal government," Paez told The Huffington Post in an email. But the Grassroots report, citing lobbying disclosure forms, says that both companies have lobbied Congress on immigration issues. Between 2008 and 2014, CCA directly lobbied members of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which set the bed quota, according to the report. Both CCA and the GEO Group have acknowledged in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission that immigration reform or other efforts to liberalize the immigrant detention system would undermine the companies' business, the report says. Both companies received contracts to operate family detention centers in Texas following the child migrant crisis last year. CCA runs the newly constructed, 2,400-bed family detention center at Dilley, while the GEO Group operates a 530bed family detention center in Karnes City. Mothers detained at the Karnes City facility have launched hunger strikes twice this month to protest their continued detention while they apply for asylum. Marichuy Leal, a transgender woman who was released from a CCA-run detention facility in Eloy, Arizona, this year, described her detention as a traumatic experience. “I got tortured in Mexico,” Leal said on Wednesday's call. She said she came to the United States seeking asylum, “but my torture kept going in the detention center. There’s no safety in the detention center where I got detained. I was abused by my cellmate, abused by the security guards.” Bethany Carson, a co-author of the study who spoke on the call, said the detention bed quota is “inhumane” and “unnecessary.” The Grassroots report urges policymakers to reduce the number of required detention beds through “community-based” alternatives to detention. The report does not describe those alternatives in detail, but Grassroots has in the past endorsed programs in which immigration authorities partner with non-governmental organizations to ensure that released migrants comply with court proceedings and find access to community services. “The only beneficiaries from the detention quota are for-profit corporations that benefit from human pain,” Carson told reporters. LGBT Rights Trans women are uniquely abused in detention centers Senzee, 5/25/15, [award-winning Southern California journalist, political columnist at 429 Magazine.] (Thom, "Women Are Still Locked in Immigration Detention Cells with Men just Because They're Trans", www.advocate.com/world/2015/05/25/women-are-still-lockedimmigration-detention-cells-men-just-because-theyre-trans)//lb But unlike an estimated 80 percent of migrant women entering the U.S. through its border with Mexico, the now-23-year-old trans woman says she was not raped on her journey to the "Land of the Free." The rape didn't happen until she found herself locked in a cell with a mentally disturbed man, in a privately operated prison under contract with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. She was awaiting a decision on her request for asylum when she was attacked. "Transgender women are not safe in detention because they put us in with the men," Gamino told The Advocate during a recent phone interview from her residence in Phoenix. "We don't know when something's going to happen. There are detainees locked up for long periods, sometimes in isolation. People go crazy. That cellmate I had was not all there. He would always talk sexually to me. I told the guards and they did nothing. ... The guard saw him [exposing himself] to me, and they did nothing." In fact, says Gamino, some guards even facilitated the alleged abuse she experienced in ICE custody. "There was a unit manager ... who treated detainees so bad that he lost control of the unit and [prison administrators] had to kick him out, because people would scream the minute he walked onto the unit," she said. Gamino was released from the privately run lock-up in January, but only on bail, and only after an aggressive lobbying campaign by a coalition of groups to raise funds and awareness about the abuse Gamino allegedy suffered. Gamino now counts herself a member of the advocacy groups that pushed for her freedom, working to eliminate private prisons and detention facilities in the U.S. The alleged assault took place last August, while Gamino was held in a privately run men's detention facility in Eloy, Ariz. When she informed facility officials of the rape, Gamino says she was coerced into signing a statement claiming the sexual assault was "consensual." According to Phoenix TV station KSAZ, the Eloy Police Department is investigating the alleged rape. Prison officials refused to comment; however, ICE officials confirmed that there was an incident that included an initial allegation from Gamino of rape at the hands of her former cellmate. "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is firmly committed to providing for the safety and welfare of all those in its custody," said an ICE spokesperson in a statement provided to The Advocate. "ICE has a strict zero tolerance policy for any kind of abusive or inappropriate behavior in its facilities and takes any allegations of such mistreatment very seriously." But Gamino says she had previously informed officials that her alleged assailant made derogatory remarks and threatened her with rape before the assault. She further contends those officials took no action to prevent the alleged attack. After reporting the attack, Gamino was placed in solitary confinement for "protection," according to officials — though advocates called the move "punishment" for speaking out about her treatment. Gamino (pictured right) says her time at Eloy was torturous. But the thought of going back to Mexico is even more frightening. "Transgender women and other immigrants who are running away from abuse in other countries come asking for asylum, and then they put us in custody where the abuse continues," Gamino said. "It's the same situation. I'll get killed if they make me go back home, to the town where I was in Mexico. And I'll be tortured in a men's facility if ICE takes me into custody again." *Impacts Dehumanization US immigration law is based off of discrimination, killing human rights and dismissing other crimes – trafficking and domestic violence Inman and Tummala-Narra 14 (Arpana G. [Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, Temple University; Professor and Chair, Department of Education & Human Services, Lehigh University] and Pratyausha [Ph.D. in Clincal Psychology, Michigan State University; Associate Professor: Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department], “Immigration and Human Rights,” The Handbook of Race-ethnicity and Gender in Psychology, pg. 91-92, Jan. 11 2014, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8860-6_5#page-1) While positive attitudes towards immigration have evolved out of a desire to build the US economy, negative attitudes have been based in the notion that immigration is a threat to national security. For example, in recent years, xenophobia toward Muslim and Latino/a immigrants has been rising (American Psychological Association, 2012 ; Chavez, 2008 ; Sirin & Fine, 2008 ). Subgroups of immigrants, such as women and LGBT immigrants face multiple forms of oppression, including sexism, racism, and 5 Immigration and Human Rights 92 homophobia. Recent restrictions post 9/11 as well as legislations in the state of Arizona, focused on eliminating illegal immigration, through police detention of anyone suspected as a terrorist or undocumented, represents an ethos of intolerance in contemporary American society. Such laws are particularly challenging for women immigrants who are more vulnerable to interpersonal and political violence (e.g., rape, assault, separation from children) (Comas-Diaz, 2010 ; Tummala- Narra, 2013 ). Xenophobic attitudes have come at the expense of not addressing issues such as human trafficking, domestic violence, promoting the ability to detain, harass, and/or discriminate anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant by virtue of their looks, regardless of their status that impacts basic human rights and equal treatment under the law. In particular, such gender- related persecutions and discrimination has significant impact on immigrant/refugee women’s experiences through increased risk of poverty, violence, ill health, a poor education, and lack of access to health care. These issues highlight the need to examine how structural, systemic, and sociopolitical conditions intersect in their influence and impact the migrant experience. Failure to reform immigration dehumanizes non-citizens – experiences in and out of the US Inman and Tummala-Narra 14 (Arpana G. [Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, Temple University; Professor and Chair, Department of Education & Human Services, Lehigh University] and Pratyausha [Ph.D. in Clincal Psychology, Michigan State University; Associate Professor: Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department], “Immigration and Human Rights,” The Handbook of Race-ethnicity and Gender in Psychology, pg. 92, Jan. 11 2014, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8860-6_5#page-1) Structural and Systemic Impacts on the Immigrant Experience The social context within which migration occurs is largely influenced by not only proximal contexts such as family relations but also distal contexts composed of socially constructed structures (e.g., gender, racial/ethnic backgrounds) and laws and policies (Brabeck & Xu, 2010 ). Immigrants thus experience multiple jeopardies emanating from being migrants, separating from familial supports, and occupying a transnational space as a function of their gender and race. Further, many women and girls who are forced to flee their countries of origin face gender-specific forms of persecution, namely rape, sexual violence, forced sterilization, genital mutilation, domestic violence, indentured slavery, forced marriage, and prostitution. Upon arrival in the United States, they frequently face harsh detention conditions, sexual and verbal abuse, limited access to counsel, and poor health care. Despite the feminization of migration, immigration policies tend to ignore the unique and distinct experiences that men and in particular women have in their migratory experience. In this section we will highlight specific vulnerabilities that are created and enhanced through the systemic impact of gender-neutral immigration policies. Basic human rights are eradicated in the process of deportation—shackles and deprivation of necessities paint migrants into brutalized animals Inda et. al ’13 – Chair and Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies, Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1997. His research areas include the politics of immigration, governmentality and life politics, the critical study of race and medicine, the anthropology of globalization, and Latino populations in the United States. Dr. Inda is currently Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies and Criticism and Interpretive Theory. (Jonathan Xavier Inda & Julie A. Dowling, “Governing Immigration through Crime”, pg. 240-241)//cl Noncitizens who are subjected to deportation may find this transformation shocking. A Homies Unidos member who was interviewed for this project after having been deported to El Salvador could not imagine that he could never return legally to the United States: "You can't just say, 'You're expelled for life. You're deported for life.' I mean, I hope not!" Of course, deportation is not supposed to transform individuals. Rather, it is supposed to be a consequence of already being both alien and unauthorized. Note that in Alex Sanchez's case his only legal option when faced with deportation was to demonstrate that he could not safely return to El Salvador, and therefore he had to remain in the United States. Despite having lived in this country for more than two decades and having U.S. citizen relatives (including a wife and son), his criminal convictions, prior deportation, and unauthorized reentry were presumed to define him as alien and his presence as illicit. Nonetheless, there is a sense in which the process of deportation produces the very "alienage" and "illegality" from which it is supposed to flow. The transformative nature of deportation is demonstrated by the experiences of King (a pseudonym), whom I interviewed in El Salvador in 2001. King came to the United States in the early 1980s at age four or five and became a legal permanent resident in the late 1980s, when he was approximately nine or ten. As a teenager, he began to have trouble with the law and served time in juvenile hall, but he was not concerned about immigration consequences. Because I had the residency, I figured, oh, shssh, I got it made, you know, a resident." King was incarcerated in 1993, and then in 1996 he learned about the passage of AEDPA and IIRIRA: "I always watched the news in prison.... And then after that Timothy McVeigh blew up that building? They passed a law, . . . instead of, you know, going after the guys that did that, they decided to wash their hands and throw it out from all the [immigrants] and residents, uh-huh. They called 'em, uh, 'a terrorist threat.' To them, we're a terrorist threat. Just because of what Timothy, Timothy McVeigh did." An immigration hold was placed on King, and when he completed his prison sentence, he was transferred to an immigration detention center, where he unsuccessfully fought his deportation case for six months. Although King had projected a future in the United States, he was ordered deported. Before being deported, King was transferred to a holding cell, where conditions were difficult: "We were there all night, and we were cold." From the holding cell, he and others were bused to Arizona, where, in shackles, they were flown to Houston, Texas. In Texas, they were processed for deportation and then taken to a county jail, which King described as "messed up.... They wouldn't let us buy nothing at the store or nothing, so we didn't have no deodorant, no razor, no toothbrush. And they wouldn't, uh, give us any, because they were treating us like lower, you know what I mean? Like, you're getting deported anyways, you don't need none of that." Being treated as "lower" continued as King was placed in another holding cell: "And it was like hot, moisture. Like everything starts sweating, you know, with the body heat. And the water was no good. There was no drinking water. Only a shower to shower. The toilets were messed up, there was no pressure." King was in the holding cell for four or five days. King found these conditions dehumanizing, telling one of the sergeants, "Look, Sergeant, man, what's going on? We don't get rec, yard, nothing. You know? You're treating us like animals, man!" Finally, King and other deportees were shackled and placed on one of the oldest planes that King had ever seen: "And we took off. Fshshshsh0000000000! All shackled up. And then, like, they give us, like, a tore-up sandwich and stuff? To eat up there? You know, I wasn't hungry, I didn't eat nothing. That's the least thing I had on my mind was food after leaving, you know, the country you were raised in." King found the shackles particularly debasing: "They think they can treat you like you don't know your rights, you know what I mean? Even if you're deportable, you still got rights, human rights." King's account of deportation is replete with references to humiliating experiences, to being treated as an animal, as debased, as lacking rights. The shackles— which King reported were removed before landing, after flying out of U.S. airspace—were a particularly vivid marker of criminalized "illegality" and alienage. King experienced deportation not as a return, but rather as a departure, "leaving, you know, the country you were raised in." Deportation officially transformed King in ways that he experienced bodily (heat, cold, shackles, and deprivation). Officially he was not only a noncitizen of the United States but also a citizen of El Salvador. Unofficially, however, deportees' membership in their countries of origin can also be questioned. Immigrants, who are held as detainees, have lives that are worsened by detention or deportation Hamilton 11 (Kimberly R. [Candidate for Doctor of Jurisprudence, May 2011, University of Tennessee, College of Law], “IMMIGRANT DETENTION CENTERS IN THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW,” 21 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 93, pg. 99-100, 2011) A. Composition of Immigrant Detainees Immigrant detainees consist of individuals, families, and unaccompanied minors including a broad range of ages, races, and immigration statuses. n50 A large majority of immigrant detainees earn less than the national average. n51 Immigrant detainees who are being detained are non-citizens who are allegedly deportable. n52 The immigrant detainees are both documented and undocumented, many of whom [*100] may have been in the United States for several years. n53 Immigrant detainees include asylum seekers, torture survivors, human trafficking victims, longtime lawful permanent residents, and parents of U.S. citizen children. n54 Half of all immigrant detainees held in detention have no criminal record at all. n55 The remainder may have committed some crime in the past, but have already served time for prior convictions. n56 ICE does not imprison non-citizens for criminal convictions. n57 All of the immigrant detainees are being detained for immigration purposes only. n58 Immigrant detainees with criminal convictions first serve their criminal sentences and only after that are they placed in ICE custody for deportation. n59 Undocumented persons are forced to live in criminal standards as detainees Hamilton 11 (Kimberly R. [Candidate for Doctor of Jurisprudence, May 2011, University of Tennessee, College of Law], “IMMIGRANT DETENTION CENTERS IN THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW,” 21 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 93, pg. 103-104, 2011) D. Immigrant Detainees Are Not All Criminal Detainees A violation of an immigration law pertaining to legal status is a civil violation, not a criminal violation. n84 Entering the United States or remaining in the United States after the expiration of a visa is a civil violation. n85 Dr. Dora Schriro, former Director of ICE Office of Detention Policy and Planning, underscores the key difference between civil and criminal proceedings: "Immigration proceedings are civil proceedings and immigration detention is not punishment." n86 Although immigration status violations are civil offenses, immigrants held at the subcontracted facilities are mixed with the local prison population. n87 Immigrant detainees are often held with criminal detainees who are accused or convicted of committing violent crimes. n88 Not only is this contrary to international standards, but this also increases the risk of physical harm to immigrant detainees. n89 Amnesty International states that mixing the immigrant detainee population with the criminal detainee population results in "inappropriate and excessive use of restraints, inadequate access to healthcare including mental health services, and inadequate access to exercise for ICE detainees." n90 Additionally supporting the use of separate facilities, Dr. Schriro describes the difference in the demeanor of civil immigrant detainees: “The demeanor of the Immigration Detention population is distinct from the Criminal Incarceration population. The majority of the population is motivated by the desire for repatriation or relief, and exercise exceptional restraint. According to reports provided by contract monitors and submitted by the field, relatively few detainees file grievances, fights are infrequent, and assaults on staff are even rarer.” n91 Although immigrants held in detention are charged only with civil violations of the law, the detention facilities are very much like jails. n92 In fact, a 2005 report on asylum seekers in expedited removal describes the ICE civil detention standards as "identical to [and] modeled after correctional standards for criminal [*104] populations." n93 For example, some facilities contain all of the detainees together in one large, windowless, locked, and brightly lit room. n94 Other facilities lack significant opportunities for detainees to participate in recreational or unstructured activities. n95 Frequently, facilities provide only "a small outdoor space surrounded by high concrete walls or a chain link fence." n96 Finally, detainees wear prison uniforms. n97 Immigrants are entitled to due process rights, including a trial on whether they are deportable or whether they can stay in the United States. n98 During this process,immigrants may be detained until their immigration statuses are determined. n99 Before 2005, immigrants awaiting their court dates were not usually detained. But, ICE's recent focus on detention and removal has significantly increased the number of detained immigrants in the United States. n100 In addition, increased use of 287(g) agreements has expanded federal immigration enforcement authority to local law enforcement officers, which has also led to increases in the number of individuals detained. n101 Climate Change Human rights are key to combatting climate change Cameron and Limon 12 (Edward Cameron and Marc Limon. "Restoring The Climate By Realizing Rights: The Role Of The International Human Rights System." Review Of European Community & International Environmental Law 21.3 (2012): 204-219. Academic Search Complete. Weeb. 28 June 2015.) As a result, for many years, this approach represented a high-risk and often unwelcome strategy. However, five years on from the Male’ Declaration, the tables have turned. Professor Daniel Magraw, former President of the Center for International Law and one of the earliest proponents of the link between human rights and climate change, has said that when this nexus was first mooted ‘people laughed at the very thought; but no one is laughing now’.16 Today human rights are seen as a legitimate and powerful element of a wider climate change regime complex, stretching across a wide range of multilateral processes.17 Rather than being shunned, the succession of Human Rights Council resolutions, the explosion of academic and civil society output on this issue, and the increasing call to human rights norms within the UNFCCC suggest that human rights is increasingly viewed as a potentially transformational part of tackling the climate challenge.18 The climate justice narrative has become a powerful advocacy tool for civil society organizations and vulnerable countries, which is helping to evolve our analysis of socioecological thresholds and is enhancing political processes both internationally and domestically to better account for the experience of vulnerable populations. Nuclear War Collapse of human rights norms causes global WMD conflict Burke-White 4 – William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. at Cambridge, “Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Correlation”, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy . It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security . Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction ( WMD ). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues. Authoritarian leaders lash out with nukes. Holdorf, 10 (Polly M. Holdorf, MA in International Security and a BA in International Studies, Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century, http://csis.org/files/publication/110916_Holdorf.pdf) There are four specific objectives that nuclear-armed regional adversaries might seek to achieve through the use of nuclear weapons. They might seek to deter the United States from intervening in a conflict or projecting military power into the region by threatening escalation. If the United States is not deterred by threats of escalation, the adversary might consider using its nuclear weapons to limit or defeat U.S. military operations. The adversary might seek to intimidate U.S. allies or friends within the region, or to split regional political coalitions apart. Certainly the adversary would attempt to limit U.S. objectives in the confrontation and try to dissuade the United States from seeking to impose regime change. For authoritarian or despotic leaders, nuclear weapons may be seen as a means of survival. These types of leaders may be preoccupied with the survival not just of their regimes, but of their own personal survival. Regional adversaries facing a confrontation with the United States would know beyond any doubt that they faced an opponent with vastly superior military forces and resources. Adversarial leaders may not be prepared to face the disastrous consequences of a military defeat, particularly one that would result in their removal from power. Such leaders may feel that their only hope for survival would be to attempt to stave off, or at least delay, a defeat by employing a nuclear weapon against U.S. forces. It is also possible that an adversary, knowing that it cannot and will not prevail, may wish to “go out with a bang”; or they may wish to be remembered as the leader who stood up to the United States by utilizing nuclear weapons. A number of factors exist that could serve as catalysts for future nuclear use. Latent conflicts within a regional setting could ignite and nuclear threats may be signaled by one or both sides in order to influence the opposing states’ actions. A nuclear state on the verge of losing a conventional war might employ its nuclear weapons in order to avert defeat. Small nuclear states which harbor feelings of isolation (such as North Korea) could perceive the actions of others as threatening and therefore be intimidated into employing nuclear weapons as a means to protect their interests. Traditional means of deterrence may not work the same way between small states as they did with the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Strategic discourse between two small nuclear-armed states may be lacking, thus elevating the prospect for the collapse of deterrence at the regional level. Small nuclear states may have flawed or incomplete intelligence regarding their relative positions in a conflict. A misperception regarding an adversary’s intentions could compel a country to conduct a preemptive strike on the opponent’s nuclear arsenal or conventional military forces. There is also the possibility that a small nuclear armed state may have a deficient command and control structure, increasing the risk of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. The use of nuclear weapons in a regional setting could support a range of objectives including coercion, war termination, regime preservation or even revenge. Some states could view the use of nuclear weapons as a means-of-last resort, while others may view them as the only viable means to alter the status quo or to remedy a deteriorating regional security situation. In some circumstances a state may view the use of nuclear weapons as the best, or the “least bad,” option available to them. The fear of regime change may be a compelling reason for a nuclear-armed regional adversary to consider employing nuclear weapons during a conflict. For leaders who are concerned about their ability to remain in power in the event of a war with a superiorly armed adversary, nuclear weapons could be viewed as a valuable tool to have in their arsenal. “If an attack by a U.S.-led coalition would pose a significant threat to your regime and your nation cannot afford conventional forces capable of deterring or defeating such an attack, you may regard nuclear weapons as the answer. “One can be certain that the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 and Saddam Hussein in 2003 are still very fresh, particularly in the minds of the Iranian and North Korean regimes. These regimes are also aware that they have been identified as security threats to the United States. Structural Violence *Authoritarianism’s racial and patriarchal structure promotes structural violence in the form of gendered violence and racial profiling- Hungary proves McRobie '14 (novelist, journalist, co-editor of openDemocracy 50.50, and editor of the Oxford Human Rights Hub. She is completing a PhD on the 2011 Egyptian revolution at Oxford University and holds an MA focusing on Balkan studies from the University of Sarajevo. Her latest book Literary Freedom: a Cultural Right to Literature was published in December 2013 https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/heather-mcrobie/it-takes-broken-bonesauthoritarianism-and-violence-against-women-in-hungary // 6-26-15 // MC) Authoritarianism is never good news for women – as citizens or as the structurally more marginalised gender – and Hungary’s continued shift away from democracy and upholding human rights under the right-wing Fidesz government is mirrored by its regressive backsliding on gender equality. Last week, Hungarian feminist groups spoke out to condemn a public service announcement made by a Hungarian police department that blamed women for ‘inviting’ sexual violence. In a shockingly misguided attempt to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, the video showed young women drinking, dancing and flirting before cutting to what looked like the aftermath of a sexual assault. The video ended with the warning “it’s your responsibility”, implying that women invite sexual violence through ‘irresponsibility’. Compounding the erroneous messages the Hungarian public are given on violence against women, another Hungarian police department issued a statement last week on ‘rape prevention’ that claimed "flirting by young women can often elicit violence." This isn’t the first time in recent years that Hungarian officials and government departments have communicated victim-blaming messages on the subject of violence against women, erroneously shifting the blame away from the responsibility of the perpetrator. In 2012, MP Istvan Varga, from the ruling Fidesz party claimed that domestic violence could be solved if women fulfilled their natural role and gave birth to several children. (The “logic” being that if women fulfilled their societal duty and reproduced, their partners would respect them more and therefore stop beating them). The popular protests and campaigns by Hungarian feminist groups in the face of this statement were part of what pushed the parliament to agree to legally demarcate domestic violence as a specific offence in the new criminal code. Previously, abusers could only be prosecuted for individual acts of assault and there was no legal recognition of the wider violence and oppression of abusive relationships. However, an extensive Human Rights Watch report in November 2013, ‘Unless Blood Flows’, documented both the gaps in the new legal provisions for domestic violence, and the inadequate implementation of existing laws and lack of funding and provisions for violence against women. It pointed both to the lack of political will to address violence against women, and to entrenched patriarchal norms as barriers to combatting violence against women and achieving gender equality in both the private and public spheres. Hungarian women’s rights organisations pointed out that, although the rates of domestic violence and violence against women are in keeping with the (lamentable) European average, Hungary lagged behind other European countries in terms of both legal and societal recognition of this abuse: “it takes broken bones” for a case of domestic violence to be brought to court, both preventing catching domestic violence at an earlier stage (in light of the fact that domestic abuse often operates on an escalating dynamic) and sending a message that it is not taken seriously by legal and governmental institutions. Screenshot of 2014 'antirape' video made by Hungarian police. The Fidesz party spent the last four years gutting independent media and social provisions, and won a second term by a landslide in the elections of April this year, in which the far-right, anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic Jobbik party also won 20% of the votes. Fidesz has brought with it a plethora of bizarre and reactionary policies and statements from government officials, most recently the widely-protested proposed Internet tax. And the right-wing discourse dominating politics weaves into it a regressive construction of gender relations, in which Fidesz and other right-wing political voices trade on the concept of “family values” in which women are reduced solely to their supposedly ‘natural’ role as mothers and submissive wives. Such a conception of gender relations constructed by right-wing authoritarianism and exclusivist nationalism – in which women are seen as mere vessels for childbearing and subordinate units within the all-important traditional “family – delegates women to the ‘private sphere’ whilst giving men dominance within both the public and the private spheres. In such a conception, domestic violence becomes a matter both of “no-one else’s business” and “she was probably asking for it.” One instance of violence against women did, however, become a public issue – when last November Fidesz politician Jozsef Balogh admitted to beating his wife, yet refused to resign from public office. Hungary’s chief prosecutor found that Mr Balogh’s wife had been struck in the face with “more than medium force”, dragged by her hair, and suffered facial fractures after being assaulted by her husband when the couple returned home from a wedding party. Although Mr Balogh was expelled from the Fidesz party in the wake of public outcry over his violence, his behaviour seemed not far removed from the official message communicated by the government: the patriarchal family with its dominating male ‘head’ is all-important, and domestic violence is a private matter which concerns neither society nor government. The continued lack of government funding for domestic violence shelters – and the victim-blaming “public service announcements” – communicate the same message, that violence against women is both a trivial and a private matter for which the abused can be blamed. Hungary’s right-ward shift and slide away from liberal democracy is bad news for women, not because liberal democracy “guarantees” the decline of violence against women (the cases of several Scandinavian countries show that even high levels of “gender equity” in public life, and gender-sensitive welfare provisions, can coexist with high levels of domestic violence and violence against women in the private sphere) but because, under the current prevailing ideology in Hungary women are sidelined as all structurally marginalised groups are sidelined – if not targetted. Over the same period as the rise of Fidesz and the far-right Jobbik party, Hungary has slipped down the World Economic Forum’s ranking on gender-equity, from 55th place in 2006 to 93 in 2014 (although the number of ranked countries expanded from 115 to 142 in the same period). The alarming rise (or resurgence) of anti-Semitism and antiRoma sentiment shows the corrosive right-wing discourse eating at Hungary’s society as anyone who occupies the marginal position – as an ethnic minority, or immigrant, or on the grounds of their gender or sexual orientation – is sidelined, demonised and targetted, as if in a Nietzschean reading of social order enacting a sociopathic mindset in which the structurally weaker are punished for “being weak”. The public service announcement telling women “it is your responsibility” to prevent sexual assault by 'not flirting and drinking' is in keeping with the regressive worldview of rightwing discourse swirling in Hungarian political life, with its fetishisation of the patriarchal family and its increasing persecution of minorities and the structurally disadvantaged. In such a climate, violence against women is both a “private” issue of the exalted family-unit and a “natural” situation in which the dominant enacts its will on the disadvantaged. And so the structural and social violence the Hungarian state is waging upon its marginalised is enacted again, as if in aftershock, over and over upon the bodies of women. Authoritarian governmental practices promote violence against vestiges of its social contract – including minorities, women, and people in poverty Giroux '15 (Henry A., Global TV Network Chair Professor at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/30/terrorism-violence-and-the-culture-ofmadness/ // 6-26-15 // MC) George Orwell’s nightmarish vision of a totalitarian society casts a dark shadow over the United States. The consequences can be seen clearly in the ongoing and ruthless assault on the social state, workers, unions, higher education, students, poor minorities and any vestige of the social contract. Free market policies, values, and practices with their emphasis on the privatization of public wealth, the elimination of social protections, and the deregulation of economic activity now shape practically every commanding political and economic institution in the United States. Public spheres that once offered at least the glimmer of progressive ideas, enlightened social policies, non-commodified values, and critical dialogue and exchange have been increasingly militarized—or replaced by private spaces and corporate settings whose ultimate fidelity is to increasing profit margins. Citizenship is now subsumed by the national security state and a cult of secrecy, organized and reinforced by the constant mobilization of fear and insecurity designed to produce a form of ethical tranquilization and a paralyzing level of social infantilism. Chris Hedges crystalizes this premise in arguing that Americans now live in a society in which “violence is the habitual response by the state to every dilemma,” legitimizing war as a permanent feature of society and violence as the organizing principle of politics.[1] Under such circumstances, malevolent modes of rationality now impose the values of a militarized neoliberal regime on everyone, shattering viable modes of agency, solidarity, and hope. Amid the bleakness and despair, the discourses of militarism, danger and war now fuel a war on terrorism “that represents the negation of politics—since all interaction is reduced to a test of military strength war brings death and destruction, not only to the adversary but also to one’s side, and without distinguishing between guilty and innocent.”[2] Authoritarian ecological practices make the government vulnerable to racist, right-wing policies – empirics Zimmerman '14 (Michael E., June 3, 2014 Michael E. Zimmerman is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Humanities and the Arts at CU, Boulder. www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_zimmerman_ecofascism.pdf // 6-28-15 // MC) Some environmentalists regard the takings issue as spurious, whereas others agree that it has some merit. Almost all environmentalists, however, claim that the charge of ecofascism is the ludicrous creation of anti-environmental corporations and extractive industries. Even though this evaluation may be accurate, I argue that the threat of ecofascism cannot be dismissed out of hand. True, ecofascism is unlikely to occur in the United States any time soon, but environmentalists need to be aware that ecofascism was a component of German National Socialism, and that even today neo-fascists and members of far right-wing groups in Europe and the United States put to dark uses concepts drawn from the environmental movement. Twenty years ago, far right-wing groups in Germany were already linking their antiimmigrationist platform to the mainstream concern about the environmental impacts of human population growth and population density. These days, even mainstream German politicians link immigration to environmental concerns, only now in the context of the renewal of anti-Semitism.2 Far right-wing groups in the United States have begun to tie public concern about urban sprawl and environmental pollution to immigrants from countries that 2 allegedly fail to respect the natural environment. In the current global situation, environmentalists should continue to promote their agenda, but should also be prepared to dissociate themselves from those who might exploit aspects of it for their own ends. Before beginning my discussion of ecofascism, let me make some comments about how I depict positions on the political spectrum. I distinguish between right-wing and far right-wing. Ron Arnold’s political views are right-wing, insofar as he strongly endorses limited government and affirms the primacy of individual liberty. His views on these point are consistent with neo-classical liberalism, which is often described as “conservatism” these days, and which is to be distinguished from the “welfare” liberalism that most people now identity as liberalism. The latter favors some state intervention to level the playing field and to provide a safety net for people with economic and social problems. Most Americans, including welfare liberals, have strong commitments to some variety of individualism, and most Americans also support a significant role for government in many domains of life. Despite what right-wing commentators like Arnold may say, there is not a strong left-wing presence in American politics, if left-wing is understood to mean socialist or communist. Far right-wingers demand that the state take very strong measures to save “the people” from alleged danger. Upon taking power, far right-wingers would “temporarily” suspend constitutional freedoms in order to have a free hand to destroy “the enemy within.” Limited individual “freedom” may eventually be restored, but only to those who are sufficiently like those who are in power. Whereas American right-wing individualists are suspicious of the state and its coercive powers, many far rightwingers seek to use such powers to suppress or eradicate those whose politics, economic status, race, class, religion, or national origin are regarded as unacceptably “different.” The far right-wing becomes fascist when it describes the state itself in semi-religious terms, for example, as the life-giving organism whose organs are constituted by the people. The fascist state controls everything; individuals have no status apart from what the state permits. In requiring that individuals sacrifice their own “selfish” interests for the higher interests of the social 3 whole, fascism is similar to communism. This similarity explains why someone like Ron Arnold describes radical environmentalists now as communists, now as ecofascists. Terrorism U.S. HR leadership solves the root cause of terrorism Duffy 6/26/15 – Senior Media Relations Associate for Human Rights First, former intern for or Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, and Clinton (Corrine, U.S. Government Should Promote Global Counterterrorism Strategy Rooted in Human Rights, Human Rights First, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/usgovernment-should-promote-global-counterterrorism-strategy-rooted-human-rights)//JJ U.S. government to redouble its efforts to combat terrorism and counter violent extremism by tackling the underlying drivers of violent extremism. “It is clear that there is a need for a concerted, sustained international effort to combat and prevent terrorist violence such as the horrific attacks in Sousse and Kuwait today,” said Human Rights First’s Neil Hicks. "Violent extremists and repressive authoritarian governments are mutually reinforcing. To break this destructive cycle, governments that wish to be effective partners in the struggle against violent extremism must extend human rights protections to all members of their communities, make independent civil society a partner, protect religious freedom and denounce sectarian incitement ." In February, President Today, in response to terrorist attacks in Kuwait and Tunisia, Human Rights First urged the Obama outlined a preventive strategy at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, and this week a regional conference in Kenya focuses on similar issues. As Under Secretary of State Sarah renewed focus on protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, an end to the incitement of sectarian violence, which leads to atrocities such as the suicide bombing of a Shi'ite mosque in Kuwait today, and for empowering independent civil society organizations as core partners in the struggle against violent extremism. "Tunisia represents a hopeful alternative to endless conflict between repressive authoritarianism and violent Sewall reiterated in her opening remarks in Kenya yesterday, the international community must commit itself to a extremism. The United States has a vital interest in ensuring the success of Tunisia's fragile transition towards democracy," noted Hicks. "Tunisia has become a target for terrorist violence in recent months because of the progress it has made in transitioning away from decades of authoritarian rule towards democratic government grounded in the rule of law. With its international partners, the United States should make clear that it will not let terrorism win a victory in Tunisia, and that it will stand behind the Tunisian economy and help the Tunisian security forces to secure further progress towards a peaceful democratic The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing of a Shi'ite mosque in Kuwait, further spreading its sectarian violence in the Gulf region. The global struggle against ISIL requires cooperation from key Arab partners, especially among the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Since the Arab Spring protests of 2011 Saudi Arabia and the GCC states have been leading a region-wide pushback against popular demands for more representative, more responsive government. This has included a Saudi-led, GCC supported, military incursion into Bahrain to put down a peaceful protest movement and ample financial and political support for President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's authoritarian rule in Egypt. The repressive policies of such governments undermine global efforts to counter violent extremism and combat terrorism. future for Tunisia." Specifically nuclear terror Weiss and Burroughs 4 – President of the New York-based Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy and Vice President of the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, AND ** Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy and Adjunct Professor of International Law at Rutgers Law School (Peter and John, Weapons of mass destruction and human rights, HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT, 2004, p. 33)//JJ There can be no doubt that a world rife with weapons of mass destruction is less safe a place than a world without them, a point only reinforced by the rise of catastrophic terrorism. The elimination of WMD is a matter of political will. It can be achieved through full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention and the negotiation of measures to eliminate nuclear arms within the overarching framework of a convention. The nuclear weapons states are pledged to negotiate in good faith toward this end, but so far have refused to honour their pledge. When they do, they will also be acting to uphold the human rights to life and peace. The elimination of terrorism may be a more difficult goal to reach. When leaders speak of waging the war against terrorism to its final victory, one can only wince and wonder what they have in mind. What war? Where fought? Against whom? With what weapons? The last question is probably the crucial one. Yes, competent intelligence and brute force can reduce the danger of terrorist attacks. But if there is one lesson that history teaches it is that social, economic, ethnic and religious differences can translate into feelings of powerlessness and give rise to violence—which the powerless call the search for justice and those at whom the violence is directed call terrorism. This is where human rights come in. There may never be a world without terrorism. But it is reasonable to expect that the closer the world comes to realizing the full panoply of human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration and the International Covenants, the closer it will be to freedom from terrorism, not least WMD terrorism . It is a goal worth striving for. Sexism Failure to reform immigration dehumanizes non-citizens – experiences in and out of the US Inman and Tummala-Narra 14 (Arpana G. [Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, Temple University; Professor and Chair, Department of Education & Human Services, Lehigh University] and Pratyausha [Ph.D. in Clincal Psychology, Michigan State University; Associate Professor: Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department], “Immigration and Human Rights,” The Handbook of Race-ethnicity and Gender in Psychology, pg. 92, Jan. 11 2014, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8860-6_5#page-1) Structural and Systemic Impacts on the Immigrant Experience The social context within which migration occurs is largely influenced by not only proximal contexts such as family relations but also distal contexts composed of socially constructed structures (e.g., gender, racial/ethnic backgrounds) and laws and policies (Brabeck & Xu, 2010 ). Immigrants thus experience multiple jeopardies emanating from being migrants, separating from familial supports, and occupying a transnational space as a function of their gender and race. Further, many women and girls who are forced to flee their countries of origin face gender-specific forms of persecution, namely rape, sexual violence, forced sterilization, genital mutilation, domestic violence, indentured slavery, forced marriage, and prostitution. Upon arrival in the United States, they frequently face harsh detention conditions, sexual and verbal abuse, limited access to counsel, and poor health care. Despite the feminization of migration, immigration policies tend to ignore the unique and distinct experiences that men and in particular women have in their migratory experience. In this section we will highlight specific vulnerabilities that are created and enhanced through the systemic impact of gender-neutral immigration policies. Detention of immigrants destroys their human rights – women in particular, multiple abuses Inman and Tummala-Narra 14 (Arpana G. [Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, Temple University; Professor and Chair, Department of Education & Human Services, Lehigh University] and Pratyausha [Ph.D. in Clincal Psychology, Michigan State University; Associate Professor: Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department], “Immigration and Human Rights,” The Handbook of Race-ethnicity and Gender in Psychology, pg. 94, Jan. 11 2014, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8860-6_5#page-1) Detention, Deportation, and Legislation Detention based on immigration is the fastest growing form of incarceration in the USA. On a typical day, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds 33,000 immigrants in detention. About 10 % of these immigrants are women (Human Rights Watch, 2009 ). Detainees include asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, pregnant women, and mothers of children who are US citizens. Most often detained for administrative/civil rather than criminal situations, these individuals are held for an undetermined amount of time with no right to an attorney. When immigrant women are apprehended and detained, their vulnerability increases. Sometimes women and children are held in close confi nement with men increasing violence and assaults (Silove et al., 2001 ). Further, women are often subjected to extreme temperatures, inadequate nutrition, medical staffing shortages, long delays for critically needed health care (i.e., gynecological), lack accurate health care information, and pregnant women are shackled during transportation. Treatment is frequently delayed or denied and confi dentiality is breached (security guards in exam rooms, lack of interpreters). Women have trouble directly accessing facility health clinics and persuading security guards that they needed medical attention (Human Rights Watch, 2009 ). Detention often removes access to services and legal relief necessary for immigrant women to protect their children and access services. For single parents, the detention separates immigrant women from their children, often with devastating effects. Because these mothers may not be given the opportunity to make basic arrangements for their children’s care, they may lose custody of their children. In detention they are denied access to telephones and the legal assistance necessary to locate their children and communicate with family courts to preserve their parental rights (Human Rights Watch, 2009 ). Such separations can have a devastating impact on the emotional health and well-being of the family. Racism Xenophobic discrimination of immigrants destroys human rights Achiume 14 (E. Tendayi [Binder Teaching Fellow, UCLA School of Law. J.D., Yale Law School], “BEYOND PREJUDICE: STRUCTURAL XENOPHOBIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST REFUGEES,” 45 Geo. J. Int'l L. 323, pg. 324-325, Winter 2014) [*324] I. INTRODUCTION There were 15.4 million refugees n1 in the world at the end of 2012, and global trends suggest that this number will only continue to rise. n2 According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR)--the most influential refugee protection actor in the world--xenophobic or "foreignness" n3 discrimination is among the greatest challenges to refugees globally. n4 Sometimes this discrimination is violent. Brutal attacks [*325] against foreign nationals threaten the lives of refugees in contexts as varied as Libya, Greece, the United Kingdom, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Ukraine, and even the United States. n5 This is the case regardless of whether they possess legal documentation authorizing their presence in these countries. Refugees are also regular targets of verbal and physical harassment by private citizens and even public authorities, such as police officers. Where xenophobic discrimination is not violent, it can nonetheless be a severe threat to refugee livelihood. Refugees are regularly denied access to vital public services such as health care and basic education on account of foreignness. Even where they have been granted the right to work, as foreigners they also face grave challenges to securing formal employment, regardless of their skills, training, and experience. n6 This often has the effect of threatening their very ability to subsist. Unsurprisingly, UNHCR has placed xenophobic discrimination on its list of strategic priorities for refugee protection. ICE has become an outlet for racial profiling and discourages police protections Albert 11 (Jared, J.D. [post-writing] from Georgetown University, “CURRENT DEVELOPMENT: DEVELOPMENT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH: HOW SECURE IS SECURE COMMUNITIES? THE FUTURE OF ONE OF ICE'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL PROGRAMS,” 26 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 187, 188-190, Fall 2011) Criticism of Secure Communities The program has long been a lightning rod for controversy. Many immigrant rights groups, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, have called for the suspension or termination of the program. n9 Although criticisms of the program are myriad, most of the criticism focuses on three specific complaints. First, many question whether the program has accomplished its goal of focusing on high priority aliens, which ICE defines as "individuals who pose a threat to public safety such as criminal aliens and national security threats, as well as repeat immigration law violators and recent border entrants." n10 ICE statistics published in September 2011 indicate that of the 134,378 aliens identified and deported under Secure Communities, 38,962 (29%) had no criminal history whatsoever, and of those with criminal histories, 63.6% did not have convictions for the most serious level of offenses. n11 Many media outlets have provided anecdotal evidence to argue that Secure Communities is missing the mark. For example, a recent CNBC documentary profiled Ms. Brenda Ambrosio, an illegal immigrant who emigrated from Guatemala to the United States. n12 Ambrosio reported that she came to the United States illegally in 2001 to escape an abusive husband back home, and settled in Maryland. When she was pulled over for a minor traffic violation, the police officer, through the jurisdiction's participation in Secure Communities, determined that she was in the country illegally. ICE officials sent her across the country to Arizona to a privately-run immigration detention facility, where she remains. Another media outlet, Frontline on PBS, profiled the story of Susana Ramirez, a mother of five American citizens in Illinois who herself came into the United States illegally. n13 Ramirez was pulled over for changing lanes without using a turn signal, and when it was determined, again by the use of Secure Communities, that she was in the country illegally, she was deported back to Mexico, leaving her five children and husband in [*189] the United States. Others argue that Secure Communities sanctions racial profiling. n14 A recent report released on October 19, 2011, by The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at the University of California, Berkeley Law School sheds light on some data that critics have isolated in mounting their attack on Secure Communities. n15 The report notes, from a random national sample of 375 individuals who were identified under Secure Communities and arrested by ICE, 93% of those identified and arrested were Latino/a, even though Latinos represent only 77% of the undocumented population in the United States. n16 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has similarly argued that Secure Communities "invites" racial profiling. n17 Additionally, other critics argue that Secure Communities undermines community policing efforts. n18 Critics point out that if police agencies cannot guarantee that there will be no immigration consequences when individuals provide information to or cooperate with the police, that immigrants will be less likely to come forward to report crimes. Media accounts are replete with stories of witnesses and victims of crime who, upon speaking with the police, had their own immigration status checked, ultimately leading to action by ICE. As previously discussed, even if charges are eventually dropped, anyone arrested in a Secure Communities jurisdiction will have his finger-prints run through the ICE database. And so, as in the case of Isaura Garcia of Los Angeles, California, an illegal alien and domestic violence victim who calls the police on her abusive boyfriend might end up herself being deported under Secure Communities. n19 Initially, after interviewing both Ms. Garcia and her boyfriend, the police credited the boyfriend's story, and arrested Ms. Garcia, sending her fingerprints to the ICE database due to Los Angeles' involvement with Secure Communities. n20 Even though the charges against Ms. Garcia were eventually dropped, she was transferred to an immigration [*190] detention facility, where she currently awaits deportation. n21 The ACLU article detailing her story quotes Ms. Garcia as having said, "Had I realized I could be arrested after calling 911 for help and deported, I never would have called." n22 Extinction Human rights credibility solves inevitable extinction Rhonda Copelan, Professor of Law – NYU, New York City Law Review, 1999, p. 71-2 The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority. Indeed, in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, and security. Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy. Human rights protection prevents extinction Annas et al 2 Edward R. Utley Prof. and Chair Health Law @ Boston U. School of Public Health and Prof. SocioMedical Sciences and Community Science @ Boston U. School of Medicine and Prof. Law @ Boston U. School of Law [George, Lori Andrews, (Distinguished Prof. Law @ Chicago-Kent College of Law and Dir. Institute for Science, Law, and Technology @ Illinois Institute Tech), and Rosario M. Isasa, (Health Law and Biotethics Fellow @ Health Law Dept. of Boston U. School of Public Health), American Journal of Law & Medicine, “THE GENETICS REVOLUTION: CONFLICTS, CHALLENGES AND CONUNDRA: ARTICLE: Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations”, 28 Am. J. L. and Med. 151, L/N] The development of the atomic bomb not only presented to the world for the first time the prospect of total annihilation , but also, paradoxically, led to a renewed emphasis on the "nuclear family," complete with its personal bomb shelter. The conclusion of World War II (with the dropping of the only two atomic bombs ever used in war) led to the recognition that world wars were now suicidal to the entire species and to the formation of the United Nations with the primary goal of preventing such wars . n2 Prevention , of course, must be based on the recognition that all humans are fundamentally the same , rather than on an emphasis on our differences. In the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis, the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war , President John F. Kennedy, in an address to the former Soviet Union, underscored the necessity for recognizing similarities for our survival: ¶ [L]et us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved . . . . For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet . We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. n3 ¶ That we are all fundamentally the same, all human, all with the same dignity and rights, is at the core of the most important document to come out of World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the two treaties that followed it (together known as the "International Bill of The recognition of universal human rights, based on human dignity and equality as well as the principle of nondiscrimination, is fundamental to the Rights"). n4 development of a species consciousness . As Daniel Lev of Human Rights Watch/Asia said in 1993, shortly before the Vienna Human Rights Conference: ¶ Whatever else may separate them, human beings belong to a single biological species, the simplest and most fundamental commonality before which the significance of human differences quickly fades. . . . We are all capable, in exactly the same ways, of feeling pain, hunger, [*153] and a hundred kinds of deprivation. Consequently, people nowhere routinely concede that those with enough power to do so ought to be able to kill, torture, imprison, and The idea of universal human rights shares the recognition of one common humanity, and provides a minimum solution to deal with its miseries . n5 ¶ Membership in the human species is central to the meaning and enforcement of human rights, and respect for basic human rights is essential for the survival of the human species . The development of the concept of "crimes against humanity" was a generally abuse others. . . . milestone for universalizing human rights in that it recognized that there were certain actions, such as slavery and genocide, that implicated the welfare of the entire species and therefore merited universal condemnation. n6 Nuclear weapons were immediately seen as a technology that required international control, as extreme genetic manipulations like cloning and inheritable genetic alterations have come to be seen today. In fact, cloning and inheritable genetic alterations can be seen as crimes against humanity of a unique sort: they are techniques that can alter the essence of humanity itself (and thus threaten to change the foundation of human rights) by taking human evolution into our own hands and directing it toward the development of a new species, sometimes termed the "posthuman." n7 It may be that species-altering techniques, like cloning and inheritable genetic modifications, could provide benefits to the human species in extraordinary circumstances. For example, asexual genetic replication could potentially save humans from extinction if all humans were rendered sterile by some catastrophic event. But no such necessity currently exists or is on the horizon. *A2: Ks HR Good Flawed applications of rights CANNOT be compared to the absence of such – Human Rights open up space for transformation and prevent facism Daly, 04 - Australian National University (Frances, The non-citizen and the concept of 'human rights', http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no1_2004/daly_noncitizen.htm) An ahistorical disdain for legal action is merely the obverse of the process of fetishizing legality. Much theory that merely substitutes the idea of the static essence of the person to explain the consequence of good and evil in the world with an equally static, invariant view of authority and the State is, I would argue, ultimately eternalizing such concepts. Undoubtedly, some sort of move beyond categories underscoring divisions within the ways people are entitled to live their lives is much of the power of any such critique must depend upon the manner in which the context of this life – the possible experience of acting in the world, or 'form-of-life' - is itself understood. In the absence of any such context, what tends to emerge is a return to the problem of rights reduced to a division of form and content, rather than the overturning of this very problematic. Only in this necessary. But case, because the content is seen to fall short of the abstraction of, for example, a "whatever singularity", the form is wholly More importantly, by revisiting this problem via a dismissal of the context of rights, and more specifically of the possibility of traces of the intention towards human dignity, a rich heritage of critique is sidelined. Continues... The use and abuse of right is not the same thing as a complete absence of right, and understanding this is vital to being able to comprehend where and in what ways democratic, constitutional States become, or are, fascistic. Natural right, or the right of the human being, occupies a space of interruption in the divide between law and ethicality that can, on occasion, act as to reintroduce a radical pathos within right. discarded. State Good A state reform is the only way to solve human rights – cries from outside policy legitimizes the “civil” system Flynn 12 (Michael Flynn [Founder and coordinator of the Global Detention Project, at the Graduate Institute’s Programme for the Study of Global Migration], “On the Unintended Consequences of Human Rights Promotion on Immigration Detention,” Discussion Paper, 3-1212, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_Discussion_Paper_v4.p df, pg. 1-2) This discussion paper argues that an overlooked factor in explanations about the growth of immigration detention is human rights advocacy on behalf of migrant detainees. A close look at the evolution of detention policies seems to show that there is a tension between efforts to promote norms related to the right to liberty and campaigns aimed at improving conditions of detention and reforming the state's custodial relationship with detainees. At first blush—and indeed in most cases of advocacy on behalf of migrant detainees— these two issues appear closely related. However, there is cause for concern that a narrow focus on improving the treatment of detainees can help rationalize the practice of immigration detention, providing states with cover for their continued efforts to deprive noncitizens of liberty and helping ensure the vitality of detention regimes into the foreseeable future. The United States is a good case in point. At the beginning of the Obama administration there was enormous hope that serious reforms would be undertaken. While some changes have been implemented with respect to the U.S. detention estate, the reforms have been disappointing. For example, instead of working to limit numbers of detainees, the Obama administration has bolstered enforcement strategies that have led to record levels of deportations while placating critics by touting efforts to put in place a "truly civil" detention estate. A recent conversation with Andrew Lorenzen-Strait, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICS) first "public advocate," helps illustrate this point. In discussing recent changes in the overall U.S. detention infrastructure, Lorenzen-Strait highlighted how ICE had made great strides in limiting the use of prisons by gradually replacing these with "civil" detention centers. His key exemplar was the Karnes detention center near San Antonio, what he called the first "civil detention facility" in the United States, which recently opened under the operation of the private prison company the Geo Group. ICE is making an enormous effort to put a comfortable face on immigration detention, and this effort is paying off. Take for example a comment by a UNHCR official in early 2011 describing the Berks County Family Shelter as the embodiment “of the best practices for a truly civil immigration detention model.” The official explained that while “UNHCR believes strongly that the vast majority of asylum seekers should not be detained,” in the event that families should be detained, Berks was the model to follow. Perm: Criticize but use rights Rejecting rights altogether undermines critical theory’s struggle against oppression. Permutation allows us to criticize rights while simultaneously enacting their protections against oppression. Deranty, Professor of Philosophy, 2k4 (Jean-Phillipe, Macquarie University, “Agamben’s challenge to normative theories of modern rights”, borderlands, http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no1_2004/deranty_agambnschall.htm) 11. In the case of empirical examples, the erasure of difference between phenomena seems particularly counter-intuitive in the case of dissimilar modes of internment. From a practical point of view, it seems counter-productive to claim that there is no substantial difference between archaic communities and modern communities provided with the language of rights, between the lawlessness of war times and democratic discourse. There must be a way of problematising the ideological mantra of Western freedom, of modernity’s moral superiority, that does not simply equate it with Nazi propaganda (Ogilvie 2001). Habermas and Honneth probably have a point when they highlight the advances made by modernity in the entrenchment of rights. If the ethical task is that of testimony, then our testimony should go also to all the individual lives that were freed from alienation by the establishment of legal barriers against arbitrariness and exclusion. We should heed Honneth’s reminder that struggles for social and political emancipation have often privileged the language of rights over any other discourse (Fraser, Honneth 2003). To reject the language of human rights altogether could be a costly gesture in understanding past political struggles in their relevance for future ones, and a serious strategic, political loss for accompanying present struggles. We want to criticise the ideology of human rights, but not at the cost of renouncing the resources that rights provide. Otherwise, critical theory would be in the odd position of casting aspersions upon the very people it purports to speak for, and of depriving itself of a major weapon in the struggle against oppression. AT: HR are imperialist Human Rights aren’t imperialist – 6 reasons Fasching, (Darrell J ,THE ETHICAL CHALLENGE OF AUSCHWITZ AND HIROSHIMA: APOCALYPSE OR UTOPIA?, 1993 Narrative ethicists, such as Stanley Hauerwas and Alasdair MacIntyre, raise a related form of the charge of imperialism, namely, that a human rights ethic is a form of Western Enlightenment imperialism that seeks to impose a universal, rational, storyless ethic on the whole human race. And because all rationality, they argue, is contingent on story and there is no single universal story, such an ethic is impossible. The case I have been making for the emergence of a human rights ethic in this chapter should make it possible to answer these objections. First, human rights have universal roots in the transformations of human consciousness brought about by urban secularization and in universal experiences of doubt and self-questioning. Second, human rights have particular roots the emergence of sociohistorical consciousness that began in the West and is now being globalized. Third, rights have cross-cultural roots in experiences of transcendence that gave rise to the formation of holy communities in diverse cultures, East and West. Fourth, what needs to be agreed on in a human rights ethic is the inalienability of human dignity, an experience available cross-culturally in both secular (e.g., the experience of doubt) and religious (e.g., the experience of the holy as emptiness or imagelessness) forms. Fifth, disagreements between First, Second, and Third World countries, or between various religious traditions, about the number and types of human rights should be seen as the occasion for the global discussion and working out of a human rights ethic, without which human rights would indeed be a form of cultural imperialism. Sixth, therefore, a human rights ethic must not be built on a single narrative tradition but rather needs to be constructed within a pluralistic ecology of complementary narrative traditions. The only common requirement of such narratives is that they promote an ethic of welcoming strangers and their stories. Those narrative traditions that require one to welcome the stranger implicitly testify that it is not so much participating in one particular story that makes us human but rather participating in a story that enables us to recognize the humanity of the one who does not participate in our particular story. To welcome the stranger is to recognize that, as with the divine (or transcendence), human dignity cannot be confined to any one particular culture or story. 195 AT: HR rights = bad interventionism It’s certainly true that the US has intervened for self-interested reasons in the past – but the humanitarian crises of the present and the US position as a global power puts us in a position of responsibility for the lives of millions – we can’t wash our hands, but we can at least not turn our backs on the consequences of the world we helped to create Joshua Pringle 9-27-2011 Worldpress.org, “The Case for U.S. Humanitarian Interventionism” http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/3814.cfm#down The Arab Spring has been marked by a season of rebellion. With any rebellion, there will always be a force working to crush it, usually violently. Citizens all over the Middle East—including but not limited to those in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain—have suffered human rights abuses, many gunned down indiscriminately by the regimes that wish to stay in power. This leaves the United States and its Western allies in a difficult position, weighing the consequences of intervention, sanctions, or the lack thereof. Because the U.S. record in this regard is rife with questionable choices, to say the least, the rest of the world views these decisions with a healthy degree of cynicism. Cases where the United States has intervened out of self-interest (which pockmark the bulk of the post-World War II era) seem to some to have dirtied our hands to such an extent that no action of ours could be seen as clean and virtuous. This does not mean, however, that humanitarian interventionism is dead . In fact, the Arab Spring has brought with it opportunities to shift away from unilateral action built on a U.S. agenda and toward an interventionist policy that prioritizes the lives of innocent people. Not all these opportunities have been lost. American disillusionment In 2004, former Marine Captain Brian Steidle accepted a position with the African Union as a U.S. military observer in the Darfur region of Sudan. During this assignment he witnessed thousands being killed, villages being wiped out. Unable to intervene, he resorted to taking photographs. In writing home to his girlfriend, Steidle said that if the U.S. government were to see the images, "there would be troops here in no time." In the book and documentary of the same name, The Devil Came on Horseback, Steidle describes the disillusionment he went through when he realized how wrong he was about that assumption. What Steidle discovered—and what is true about any case where intervention is considered by the United States—is that the criteria for intervention do not boil down simply to whether or not the U.S. military has the means to prevent innocent people from being killed. Steidle shared his photos and eyewitness account of what was happening in Darfur with U.S. heads of state, Congress and countless news programs. Nothing happened. Of course, at the same time, U.S. forces were expending tremendous capital on the occupation of Iraq, setting up a veritable city in the Green Zone from which to operate. I need not go into the lies on which this operation were predicated, nor the mayhem it brought to the country, as plenty has been illuminated on these accounts. Suffice it to say that, as Iraqis worried about electricity and water, watching pieces of their infrastructure handed over to independent contractors, it is doubtful that any of them would have called this intervention "humanitarian." Libya Say what you will about President Obama's criticisms are plenty, and they are not unfounded. It is true that we armed and supported rebel fighters who neither knew what they were doing nor had a unifying identity. It is true that the National Transitional decision to lead a NATO intervention in Libya. The Council (NTC) faces a hard road ahead and is in no way guaranteed to succeed in effectively governing the Libyan people. One can even make the argument that our oil interests indirectly drove the decision. But the fact remains that Muammar Gaddafi was defeated, and that the brutal assault on his people has come to an end. Democracy Now! correspondent Anjali Kamat recently reported from Libya, "Even though Gaddafi’s whereabouts remain unknown and his sons’ whereabouts remain unknown, in a sense, for most people we spoke to in Libya, it seemed like he had already passed into the dustbin of history." Heavy questions remain for the NTC, such as how to rein in the weapons that have proliferated, or to what extent to assimilate the Muslim community into the new government. However, for the Libyan people, Kamat added, "there’s a real sense of rebirth, a feeling that their lives are starting anew." They would not have accomplished this without help. Post-Libya Analysts will debate whether supporting the rebels in Libya was a victory for humanitarian interventionism or not. After Gaddafi fell, Tom Nichols concluded, "Humanitarian interventions are here to stay and are going to be driven more by moral calculation and military opportunity than by 'national interest.'" I don't know if that will be the case, but I appreciate the optimism. Nikolas Gvosdev wrote in World Politics Review, "Even with its fiscal constraints, the United States will continue to retain an absolute preponderance of the world's economic and military power for the foreseeable future. And if Libya provides a model for 'intervention on the cheap,' we are likely to see this template emulated in other situations." Libya cost a sliver of what we're spending in Afghanistan and, arguably, accomplished more. If the civil conflict in Ivory Coast had received more press this spring—with hundreds caught in the crossfire as Laurent Gbagbo refused to give up his presidency to Alassane Outtara—the United States, working with its international partners and consulting the U.N. Security Council, could have saved more lives by stepping in and quelling the violence. We could have been in and out without violating the War Powers Resolution. If we turn our eyes to Syria, clearly there would be a tangle of strings attached to taking military action against Bashar al-Assad, making an intervention in Syria diplomatically complicated. Assad has proven himself to be just as ruthless as any ruler clinging to power, but the ramifications for nearby countries, such as Iran and Lebanon, could turn the event into a regional debacle. Already we see Iraqi refugees who fled to Syria now turning around to head back to Iraq. The refugee problem alone would be significant. So for now, unfortunately (for Syrians living in fear), sanctions appear to be the prudent course in dealing with Syria. Any intervention will bring with it political controversy and diplomatic complexities. These are not to be discounted. But the files of U.S. history show many examples of interventions that were not motivated by humanitarian aims (see South America in the 1970s) and other instances where a failure to act resulted in the deaths of innocent people (such as with the Rwanda genocide). With the power that the United States wields, we have a moral imperative to assist in protecting the lives of the innocent . Doing so should be viewed in the same light as the act of handing out food to starving Somalians. AT: HR calculations are zero point Rational, Individual Rights are Good–this is the Opposite of Holocaust Logic, Not the “Zero Point” TRACINSKY 2003 (Robert, Senior Writer at the Ayn Rand Institute, April 22, “Why It Can Happen Again,” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7888&news_iv_ctrl=1021) And the Nazis certainly practiced what Rocco preached. A Bruno Bettelheim, central goal of the concentration camps, wrote survivor was "to break the prisoners as individuals, and to change them into a docile mass." "There are to be no more private Germans," one Nazi writer declared; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state." The goal of National Socialism was the relentless sacrifice of the individual: the sacrifice of his mind, his independence, and ultimately his person. A free country is based on precisely the opposite principle. To protect against what they called the "tyranny of the majority," America's Founding Fathers upheld the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The implicit basis of American government was an ethics of individualism--the view that the individual is not subordinate to the collective, that he has a moral right to his own interests, and that all rational people benefit under such a system. Today, however, selfsacrifice is regarded as self-evidently good. True, most people do not want a pure, consistent system of sacrifice, as practiced by the Nazis. But once the principle is accepted, no amount of this "virtue" can ever be condemned as "too much." We will not have learned the lessons of the Holocaust until we completely reject this sacrifice-worship and rediscover the morality of individualism. AT: HR are Too Western Human rights are not inherently Western. Donnelly, 07 – Andrew Mellon Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver – 2007 (Jack Donnelly, “The Relative Universality of Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly 29 page 281-306, Project Muse). The social-structural "modernity" of these ideas and practices, however, not their cultural "Westernness," deserves emphasis.15 Human rights ideas and practices arose not from any deep Western cultural roots but from the social, economic, and political transformations of modernity. They thus have relevance wherever those transformations have occurred, irrespective of the pre-existing culture of the place. Human rights not exclusive to Western countries—it si essentialist to imply that other cultures inherently oppose rights. Donnelly, 07 – Andrew Mellon Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver – 2007 (Jack Donnelly, “The Relative Universality of Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly 29 page 281-306, Project Muse). It is important to remember that virtually all Western religious and philosophical doctrines through most of their history have either rejected or ignored human rights Today, however, most adherents of most Western comprehensive doctrines endorse human rights. And if the medieval Christian world of crusades, serfdom, and hereditary aristocracy could become today's world of liberal and social democratic welfare states, it is hard to think of a place where a similar transformation is inconceivable. Consider claims that "Asian values" are incompatible with internationally recognized human rights.24. Asian values—like Western values, African values, and most other sets of values—can be, and have been, understood as incompatible with human rights. But they also can be and have been interpreted to support human rights, as they regularly are today in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. And political developments in a growing number of Asian countries suggest that ordinary people and even governments are increasingly viewing human rights as a contemporary political expression of their deepest ethical, cultural, and political values and aspirations.25 No culture or comprehensive doctrine is "by nature," or in any given or fixed way, either compatible or incompatible with human rights. Even if the law is not perfect and culture values matter, rights still protect us from oppression. Altman, 90 (Andrew, (Professor of Philosophy; Georgia State University) Critical Legal Studies: A Liberal Critique, page 8) There are undoubtedly elements of the liberal tradition which exaggerate the extent to which the law alone gives contemporary liberal societies the degree of humanity and decency they have. There are undoubtedly elements of the liberal tradition which exaggerate the power of law to work its will against the entrenched customs and traditions of a culture. We would be wise to keep in mind Tocqueville’s lesson about the failures of law in cultural set tings where it has tried to operate in opposition to pervasive and deep-seated social norms. But it would be equally wrong to dismiss the protections offered by the law as superfluous or useless. Between the area in which law is useless because it receives insufficient support from the rest of the culture and the area in which law is superfluous because the rest of the culture provides all of the protections we can reasonably ask for, there is a wide expanse of territory. It is within the borders of that territory that law can and does make a difference. It is within the borders of that territory that legal rights can and do work to protect people from the evils of intolerance, prejudice, and oppression. This is the heart of the liberal tradition in legal philosophy. It is a tradition worthy of allegiance. AT: HR are Anthropocentric Human rights is a diverse struggle and it includes non-human animals— they can’t reduce human rights to just one aspect of it Baxi, Professor at University of Warwick, 1998 [Upendra, “Introduction to the Symposium: Voices of Suffering and the Future of Human Rights” Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, l/n] The very term "human rights," which I invoke constantly, is itself problematic. The abundance of its meanings may not be reduced to a false totality such as "basic human rights" inasmuch as all human rights are basic to those who are deprived, disadvantaged, and dispossessed. Nor may we succumb to an anthropomorphic illusion that the range of human rights is limited to human beings; the new rights to a clean and healthy environment (or what is somewhat inappropriately, even cruelly, called "sustainable development" n10 ) take us far beyond such a narrow notion. Nor should one reduce the forbiddingly diverse range of human rights enunciations or totality of sentiments that give rise to them to some uniform narrative that seeks family resemblance in such ideas as "dignity," "well-being," or human "flourishing." The expression "human rights" shelters an incredibly diverse range of desire-in-dominance politics and desire-in-insurrection politics. These forms of politics resist encapsulation in any formula. The best one may hope for is to let the contexts of domination and resistance articulate themselves as separate but equal perspectives on the meaning of "human rights." AT: HR Socialize/make everyone same HUMAN RIGHTS ARE A FACET OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIGNITY Fasching and Dechant ‘01 (Darrell J Dell,Comparative Religion Ethics: A Narrative Approach,p. ) The origins of human rights thought are controversial. We do not think it is either possible or desirable to trace a human rights ethic to a single source. Human rights emerged as a distinct theme of modern ethical consciousness as the result of the influences of a variety of sources, both ancient and modern, both secular and religious. We can identify at least four. The first is the awareness of our humanity as in the image of the holy, that which cannot be named or imaged, and the formation of holy communities hospitable to strangers on the basis of such experiences. The Buddhist experiences of emptiness and the sangha, and the Jewish experiences of being created in the image of a God without image and the synagogue, provide two examples. Second, the Socratic experience of doubt which opens the self to the infinite unseen measure. Like the Athenian state, every state fears the power to doubt and to question. In every totalitarian society the drive toward genocide is rooted in this fear. If the doubter could be separated from his or her doubt and totally conformed to the demands of society, violent coercion would be unnecessary. But there is no way to prevent doubts from occurring, so to eliminate the doubts one must eliminate the doubter. All violence and coercion is rooted in fear of the holy - fear of our openness to the infinite that, through doubt, prevents us from being confined to the finite (i.e., the way things are). Third, the experience of indignation as the root of rebellion against sacred order. Such experiences are an expression of a visceral awareness of our openness to the infinite; for instance, when Rosa Parks refused to be defined as a "Negro" and relegated to the back of the bus. Or when Gandhi refused to be defined as "colored" and relegated to the baggage car. Each refused to be defined by, and confined to, a system of segregation. Their indignation was an instinctive reaction rooted in their openness to the infinite. Each knew they were and could be more than the sacred order of society allowed them to be, and out of indignation they refused to conform to "the way things are." Fourth, and finally, the recognition that is fundamental to the social sciences, that no society has ever succeeded in completely socializing any of its members. Our dignity is inalienable. No culture (composed of a finite set of roles and expectations) has ever succeeded in estranging us from it. No matter how well indoctrinated we are in our culture, there always remains a part of us that refuses to be defined, that cannot be defined, and so remains deviant and a stranger. Our openness to the infinite places an inviolable limit on all cultures and societies and the sacred roles they would impose on us. Hence human dignity manifests itself in every culture as a limit which no culture can successfully transgress. Organized Crime distrust = crime Undocumented immigrants are statistically less likely to report crime – fear of deportation Lee 13 (Esther Yu-Hsi Lee is the Immigration Reporter for ThinkProgress and received her B.A. in Psychology and Middle East and Islamic Studies and a M.A. in Psychology from New York University, “How The Fear Of Deportation Prevented Police From Solving A 22-Year-Old Murder,” 10/17/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/10/17/2791841/deportation-fears-cold-case-babyhope/, SZ) Castillo’s fear of deportation and her husband’s family, is sadly all too common among the undocumented immigrant community. Between 2010 to 2012, more than 200,000 undocumented parents were deported and ripped away from their U.S. citizen children. A 2013 survey found that 70 percent of undocumented Latinos were less likely to contact police officers if they are crime victims. Another study shows that immigrant women are three to six times more likely to face gender-based violence than their American-born peers. A startling 77 percent of immigrants who are dependent on their spouses for immigration status experienced domestic violence. And women who face a language barrier, as in Castillo’s case, are not always aware that some non-profit organizations that shelter abused women are exempt from inquiring about immigration status. This mistrust of law enforcement officials is not unfounded. In one instance, an undocumented immigrant was placed in deportation proceedings days after his collaboration as a police informant helped law enforcement officials to bust a drug trafficking organization. Even a 59 year old grandmother who drove without a license was given a set time period to “voluntarily” leave the country, then later taken to an immigration detention facility. Cooperation with police investigations is also hindered by programs like Secure Communities, which asks local police to check the immigration status of anyone who comes in, and Arizona’s anti-immigration SB 1070 law, which allows police officers to question the legal status of undocumented immigrants who report abuse or crime. In 2011, Republicans proposed the HALT Act, which gave law enforcement officials the ability to deport undocumented immigrants when they report crime. Fear of police destroys community safety- Afraid to report crimes and gang activity Theodore 13 (Nik Theodore is part of the Department of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois in Chicago, “Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement,” Published May 2013, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL. PDF, SZ) State and local law enforcement authorities increasingly are involved in immigration enforcement, whether under the 287(g) program, the Secure Communities program, or various state laws. This report has identified an important unintended consequence of police involvement in immigration enforcement: a substantial portion of the Latino populations in Cook, Harris, Los Angeles, and Maricopa Counties are reluctant to voluntarily contact the police to report a crime or to provide information about crimes, specifically because they fear that police officers will inquire about the immigration status of themselves, their friends, or their family members. The survey findings indicate that: 1. Isolation and disconnectedness from police: Many Latinos feel isolated from the law enforcement officers who are sworn to protect them. More than four in ten would be more likely to turn to a church or community leader than to law enforcement authorities if they are victims of or witness to a crime, for fear they would call attention to their own immigration status or that of someone they know. Similarly, more than four in ten say that because police are more involved in enforcing immigration laws they have become less likely to volunteer information about crimes because they fear getting caught in the web of immigration enforcement themselves or bringing unwanted attention to their family or friends. 2. Withdrawal: Many Latinos feel isolated and admit to withdrawing from their community. A large share feels under suspicion and is afraid to leave their homes. This sense of withdrawal by a substantial portion of Latinos in the counties surveyed – especially those younger and raising children – has short- and long-term negative consequences for public safety and community life. In the short term, crimes become more difficult to solve as the social distance between police and residents increases. Over the long term, a significant segment of the population may withdraw and develop a fear of law enforcement authorities. 3. Diminished sense of public safety: Rather than feeling safer because of increased police involvement in immigration enforcement, many Latinos feel less safe. Many Latinos say criminals are moving into their neighborhoods, making them and their neighbors less safe, because criminals know residents are less likely to report them to police given the increased involvement of police in immigration enforcement. Few feel safer because of the increased focus on immigration by local law enforcement. 18 The findings presented here indicate that the greater involvement of police in immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears many Latinos have of the police, contributing to their social isolation and exacerbating their mistrust of law enforcement authorities. This fear, isolation and mistrust, in turn, has led to a reduction in public safety, a serious negative consequence of the involvement of police in immigration enforcement. Racially biased immigration laws cause a fear of police Theodore 13 (Nik Theodore is part of the Department of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois in Chicago, “Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement,” Published May 2013, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL. PDF, SZ) Survey results indicate that the increased involvement of police in immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears many Latinos have of the police, contributing to their social isolation and exacerbating their mistrust of law enforcement authorities. Key findings include: 44 percent of Latinos surveyed reported they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity to inquire into their immigration status or that of people they know. 45 percent of Latinos stated that they are less likely to voluntarily offer information about crimes, and 45 percent are less likely to report a crime because they are afraid the police will ask them or people they know about their immigration status. 70 percent of undocumented immigrants reported they are less likely to contact law enforcement authorities if they were victims of a crime. Fear of police contact is not confined to immigrants. For example, 28 percent of US-born Latinos said they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity to inquire into their immigration status or that of people they know. 38 percent of Latinos reported they feel like they are under more suspicion now that local law enforcement authorities have become involved in immigration enforcement. This figure includes 26 percent of US-born respondents, 40 percent of foreign-born respondents, and 58 percent of undocumented immigrant respondents. When asked how often police officers stop Latinos without good reason or cause, 62 percent said very or somewhat often, including 58 percent of USborn respondents, 64 percent of foreign-born respondents, and 78 percent of undocumented immigrant respondents Plan solves for public safety Maestas 13 (Adriana Maestas is the senior contributing editor of Politic365.com, “Immigration Enforcement Consequence: Latinos Fear the Police,” 5/9/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://politic365.com/2013/05/09/immigration-enforcement-consequence-latinos-fear-thepolice/, SZ) Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D – California) expressed her frustration with having the police involved in immigration enforcement in response to this study with a statement, “The results of this scientific survey clearly show that local police shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing our immigration laws. As the Los Angeles Police Department has said repeatedly, when immigrant and minority communities fear the cops who patrol their streets, fewer witnesses come forward and more victims choose to suffer in silence. That makes all of us less safe. We should end federal partnerships with local law enforcement, like the deeply flawed 287(g) and Secure Communities programs, while Congress works to overhaul our broken immigration system.” ICE arrests citizens because of race and ethnicity - Discussion key to solves profiling – USFG bad *Potential narrative at the top Briggs 15 (Christian Briggs University of Southern California Law School Doctor of Law (J.D.). "The Reasonableness of a Race-Based Suspicion: The Fourth Amendment and teh Costs and benefits of Racial Profiling in Immigration Enforcement" Southern California Law Review. January 2015. 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. 379. Lexis.)//lb Claudia, a Mexican American with family roots in the United States since the mid-1800s, walked out of a grocery store, happily chatting with her three young children in Spanish as they walked toward her car. n1 Before arriving at her car, she was stopped by government officials and asked for proof of citizenship. n2 Speaking to the officers in accent-free English, she explained that she is in fact a United States citizen, offering her driver's license as proof. n3 After rejecting her driver's license, the officers requested another form of identification as proof that she was in the United States legally. n4 Eventually, Claudia gave the officers something that satisfied them, and they allowed her to continue with her children to her car. n5 After [*380] the event, Claudia wondered what she might do in the future to avoid being stereotyped as an "undocumented Mexican." n6 In a similar event in 2012, officers from the Maricopa County Sherriff's Office ("MCSO") in Arizona were trained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to use "Mexican ancestry" n7 as a factor in determining whether any given individual may be undocumented. n8 As a result, MCSO officers targeted individuals on the sole basis of their Mexican appearance, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. n9 Around the same time, officers from the Almance County Sheriff's Office ("ACSO") in North Carolina were told by their sheriff to "go out there and get me some of those taco eaters." n10 Several years later, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") found that the ASCO had engaged in "an egregious pattern of racial profiling" against Latinos. n11 Stories like these illustrate why a discussion of racial profiling in immigration enforcement is particularly important in 2015. For one, data suggests that racial profiling of Latinos has increased n12 as the role of local and state police has been expanded to include enforcing federal immigration law. n13 [*381] Because a person is not visibly identifiable as being undocumented, the basic problem with local police enforcing immigration law is that police officers who are often not adequately trained, and in some cases not trained at all, in federal immigration enforcement will improperly rely on race or ethnicity as a proxy for undocumented status ... . State or local police with minimal training in immigration law are put on the street with a mandate to arrest "illegal aliens." The predictable and inevitable result is that any person who looks or sounds "foreign" is more likely to be stopped by police, and more likely to be arrested (rather than warned or cited or simply let go) when stopped. n14 Furthermore, an examination of racial profiling in immigration enforcement is especially timely because it can inform agency guidelines and pending legislation. In December 2014, the DOJ released updated guidelines on racial profiling that include not only race and ethnicity, but also national origin and religion as protected categories. n15 While the new guidelines improve upon the oft-criticized n16 2003 guidelines n17 by including national origin and religion as protected categories, and by covering interior immigration enforcement, n18 they have several holes. First, they provide little direction for how the new guidelines should be enforced. n19 Second, it is unclear how the guidelines should apply to local and state police officers who routinely [*382] enforce federal immigration law. Third, the guidelines' requirement that federal agencies train enforcement officers and collect data is vague and unclear. n20 Significantly, Congress's 2014 attempt at comprehensive immigration reform - the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (the "Act") - also attempted to address racial profiling. n21 In fact, the Act's provisions on racial profiling mirrored the 2003 DOJ guidelines n22 that Attorney General Eric Holder replaced, prohibiting race and ethnicity-based profiling, but declining to prohibit profiling on the basis of national origin and religion. n23 While reports suggest that the 2014 attempt at comprehensive immigration reform may never be passed, n24 a discussion of the complex issues surrounding race and immigration enforcement can help assure that fair and effective legislation is passed in the future. gang violence=high Gang activity expanding rapidly – Proven by studies PERF 10 (PERF is the Police Executive Research Form, “CRITICAL ISSUES IN POLICING SERIES: Gang Violence: The Police Role in Developing Community-Wide Solutions,” Published February 2010, Date Accessed: 7/13/15, http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/gang%20violence%20%20the%20police%20role%20in%20developing%20community-wide%20solutions.pdf, SZ) PERF’s survey respondents indicated that the dynamics of gang activity today are not the same as they were several years ago. Gangs have seen shifts in their basic motivations, structure and activities. The PERF survey sought to get a police perspective on how the nature of the gang problem has changed during the past two years. Broadly speaking, respondents reported seeing an expansion of gangs and an increase in gang members’ use of firearms. Seventy percent of the responding agencies reported seeing an increase in gang membership over the past two years, and 55 percent reported an increase of the use of guns in gang crimes during that time. Gang influence seems to be expanding, as well: 60 percent of survey respondents reported an increase in multi-jurisdictional gang-related crimes over the past two years. Gang violence on the increase Rojas 14 (Leslie Berestein Rojas is KPCC's Immigration and Emerging Communities Reporter and an award-winning journalist, “Transnational gangs: The Central American migrant crisis' LA connection,” 7/16/14, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2014/07/16/17018/transnational-gangs-how-thecentral-american-migra/?slide=1, SZ) But much of that gang violence isn't rooted in Central America. It's rooted in the United States, particularly in Los Angeles. It's part of a long and complicated history between the U.S. and Central America, in which the deportation policies of recent decades figure prominently. "Gang violence has increased steadily over the last decade or two, and one factor that has contributed to it is that the U.S. has deported a lot of convicted criminals back to Central America," said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S. immigration program for the Migration Policy Institute in Washington. "All three of the countries in the northern triangle are pretty weak states, and so that’s given criminal organizations an opportunity to sort of establish themselves and flourish." ICE = gangs Additionally, many illegal immigrants join gangs- Hundreds of thousands of crimes Lee 14 (Tony Lee is a writer for Breitbart on policy and government activity, “TEXAS STATE SENATOR: 100,000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT GANG MEMBERS IN STATE,” 7/21/14, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.breitbart.com/big- government/2014/07/21/texas-state-senator-100-000-illegal-immigrant-gangsters-in-state/#, SZ) Hours before Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he would send National Guard troops to the border, Texas state Senator Dan Patrick said there are at least 100,000 illegal immigrant gang members in the state. On Monday’s The Laura Ingraham Show, Patrick, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said from 2008 to 2012, 143,000 illegal immigrant criminals were arrested and jailed in Texas. He said these were “hardened criminals, gang members, and other criminals that we identified as being in Texas illegally.” “We charged them with 447,000 crimes, a half-million crimes in four years, just in Texas, including over 5,000 rapes and 2,000 murders,” Patrick said. “We estimate we have 100,000 gang members here illegally.” Patrick also observed during his trips to the border and detention centers that many of the “young children” are teenagers and with parents and family members. He said there is a concern that some are “gang members” and that potential terrorists can exploit the porous border. Immigrants are driven to the gangs – Increased involvement Cave 14 (Damien Cave is a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, “Crime, Migrants and Politics Intersect on Tulsa Streets,” New York Times Late Edition 6/7/14, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, Lexis, SZ) The city police, however, see things differently. Most of the drug dealers and murderers arrested in and around Tulsa, they say, are not immigrants, nor are they Hispanic. And much of the crime in the Hispanic community, they add, involves non-Hispanic gangs preying on immigrants who are less likely to report being victimized. Rather than detain immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally -- a policy the sheriff's office strongly supports -- the city police say they would rather work with immigrants, here legally or not, to encourage them to report crime and reduce violence. Experts say the conflicting views of two law enforcement departments working side by side in the same place underscores the complexity, and the competing agendas, found at the nexus of the issue of immigration and crime -- and the way that the politics of immigration can clash with the reality of beat cops. ''The sheriff is elected; it's a political position,'' said Elizabeth M. McCormick, a professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law. ''There are motivations at play in the sheriff's office, in terms of continuing to be engaged with immigration, that don't exist for the Tulsa Police Department.'' The city police acknowledge that Hispanic gangs have expanded as the immigrant population has grown in the past few years. But a vast majority of their members are legal residents or American citizens: many are the sons or grandsons of immigrants, they say, who seem to join street gangs here not to reach back to their roots, but rather to become more American. ''Their parents are trying to provide them with a better life, but some of these kids see that gang lifestyle and they want to follow it,'' Sergeant Larkin said. ''It's almost ingrained into teenage American culture.'' Officer Jesse Guardiola, a Mexican-American with the Tulsa Police Department, said that Hispanic gangs were growing in part because the children of immigrants often come from families in which all the adults are working nonstop, without the time or inclination to encourage the pursuit of education. ''What we have is a growing epidemic of dropouts who are Latino -- 52 percent of Latinos in Tulsa are not graduating from high school,'' Officer Guardiola said. And for criminals of all backgrounds, several city officers said, immigrants are typically seen as inviting targets. Immigrant populations are susceptible to gang activity Squire 14 (Paul Squire is a reporter for the Times Review Media, “Gang activity continues to move farther east, police say,” 10/24/14, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2014/10/53208/gang-activity- continues-to-move-farther-east-police-say/, SZ) Police have also found that gang members known to live in Nassau or New York City have turned up across Suffolk County, Sgt. Lundquist said. He believes those gang members are traveling east to avoid a larger police presence. Last week’s incident was an escalation of the gang activity typically reported in Southold Town, where shootings are rare, said police chief Martin Flatley. “None of [the recent violence] has been as blatant as this,” he said. Chief Flatley said police suspect that some assaults involving different “factions” of Hispanic men may be gang-related, but added that it’s often difficult to prove, since some members of the Hispanic community often do not trust police. He said the root of that problem with trusting cops lies in Central America, where police corruption is rampant and gangs are said to control many parts of the region. The last major gang-related incident in Southold Town took place in 2009, when a 15-year-old Eber Lopez of Greenport went missing from a christening celebration in Southold, Chief Flatley said. At the time, neighbors said they heard three gunshots just before midnight and police found blood in the backyard, according to a previous Suffolk Times article. Homicide investigators said that Eber — who was not affiliated with a gang — had been confronted by known gang members at the celebration. The teen’s body was discovered in Farmingville the following month. A Southold man was later convicted of aiding another man who murdered the boy, though the killer was never caught. Chief Flatley said crimes like the murder of Eber Lopez or the shooting early last Tuesday are rare. He told The Suffolk Times that police have noticed more activity with Hispanic gangs in the area, likely because of the rising immigrant population. Immigrant gangs threaten public safety- Especially in immigrant populations Feere and Vaughan 8 (Jon Feere is a legal policy analyst, Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, “Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs,” Published September 2008, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs, SZ) Immigrant gangs are considered a unique public safety threat due to their members’ propensity for violence and their involvement in transnational crime. The latest national gang threat assessment noted that Hispanic gang membership has been growing, especially in the Northeast and the South, and that areas with new immigrant populations are especially vulnerable to gang activity. 2 A large share of the immigrant gangsters in the most notorious gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Surenos-13, and 18th Street are illegal aliens. Their illegal status means they are especially vulnerable to law enforcement, and local authorities should take advantage of the immigration tools available in order to disrupt criminal gang activity, remove gang members from American communities, and deter their return. Once explained, these measures find much support, especially in immigrant communities where gang crime is rampant. This report describes the exceptional public safety problems posed by immigrant gangs and looks at how one jurisdiction, Virginia, has used immigration law enforcement tools successfully to check their further proliferation. The authors conducted extensive research on immigrant gang characteristics and activities, analyzed arrest data from Operation Community Shield (OCS), and interviewed dozens of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers around the country who are involved in gang suppression. They were assisted by consultants with federal law enforcement experience and by research interns. 3 This report is a product of a larger study on immigrant gangs in Virginia (forthcoming), supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice. ICE = LGBTQ violence Immigrant racial profiling legitimizes LGBT discrimination – aff key to solve Gehi 13 (Pooja Gehi graduated from American University's Washington College (WCL) of Law in 2004 with a JD/MA in international affairs. At WCL she was the board chair of her National Lawyers Guild Law School Chapter. "Gendered (In)security: Migration and Criminalization in the Security State." The Dukeminier Awards Best Sexual Orientation Law Review Articles. 2013. 12 Dukeminier Awares 357. Lexis.)//lb The United States has a long history of hyper-criminalization, disproportionate imprisonment, and law enforcement profiling of people of color. n33 As Andrea Ritchie and Joey Mogul explain, "Since the advent of the first state-sponsored police forces in the United States--slave patrols--racialized policing has been a feature of the American landscape. Indeed, racial profiling and police brutality have their roots in enforcement of Slave Codes, and later Black Codes and Jim Crow segregation laws." n34 Many scholars view the criminal punishment system as it exists today as an extension of slavery as it existed throughout the history of the United States. n35 [*365] Gender policing has also been a key part of illegitimate profiling throughout history. n36 While the data on discrimination and profiling of LGBTQ communities is underdeveloped, n37 several recent reports have yielded findings of employment discrimination, n38 housing discrimination, n39 and incarceration rates n40 significantly disproportionate to rates within the general population. This data suggests a prevalence of an unconscious bias, n41 one that influences law enforcement norms. n42 While "unconscious bias" theory reveals the ways in which people with certain marked identities such as poverty, race, gender expression, and sexuality are policed in a way [*366] that is not universal, it does not address the history of policing and punishment that is directly related to power, white supremacy, and maintaining the status quo. In certain ways, immigration enforcement based on profiling through the devolution of criminal and immigration law illustrates this insidious underlying agenda of criminalization more clearly. Although the civil rights movement in America has eradicated most race-specific discriminatory laws, the devolution of immigrant and police profiling has allowed profiling based on race (and poverty, gender expression, and sexuality) to continue. n43 And, while such profiling occurs all the time, the legal system deems itself to be grounded in equal protection. The ways in which criminal immigration laws disproportionately affect transgender people of color is a striking example of why equal protection under the law is not indicative of reality. Aff eliminates police stops based on LGBT immigrant assumptions Gehi 13 (Pooja Gehi graduated from American University's Washington College (WCL) of Law in 2004 with a JD/MA in international affairs. "Gendered (In)security: Migration and Criminalization in the Security State." The Dukeminier Awards Best Sexual Orientation Law Review Articles. 2013. 12 Dukeminier Awares 357. Lexis.)//lb Over the past few decades even the mainstream U.S. media has acknowledged the existence of racial profiling. From the infamous Rodney King beating in the 1990s n58 to the profiling and false arrest of prominent scholar/professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard in 2011, n59 the fact that police profile people of color is a phenomenon that is difficult to deny. n60 For transgender [*369] people living in poverty who also identify as people of color or are perceived as immigrants, n61 particularly those with psychiatric or physical disabilities, n62 policing stops are almost inevitable. Transgender people of color often even describe the consequential arrests stemming from these police interactions as "walking while trans." n63 New "war on terror"-based legislation such as SB 1070, n64 Secure Communities, n65 and Section 287(g) n66 that "legalize" criminal stops and arrests on the basis of race serve only as tools to increase the vulnerability that marginalized transgender communities already encounter at the hands of local law enforcement. The legal standard for law enforcement to stop and interrogate people on the street is so vague and deferential that it offers no protection against such discrimination. n67 For example, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, local [*370] law enforcement is subject to a standard that demands a "reasonable, articulable suspicion that crime is afoot." n68 This standard, however, is so unclear that a person may be stopped for almost any reason and, in particular, for reasons relating to one's race, gender identity, and/or perceived sexual orientation. n69 For example, in People v. Lomiller, the First Department held that "a man carrying a purse" meets this standard. n70 This reason for a stop and frisk, among others that are equally unjustified, is not uncommon. Wearing tight clothing or too much makeup is seen as a reasonable, articulable suspicion of solicitation for the purposes of prostitution, especially for people whose gender expression appears "wrong" or "suspicious" to police enforcement. n71 Similarly, in my clients' experience, not making eye contact is often used as an indication of drug use, and holding hands with someone perceived to be of the same sex or different gender expression may be considered indication of prostitution. According to my clients, using the bathroom that a police officer perceives as "the wrong bathroom" is often used as an indication of lewd conduct. Some police departments have been accused of claiming that possession of three or more condoms is sufficient [*371] cause for presuming that a suspect is engaged in prostitution. n72 Although specific actions or inactions are named by law enforcement as the reasons for police stops, a person's race is often considered an indicator of a threat generally; n73 brown or black skin is also a marker of potential immigration status. n74 Each of these stops is based on a combination of race, poverty, gender expression, sexual orientation, and/or perceived immigrant status. In addition, transgender individuals are often falsely arrested when they call the police to report incidents of violence. For example, in domestic violence disputes involving a queer or transgender relationship, police officers often operate on pre-existing stereotypes about who is a perpetrator and who is a victim n75 and either fail to arrest the perpetrator in situations that do not involve perceived male-againstfemale violence or arrest everyone, including the survivor of the violence. n76 Police brutality and excessive force are also common experiences for my transgender and gender-nonconforming clients. Amnesty International has documented "serious patterns of police misconduct and brutality aimed at LGBT people, including abuses that amount to torture and ill treatment." Amnesty explains that their findings: strongly indicate that police abuse and the forms it takes are often specific to the different aspects of the victim's identity, such as sexual orientation, race, gender or gender identity, age or economic status. Identities are complex, multi-layered and intersectional, such that a person may be targeted for human rights violations based on a composite of identities that the person seems to represent. For example, a lesbian woman who is black may not only be a target of police abuse because of her sexual orientation but also because she is a woman of color. The targeting of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people for discriminatory enforcement of laws and their treatment in the hands of the police needs to [*372] be understood within the larger context of identity-based discrimination, and the interplay between different forms of discrimination--such as racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia--[that] create the conditions in which human rights abuses are perpetuated. n77 ICE = race profiler ICE encourages racial profiling to maximize undocumented immigrant detainees Ramos 12 (Katarina Ramos- DePaul University - "LATCRIT XVI SYMPOSIUM - GLOBAL JUSTICE: THEORIES, HISTORIES, FUTURES: Immigration, Crime, and Neo-Segregation: Criminalizing Race in the Name of Secure Communities" California Western Law Review. Spring 2012. 48 Cal. W. L. Rev. 317.)//lb The Secure Communities program (Secure Communities) was introduced by DHS as a less divisive method of involving local law enforcement in enforcing immigration statutes. n3 The program was introduced as a milder alternative to the Immigration and Nationality Act section 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement, n4 which allows local law enforcement officers to request immigration status during a mere traffic stop. n5 Secure Communities is designed as a modification of the basic fingerprinting system. n6 Previously, law enforcement checked only an arrestee's prior criminal history. Under Secure Communities, an arrestee's fingerprints are run, not just through the FBI system to find previous arrests, but also through the DHS Immigration system, to search for any outstanding immigration violations. If the FBI database has a hit of a Level 1 felony and there is also a hit in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) database, an ICE detainer is automatically issued; anything lower than a Level 1 offense is left to the discretion of the local ICE agency office . n7 This program was sold to communities as preferable to a 287(g) memorandum because it would remove violent criminals, stop nonviolent criminals from being put into removal proceedings, and place less discretion and responsibility in the hands of local law enforcement officers. n8 ICE has claimed that this program is a victory for DHS and its community partners against violent, undocumented [*320] criminal migrants. n9 ICE lists the high numbers of "criminal aliens" it has deported since the program was enacted as evidence of its success. n10 In the case of our driver, however, mere entry into the United States without permission is considered a removable offense. In fact, he is not deportable, because under immigration law, he never was admitted to this country. Under a neat piece of legal fiction, even though he has been physically present in this country for years he is considered "inadmissible" because he was not inspected by border patrol agents. The number of removals of people without a violent criminal history is almost double that of the Level 1 felons that are eligible for automatic removal under Secure Communities. n11 In states and counties in Illinois that have been traditionally white, the number of removals of non-criminal immigrants is high. n12 Under the new system, officers are encouraged to target minorities, particularly Hispanics. They know that the potential number of arrests is greater in the Latino population, particularly the undocumented portion. Furthermore, any arrest is enough to bring an undocumented person to the attention of ICE. While the arrestable activity may be a misdemeanor or even a ticketable offense, once ICE finds an undocumented person, their very presence makes them removable. n13 [*321] While Secure Communities removes the discretion to ask someone for their papers, a minor arrest is now sufficient to be placed in removal proceedings, even when criminal charges are dropped. Local law enforcement officials still have the discretion to choose who to arrest and run through the Automatic Biometric Identification System (IDENT). n14 Until recently, local officers were not given any training before beginning the program, which creates obvious problems. n15 Although the program was enacted in 2009, ICE did not propose training for local law enforcement in racial profiling until June 2011, after outside organizations began to draw attention to this issue. n16 As of March 29, 2012, "Avoiding Racial and Ethnic Profiling" is a topic under development. n17 Furthermore, ICE's own enactment policies show a discriminatory bias against immigrants of Hispanic origin. The less than subtle racial overtones of Secure Communities demonstrate the problem of racial profiling in the national security debate. Although Secure Communities has been touted as an immigration enforcement plan that targets "criminal aliens," and as an answer to the racial profiling tendencies witnessed in enforcement of 287(g) traffic stops, the program is still inherently flawed in its dependence on racial profiling because the plan does not have sufficient safeguards. Many of these racial problems appear to be a response to the changing demographics in areas where the program has been introduced. These problems raise questions regarding what training is necessary before the country delegates enforcement of a federal immigration law to local law enforcement, and whether it is ever acceptable to base security decisions on race. [*322] This Essay will map out the basics of Secure Communities, and the racial profiling that is inherent to the program. Part II begins with a brief summary of Secure Communities. Part III examines the definitions of criminality used by ICE in drafting Secure Communities. Part IV addresses problems facing the program, including lack of sufficient training for local law enforcement and the use of racial profiling to classify immigrants as criminals: starting with the phrase "illegal," and finishing with a discussion of the inherent trap in combining immigration and criminal legislation. Part V discusses demographic changes in some of the Illinois counties that have enacted the program, and how this leads to accepting a program that allows racial profiling. Part VI discusses the disturbing trend of aggression that ICE has shown in enforcing Secure Communities. The Essay concludes with a very brief discussion of Illinois's current attempts to withdraw from Secure Communities - the ideal solution for the problems in this inherently, racially flawed program. ICE use of police results in racial profiling Hing 09’ (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631) The nightmare was only beginning. Although supervisory ICE agents carried a civil warrant for a few individuals, the squad demanded that all plant employees be held, separated by nationality That included U.S. citizen workers who were interrogated and detained. No one was free to leave—not even those who carried evidence of lawful status or proof they were in the process of seeking proper permission to be in this country. Each was interrogated individually. The process took the entire day, and phone calls were not permitted until later in the day. By the end of the day, ninety were arrested, but hundreds, including citizens, had been detained for hours. The entire community was shaken to its core. Although immigration raids are not a recent phenomenon, this Article focuses on a few egregious ICE raids that occurred after President Bush’s push for immigration reform in 2004. I had the opportunity to learn more about several such raids first hand as part of a commission that was established by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union in 2008.5 The Commission spent more than a year holding regional hearings, interviewing witnesses, and soliciting input from a wide range of workers, elected officials, policy experts, psychologists, and religious and community leaders. Commissioners learned about the abuse that ICE officials visited upon workers, their families, and the communities. This Article’s discussion of ICE raids addresses racial profiling, the trauma to children and families, the damage to communities, and some legal considerations. Descriptions of ICE raids challenge us to think more seriously about the underlying racial implications of those raids. The tragic effects on families and communities, as well as the serious constitutional violations committed by ICE agents during the raids, provide ample moral and legal justification to end the raids. The inherent racism at the center of the ICE raids and other ICE and Border Patrol operations raises further concern that receives little public attention. With few exceptions, the ICE operations targeted Latinos—usually Mexicans. The exceptions were Chinese restaurants and other businesses that relied on workers of color. That racial effect is the focus of this Article and the basis for advocating that both immigration policies and ICE enforcement need to be rethought. ICE profiles all immigrants as criminal threats regardless as their situation Grossman 14 (Jordan Grossman. J.D. Candidate 2014, Harvard Law School. The author served as a Special Advisor in the Office of the Secretary at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2011. "Hidden in Plain Sight: Examining the Obama Administration's Discreet Implementation of a Scaled-Down Version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Harvard Law & Policy Review. Winter 2014. 8 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 195)//lb This Article examines the Obama administration's effort to encourage the use of prosecutorial discretion by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the executive agency in charge of the enforcement of immigration laws. Since 2010, the Obama administration has repeatedly stated that agency officials are to focus enforcement efforts on those who pose a threat or danger, rather than pursuing deportation of all undocumented immigrants with equal fervor. Yet, despite repeated directives by the Administration, the implementation of prosecutorial discretion is widely considered a failure. Data and anecdotes from the field suggest that ICE has yet to embrace this more nuanced approach to the enforcement of immigration laws. In this Article, I argue that one key reason that prosecutorial discretion has not taken hold within ICE is the failure of the President and his Administration to adequately account for agency culture. In particular, the prosecutorial discretion initiative directly conflicts with the central role that criminal convictions play in ICE culture. To support my argument, I present an in-depth case study of the agency's refusal to exercise discretion in a highly compelling case. For over two years, ICE aggressively prosecuted a client of the University of Arizona's immigration clinic who appeared to be the quintessential recipient of prosecutorial discretion, as the victim of domestic violence, sex trafficking, and the primary caregiver for three young U.S citizen children. Despite these equities, ICE's decision to prosecute was based wholly on the single conviction on her record, which was directly related to her victimization and for which she received a sentence of probation only. I situate this case study in a theoretical framework regarding bureaucratic culture. Applying this analysis to ICE brings into focus key elements of the agency's culture, particularly its tendency to view all immigrants as criminal threats. This culture makes the sole fact of a conviction - without regard to its seriousness or context - a nearly irreversible determinant of the agency's approach to any given case. My analysis of the nature and intensity of ICE's bureaucratic culture has troubling implications for the capacity of the President and his Administration to implement reforms that counter the lack of nuance in the immigration system's current legal framework. It suggests that locating discretion primarily in the enforcement arm of the immigration bureaucracy has inherent limitations that lead to a system poorly designed to address humanitarian concerns raised in individual cases. ICE arrest citizens and deports non-criminals – Florida proves Little 10 (Cheryl Little "Targeting the wrong immigrants; ICE deporting people for minor offenses" Palm Beach Post. July 11, 2010. Pg. 18A.) //lb This is why we have concerns about ICE's Secure Communities program. ICE claims, as it has program screens the fingerprints of anyone arrested by local police, not just those convicted of crimes. With such a wide net, it's not surprising that 90 percent of the people flagged by Secure Communities were not the "most dangerous criminal aliens,'' according to ICE's own data in November. Another 5 percent of the "hits" were U.S. citizens, which means that thousands of people risk being wrongly detained or even deported. done for years, that it is targeting dangerous criminals, like murderers and rapists. Yet the This may explain what the center is seeing in Florida detention centers: A flood of detainees with minor offenses such as driving with an expired license, improper car window tints and loitering. One detainee in Collier Country was charged for taking coins from a fountain. These are not the national security risks that the Department of Homeland Security should be targeting. Nor does deporting such immigrants make our streets safer. On the contrary, immigrant communities, like many in in fear when local police collaborate with ICE. Who will report a crime to police or agree to be a witness when they or a relative risks being deported? Florida, live Given the lives affected, you would think ICE would release all the available data on Secure Communities, including statistics and plans for the program. Instead, advocates are having to sue to get what should be public information. That's what the Center for Constitutional Rights did in May. We applauded when President Obama recently reiterated his commitment to enacting comprehensive immigration reforms, including a pathway for unauthorized immigrants to earn legal status. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of immigrants who pay taxes, have U.S. citizen relatives, contribute to their communities and have lived here for years are being detained and deported by ICE. So why is ICE spending billions of taxpayers' dollars to reel in the very people who would be able to earn legal status under the comprehensive immigration reform that President Obama rightly advocates? ICE illegally extends custody and denies rights to non-citizens Beckett and Evans 5/15 (Katherine Beckett and Heather Evans "Crimmigration at the Local Level: Criminal Justice Process in the Shadow of Deportation" March 2015. Law & Society Review. 49 Law & Soc'y Rev. 241.) //lb In short, although the effects of ICE detainers likely vary across locales, it is notable that ICE detainers significantly extended jail stays and led to the denial of rights even in liberal King County. Moreover, there is evidence that detainers also prolong jail stays in Los Angeles (Greene 2012), where, according to Eagly (2013), practitioners and policymakers alike attempt to counter the perceived unfair impact of immigration policy by purposefully taking immigration consequences into account and treating them as quasi-punishments. It thus appears that where ICE detainers are honored, the threat of deportation casts a long shadow over local criminal proceedings--even where authorities attempt to either ignore or mitigate that reality. Interestingly, the King County council recently voted to limit the circumstances under which ICE detainer requests will be honored by jail administrators, joining a number of other counties that have elected to limit their cooperation with federal government (Admur 2014). However, a majority of counties continue to fully participate in the Secure Communities program. Our findings have important substantive implications. Feeley's ( 1992) classic account of the handling of misdemeanor cases in New Haven, Connecticut suggests that the criminal justice process is inherently punitive, so much so that misdemeanants endeavor mainly to disentangle themselves from the courts as quickly as possible. Where ICE detainers are honored, the conjoining of the immigration and criminal systems appears to prolong both criminal case processing and jail stays, thus enhancing the degree of penal pain experienced by non-citizen defendants. Incarceration, including short-term jail stays, has a number of adverse social, psychological and economic consequences (Clear 2007; Freudenberg 2002; Freudenberg et al. 2008). In particular, the denial of pretrial release not only prolongs incarceration but also increases the likelihood of conviction and receipt of a prison sentence (Devers 2011; Phillips 2007, 2008). De facto ineligibility for alternative sentences also increases the likelihood that noncitizens will be sentenced to jail or prison. Insofar as detainers extend noncitizen' jail stays, prolong their contact with the criminal justice system, and increase the likelihood of conviction, they are an important means by which penal pain is differentially imposed on non-citizens. Although our findings are based on a single case study, sociolegal scholars analyzing other venues and court systems have [*273] reached similar conclusions. For example, Cade argues that, "the deportation and misdemeanor prosecution systems interact to produce graver injustices than observers have previously understood" (2012: 1811). Similarly, Eagly notes that non-citizens in the federal system are "treated differently along alienage lines" (2010: 1317). For example, 75 percent of all citizen defendants, but only 14 percent of non-citizen defendants, facing a sentence of six months or less are sentenced to probation (2010: 1318). Similar gaps exist for people with longer recommended sentences (2010: 1318). Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Prisons designates all non-citizen defendants "deportable aliens" without an investigation into their legal status, flight risk or dangerousness; this classification, in turn, subjects non-citizen defendants to harsher treatment in prison, including assignment to facilities with higher security levels, more stringent recommendations, fewer recreational programs (2010: 1318). Immigrant gangs have link to terrorism Killebrew ’08 -- retired Army Col. And researcher at the Center for a New American Strategy (Robert, “A New Threat: The Crossover of Urban Gang Warfare and Terrorism”, file:///C:/Users/clarkj/Downloads/killebrewgangs.pdf) Criminal gangs of both the international and local variety have already cooperated with terrorist organizations, and will do so again. When they do, they will operate with the worst features of both -- ruthlessness and long-range planning -- and so become a more potent threat to the security of the U.S. To counter this more dangerous version of either threat, tactics and strategy used by U.S. police must be combined with a patient and focused diplomatic, military and law enforcement policies outside the 24 Ken Ellngwood in the Los Angeles Times, “Mexico versus the Drug Gangs; a Deadly Clash for Control,” June 3, 2008. National Strategy Forum Review • Fall 2008 A New Threat • 23 U.S. While there is no particular order in which solutions should be begun, the fi rst concern should be close to home -- to disrupt criminal gangs and terrorist cells now in the U.S. and begin to turn the tide against the spread of both local and international gangs. Second, U.S. diplomatic, military and law enforcement activities overseas should be coordinated to support emerging countries struggling with their own gang and terrorist problems. In his book Terrorism: The New Face of Warfare, scholar Donald Hanle makes the argument that if the objectives of ideologically-motivated terrorists or insurgents are frustrated long enough, members get disillusioned and eventually turn to crime - as FARC has done in Colombia. As they do, their “movement” devolves into common crime, vulnerable to be picked off by law enforcement and without any ideological attraction for the population it was trying to win. If so, then a strategy for South America may well be to hold Hezbollah and its clones at bay long enough for the local jihads to sink into the criminal background they have chosen, while at the same time assisting local police forces and other relevant national institutions, thus increasing the vulnerability of gangs and terrorists to improved policing and counterinsurgency techniques. Even so, it’s not an easy solution -- Mexico’s intense criminal drug war is threatening the state itself without any ideological expression but money, and most South American nations are not now prepared to fi ght an all-out, Mexican-style war on narcoterrorists, but in the future it’s quite likely they will be, and our role can be as the “quiet American” who supports them in their own fights for survival. The first step, however, is for the U.S. to get its own house in order and recognize that gangs and terrorists are increasingly different parts of a common problem. impact -Racial profiling Racial profiling undermines law enforcement – distracts police from ‘preattack behaviors’ Chanin et al. 11 (Robert Chanin writes with others at the Leadership Conference, a 501(c)(4) organization that engages in legislative advocacy. It was founded in 1950 and has coordinated national lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957.. "Restoring a National Consensus: The Need to End Racial Profiling in America." The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. March 2011. www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/racial_profiling2011.pdf)//lb Defenders of racial profiling argue that profiling is necessary and useful in the effort by law enforcement authorities to fight street-crime, combat terrorism, and enforce the nation’s immigration laws. The opposite is true: racial profiling is in all contexts a flawed law enforcement tactic that may increase the number of people who are brought through the legal system, but that actually decreases the hit rate for catching criminals, terrorists, or undocumented immigrants. There are two primary reasons for this. To begin with, racial profiling is a tactic that diverts and misuses precious law enforcement resources. This became clear in 1998 when the U.S. Customs Service responded to a series of discrimination complaints by eliminating the use of race in its investigations and focusing solely on suspect behavior. A study found that 22 this policy shift led to an almost 300 percent increase in the discovery of contraband or illegal activity.120 Consider the inefficient allocation of scarce police resources in New Jersey when, as described in Chapter III (C) of this report local law enforcement authorities stopped tens of thousands of Hispanic motorists, pedestrians, passengers, and others in a six-month period. Just 1,417 of the tens of thousands stopped were ultimately charged with immigration offenses by the federal government.121 Or, consider the April 2008 assault by more than 100 Maricopa County, Arizona deputies, a volunteer posse, and a helicopter on a small town of 6,000 Yaqui Indians and Hispanics outside of Phoenix, as described in Chapter III (C) above. After terrorizing the residents for two days, stopping residents and chasing them into their homes to conduct background checks, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s operation resulted in the arrest of just nine undocumented immigrants.122 Turning to the counterterrorism context, the use of racial profiling—and the focus on the many Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs, and other South Asians who pose no threat to national security—diverts law enforcement resources away from investigations of individuals who have been linked to terrorist activity by specific and credible evidence. A memorandum circulated to U.S. law enforcement agents worldwide by a group of senior law enforcement officials in October 2002 makes clear that race is an ineffective measure of an individual’s terrorist intentions. The memorandum, entitled “Assessing Behaviors,” emphasized that focusing on the racial characteristics of individuals was a waste of law enforcement resources and might cause law enforcement officials to ignore suspicious behavior, past or present, by someone who did not fit a racial profile.123 One of the authors of the report noted: “Fundamentally, believing that you can achieve safety by looking at characteristics instead of behaviors is silly. If your goal is preventing attacks … you want your eyes and ears looking for preattack behaviors, not characteristics.”124 Racial profiling undermines community safety – lack of cooperation between police and civilians Chanin et al. 11 (Robert Chanin writes with others at the Leadership Conference, a 501(c)(4) organization that engages in legislative advocacy. It was founded in 1950 and has coordinated national lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957.. "Restoring a National Consensus: The Need to End Racial Profiling in America." The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. March 2011. www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/racial_profiling2011.pdf)//lb An additional reason why racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement tactic is that it destroys the relationship between local law enforcement authorities and the communities that they serve. This is particularly true with regard to the enforcement of federal immigration laws by local police under the 287(g) program and other ICE ACCESS programs. When local police function as rogue immigration agents, fear—as opposed to trust—is created in Hispanic and other immigrant communities. U.S. born children with parents who are either U.S. citizens or lawful residents 23 may avoid coming in contact with police or other public officials (including school officials) out of concern that they, their parents, or family members will be targeted by local law enforcement authorities for a check of their immigration status. Victims of domestic violence who are immigrants may fear interacting with the police because of their immigration status, or the status of their families, or even their abusers, and the consequences of that fear can leave them in dangerous and violent situations. Respect and trust between law enforcement authorities and immigrant communities are essential to successful police work. Racial profiling has a destructive impact on minority communities. How many community members will step up to be “Good Samaritans” and report crimes or accidents, or offer help to a victim until the police arrive, if the risk of doing the good deed is an interaction with a police officer that may result in a background check or challenge to immigration status? Perversely, the ultimate result of racial profiling in minority communities is precisely the opposite of the goal of effective local law enforcement. It is for this reason that many police executives and police organizations have expressed concern that the enforcement of the immigration laws by local law enforcement authorities has a “negative overall impact on public safety.”126 The use of racial profiling in the counterterrorism context—as in the immigration context—alienates the very people that federal authorities have deemed instrumental in the anti-terrorism fight. Arab and Muslim communities may yield useful information to those fighting terrorism. Arabs and Arab Americans also offer the government an important source of Arabic speakers and translators. The singling out of Arabs and Muslims for investigation regardless of whether any credible evidence links them to terrorism simply alienates these individuals and compromises the anti-terrorism effort. In particular, to the extent that federal authorities use the anti-terrorism effort as a pretext for detaining or deporting immigration law violators, individuals who might have information that is useful in the fight against terrorism may be reluctant to come forward. For a special registration program such as NSEERS, those individuals will choose not to register, thereby defeating the very purpose of the program.127 impact -Racism/VTL Intrusive, racially-biased police stops cause distrust, less value to live, fewer voters, vigilantism, and ineffective emergency response Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb An accumulating body of research suggests that intrusive police stops cause deep and lasting harm; they are a form of racial subordination. Bernard Harcourt argues that investigatory stops have a “ratchet effect” with overt and hidden costs.2 By targeting African Americans, these stops subject this group to pervasive, ongoing surveillance, skew the prison population’s racial composition, and reinforce the entrenched stereotype that blacks are criminal and violent. Interview-based stud- ies consistently show that African Americans commonly feel demeaned and even abused by intrusive police stops.3 Psychological studies dem-onstrate that African Americans subjected to intrusive police stops ex-perience heightened levels of psychological stress.4 Much of the research finds that such personal experiences—particularly experiences of police disrespect and frequent subjection to stops-directly erode people’s trust in the police.5 Trust in the police is important because people who do not trust the police are less willing to call the police for help, may be more likely to turn to self-help vigilantism, and may be less willing to cooper-ate with the police in criminal investigations.6 The harms may go even deeper: people stopped by the police are less likely to vote.7 In a society in which voting rates are comparatively low and the poor are among the least likely to vote, the possibility that polie stops may further suppress people’s willingness to vote is a significant concern. Law enforcement entrenches racial dichotomies Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb Law and law enforcement reflect racial divisions in society. It is also increasingly dear that they contribute to the ongoing marking of racial identities and maintaining racial divisions. The meaning of “race” itself is a social—and thus partly a legal— construction.29 While this basic insight is well accepted and the subject of many histories of racial identities, whether law contributes to ongoing racial divisions may seem a more open question. For example, to contemporary Americans it is obvious that the notorious Jim Crow laws requiring racial segregation created racial divisions in an earlier era, but it may seem less obvious how law enforcement may do the same thing today.30 Still, a growing number of studies suggest that encounters with the law shape racial identities and, even, racial hierarchies.3’ For example, Andrew Penner and Aliya Saperstein analyzed the National Youth Survey panel and found that respondents who had been incarcerated were more likely to self- identify as “black” and to be perceived by their interviewer as “black.”32 (Unemployment and poverty also increased the identification of a respondent as “black”) In a society in which black people are disproportionately sentenced to prison, imprisonment alters the social meaning of race. Impact – National Security/Spillover US organized violent crime spills over to other countries Feere and Vaughan 8 (Jon Feere is a legal policy analyst, Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, “Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs,” Published September 2008, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs, SZ) The recent emergence and spread of several Hispanic street gangs, most notably MS-13 and 18th Street, has attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies and political leaders nationwide. Many gangs are made up of small-time troublemakers, but others have a reputation for grisly violence. They are responsible for virtually the entire spectrum of criminal activity, from nuisance crimes like graffiti to murder. Some are becoming increasingly well-organized and operating as sophisticated crime syndicates across national borders. Transnational gangs generally are defined as those gangs that are criminally active and operational in more than one country, whose activities are sometimes controlled or planned by individuals in another country, whose members are mobile and adaptable in new areas, and whose members tend to be involved in cross-border or international crime or violations with a nexus to the border. 11 The countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are considered to be the epicenter of the gang crisis, as most of the criminal transnational gang members in the United States have ties to these countries. Murder rates in these countries are extremely high; in 2004, the estimated murder rate per 100,000 people was 45.9 in Honduras, 41.2 in El Salvador, and 34.7 in Guatemala (compared with a 2004 murder rate in the United States of only 5.7 murders per 100,000 people). Salvadoran police estimate that at least 60 percent of the 2,756 murders committed in El Salvador in 2004 were gang-related. The gang population in Central American countries is estimated to be about 500,000. 12 overstretch internal local immigration enforcement trades off with emergency response and violent crime- time and resource diversion Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb Local immigration enforcement is counterproductive to public safety. Enforcing civil immigration law diverts police time and resources away from criminal matters. In one extreme case, when Maricopa County, AZ began immigration enforcement, local deputies arrived late two-thirds of the time to the most serious emergency 911 calls. County detectives’ arrest rates for criminal investigations plummeted. Local immigration enforcement undermines police-community relationships in immigrant communities, deterring crime reporting. In Salt Lake City, UT, experts found that one in three city residents are unwilling to report drug-related crimes when local law enforcement has the power to detain based on immigration status. THE BURDEN OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT DRUM MAJOR INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY 2 The growth of Secure Communities, a mandatory program for local governments, undermines successful community policing strategies including policies in which local authorities agree not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims and suspects. Racial profiling leads to detention of thousands of citizens and non-citizens alike Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb Data and evidence from local immigration enforcement programs shows that ICE ACCESS hasn’t been consistent in deporting non-citizens who represent threats to public safety. There is also evidence that ICE local enforcement programs have mistakenly detained and even deported U.S. citizens, a clear violation of federal law.170 Many of these U.S. citizens spend months in detention fighting deportation, made even more difficult for lowincome individuals who cannot afford legal representation and lack the due process protections given to criminal offenders. For citizens who are actually removed, this may mean deportation to an unfamiliar country and language. In addition, there is currently no mechanism for an arrested person to challenge a wrongly issued detainer.171 Experts warn that the US-VISIT and IDENT databases used to operate Secure Communities are “riddled with errors and inaccuracies,” leading to false matches.172 False matches occur most frequently in “the context of derivative citizens, foreign-born individuals who become U.S. citizens by operation of law when one of their parents naturalizes. Because derivative citizens gain citizenship automatically, without the intervention of any government agency, they are likely to appear as potentially removable non-citizens in a DHS database.”173 ICE figures state that over an 18-month period, the Secure Communities program identified about 24,000 U.S. citizens.174 In North Carolina, one mentally disabled U.S. citizen served time for a misdemeanor and spent two months at an ICE detention center before being deported to Mexico, despite the fact that the man spoke no Spanish and had no Mexican ancestry.175 In Chicago, a Puerto Rican man was suspected of having stolen a car and arrested; after 48 hours in police custody, he was interviewed by an ICE agent, placed under detainer, and transferred to the Cook County Correctional Center.176 What happened next reveals a major flaw in jail-based immigration interviews: He repeatedly told officers that he was born in Puerto Rico and therefore an American citizen. His mother also presented his birth certificate, but despite that and his state-issued ID, officials told him he was facing deportation. He says officers asked him specific questions about the Caribbean island that he could not answer, mostly because he moved to the mainland when he was 8 months old and has only been back to Puerto Rico once since birth.177 ICE subsequently acknowledged the error, though not until after the citizen spent a week in jail. As Secure Communities and other immigration partnerships grow in number, serious errors perpetuated by flawed federal databases will only increase. Abundance of time and resources devoted to immigration enforcementcitizens are deported Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas Program.)//lb The prosecution and imprisonment of criminal aliens is saturating the country's criminal justice system. Overall, federal criminal prosecutions are rising spectacularly, overwhelming judges and burdening federal prosecutors with unprecedented caseloads. According to new statistics released by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), prosecutions in 2008 were 70% higher than in 2003. The arrest and prosecution of immigrants for immigration violations accounted for 55% of the new cases in December 2008, while drug cases accounted for 16% of the caseload that month. Five years ago drug abuse cases accounted for the most prosecutions but today immigration violations far outnumber drug abuse prosecutions. While charges for illegal entry and reentry have increased steadily over the past five years, the charge that showed the greatest increase in prosecutions—up 120% over 2007—was document fraud, a charge filed mostly against illegal immigrants living and working in the country. Even as illegal immigration and apprehension rates have been falling over the past three years, the number of immigrants detained and deported by ICE has been rising. Between 2003 and 2007, the total number of immigrants detained by ICE rose from 231,500 to 311,213. Although apprehensions along the border fell by 17% in 2008, deportations increased, rising from 319,382 in 2007 to 349,041 in 2008. One major reason for increased detention and removals is the increasing number of legal immigrants who are being removed because they have been identified as criminal aliens. In 2007, 99,924 of the 319,041 immigrants deported were criminal aliens. Roughly one in five of these criminal aliens had been charged with criminal immigration violations such as illegal entry and aggravated identity fraud. The leading criminal violation—one in three—was a drug abuse conviction. In 2008 ICE deported 110,000 criminal aliens. The proportion of criminal aliens to the total number of deported immigrants will likely increase at a much greater rate in coming years as ICE implements its plans to identify and charge with deportation all the immigrants, legal and illegal, who are in federal, state, or local detention. In the past, legal and illegal immigrants who were convicted and sentenced to prison were generally released following the completion of their sentence Undocumented immigrants are not criminals- detention trades off with serious conviction Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb Local immigration enforcement is misguided as a crime control strategy. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reportedly aims to target non-citizens who have committed serious crimes. Yet 57 percent of immigrants identified by the Criminal Alien Program and 65 percent of those identified by 287(g) in FY 2009 were never convicted of a crime. Since October 2008, Secure Communities has transferred over 52,000 non-criminal immigrants to ICE custody. Among the immigrants detained by local law enforcement who were convicted of crimes, many were charged with minor offenses. In Davidson County, TN, 75 percent of immigrants marked for deportation were picked up for traffic offenses. In Irving, TX, 98 percent of individuals held under immigration detainers were charged with misdemeanors. Proponents of local immigration enforcement make false connections between immigration and crime. According to decades of research, immigrants—including undocumented immigrants—don’t commit crimes at higher rates than U.S.-born residents. The majority of communities have low or declining crime rates when they sign local immigration enforcement agreements. The proliferation of local 287(g) agreements is more closely linked to the rapid growth of a region’s immigrant population (including legal residents as well as unauthorized immigrants) and to its ideological bent than it is to rates of violent or property crime. Police overstretch from immigration leads to collapse public safety Habhab 8 (Delia Habhab has a Master of Arts in Communications degree from Wayne State University "Local Law Enforcement of Immigration Rules Debated." The Arab American News: 22. Aug 2008. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2015.)//lb "America's local police are unclear about their role and responsibility in the enforcement of federal immigration law, and worry that their participation in immigration enforcement undermines their ability to fulfill their core mission of providing for public safety," he stated. "Police leaders know that without community cooperation, their efforts to effectively prevent and address crime are severely compromised." "There have been numerous challenges encountered by the Arab and Muslim American communities as a result of certain U.S. Government policies that have involved local law enforcement agencies' enforcement of federal immigration law," [Kareem Shora] stated "This has had an impact on the ability of our communities to actively participate, as members of civil society, in reaching our full-potential in assisting legitimate efforts aimed at combating crime in all its forms." Raquel Aldana, Professor of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Law, added that a breakdown in trust between law enforcers and community members will have damaging effects on immigrant communities. "These tactics by local law enforcement agencies will only increase the tensions that exist in immigrant communities," she stated. "There are already numerous problems that exist within these communities, and enforcing these policies will only add to problems like racial profiling." Immigration enforcement trades off with crime prevention- limited resources Alto Arizona no date (Arizona Alto. “About ICE ACCESS Programs.” Alto Arizona. http://www.altoarizona.com/ice-access-programs.html) The Federal Government, not cops, should enforce immigration laws; 287(g) programs make communities less safe Sheriffs and Police Chiefs around the country find that deputizing state and local law enforcement officials to enforce civil immigration laws interferes with their core mission of protecting and serving the community that they police. Community members become less likely to report crimes or come forward as witnesses for fear that they or someone in their community will be deported. The Major Cities Chiefs Association concluded: “Immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities. . . . Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.” When community members stop cooperating with law enforcement, everyone is less safe. Reducing ICE surveillance devotes resources to more severe crime Preston 15 (Julia is a National Immigration Correspondent at The New York Times. "U.S. Arrests Foreigners Convicted of Crimes." New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) ed.Mar 10 2015. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2015 .)//lb Showing tough immigration enforcement is central to the administration's strategy to justify President Obama's controversial executive actions that would protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. The president said those programs -- which currently have been placed on hold by a federal judge in Texas, based on a lawsuit by 26 states -- would allow immigrants who had not committed crimes to come forward and register for work permits, allowing federal agents to spend their time pursuing dangerous criminals. Time spent on search immigrant documentation diverts resource from violent crime Font 10 (Jocelyn Fong graduated from Goshen College in 2007 with a bachelor's degree in peace, justice, and conflict studies. She worked most recently as an AmeriCorps member with Public Allies Arizona. She is a member of the Research Department at Media Matters for America. "Phoenix police chief disputes right's claim that AZ law is needed because of violent crime." Media Matters. May 6, 2010. http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/05/06/phoenix-police-chief-disputes-rights-claim-that/164312)//lb HARRIS: Proponents of this legislation have repeatedly said that the new law provides a tool for local law enforcement. But I don't really believe that that's true or accurate. We have the tools that we need to enforce laws in this state to reduce property crime and to reduce violent crime, to go after criminals that are responsible for human smuggling, to go after criminals that are responsible for those home invasions, kidnappings, robberies, murders. We have those tools. I have ten ICE agents embedded in the violent crimes bureau. We have a policy that allows officers to contact ICE when they need to access their databanks to further criminal investigation. I'm not sure what the tool is that this new law is providing to local law enforcement. What I believe it is, is it provides a tool to divert our officers from investigating property crimes and violent crimes and divert their -these resources, our personnel to enforcing civil portions of federal immigration law. In other words, it takes officers away from doing what our main core mission of local law enforcement is, and that's to make our communities safe and enforce our criminal codes in that effort. These racist investigatory stops undermine public safety – no trust Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb On December 14,2010,21-year-old Marion Denmon was laid to rest, the victim of yet another apparent gang killing on Kansas City’s troubled east side. During the funeral at the Macedonia Baptist Church several carfuls of young men drove up and fired more than seventy gunshots, apparently as a show of disrespect.2 Pandemonium broke out and some mourners rushed to fire shots at the fleeing vehicles. The police had been told no violence was expected at the funeral and so they had stayed away. In a neighborhood all too familiar with shootings, nearly everybody agreed that this one, outside a church and during a funeral, had crossed the line. People were outraged. Nonetheless, witnesses stonewalled police efforts to identify the shooters. Nobody talked with the police, and no shooters were identified, much less caught. It was not the first time that Kansas City police faced thorough noncooperation in their investigations. As the mother of a young man shot only a few months before the funeral incident and only a short distance away observed, “In our community, people are quick to come and tell the family of the victim things, but they will not tell the police.”3 If investigatory stops worked as claimed none of this should have happened. Advocates insist that investigatory stops get guns and drugs off the streets and make cities safer. They also claim that people and neighborhoods subjected to investigatory stops accept the stops and surveil lance so long as officers are professional and courteous. East Kansas City is a testing ground for these claims. The Macedonia Baptist Church is in the heart of the area targeted by the Kansas City Gun Experiment, which, in the early 1990s, offered evidence that investigatory stops get guns off the street and dramatically reduce shootings.4 Sixteen years later, these stops are everyday occurrences, yet guns abound and shootings continue. The Kansas City Police Department is among the more professionalized in the country and has first-rate systems for training and oversight over officers. But after a generation of investigatory stops, neighborhood residents in east Kansas City so distrust the police that they will not cooperate in investigations even when the crime is a gangland shooting at a church funeral. This book’s concluding message is simple: the benefits of investigatory stops are modest and greatly exaggerated, yet their costs are substantial and largely unrecognized. It is time to end this failed practice. Investigatory stops fail because they violate a widely shared norm of fair treatment.5 This norm requires that people should be treated as equal, respected members of society and not as second-class outsiders, as participants in a common endeavor and not as objects to be controlled and manipulated. When police enforcement activities respect this fundamental norm, as they do in some collaborative, carefully targeted efforts that we will summarize below, members of the community are drawn into cooperation with the police and public safety is enhanced. When police enforcement activities violate this fundamental norm, as they do in investigatory stops, members of the community learn to distrust the police, putting public safety at risk. Investigatory stops are ineffective – distract from focused police efforts and undermine safety Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb It is increasingly clear that the most effective kinds of police enforcement are efforts that respect procedural justice norms, as the research of David M. Kennedy on gang shootings has shown, and as careful metaanalyses have confirmed.10 First, police enforcement is most effective when it carefully targets serious criminals rather than stopping large numbers of people, many of whom are innocent, in the hope of apprehending the few who are guilty. Targeting many to get the few is unjust and, as we will emphasize below, widely resented. Second, police effectiveness is enhanced when the police work closely with community members and groups to identify serious violators and to bring pressure on them to cease their predations. Even in low-income, highcrime neighborhoods only a small number of people commit the vast majority of the crime. Police and community members often know or can find out who these serious criminals are. Cooperation from community members is often crucial for identifying criminals and for bringing social pressure to bear on them in ways that ratify and amplify the efforts of the police. Community members are more likely to participate in efforts to control serious crime when police treat them as respected participants in a shared effort. Scattershot investigatory stops of people who merely look suspicious are at best a distraction from more focused police efforts. They are not effective. racial profiling hurt police cred Racial profiling kills police force legitimacy Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.; poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=289004112008113090031125110096017099025007057 017006013098023078026017103009087090105005060043107058047118070066087085015 0061160190590070230931240060700740131001070110910320020721060830091150081010 04120019099067104004015001116082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the perception that certain groups are treated unfairly undermines the legitimacy of the law enforcement agency, and thus has a deleterious effect on crime control and prevention.94 Many members of minority communities are also disproportionately victims of crime and may live in areas that experience higher rates of crime.95 For example, in many large urban areas, a disproportionate number of crime victims are AfricanAmerican, and thus partnerships between citizens and police are essential to crime prevention.96 As one scholar noted, "[T]here is a causal link between the perception of the law and levels of compliance. Unfortunately, the perception in many poor and minority communities is that the law, as exemplified by the police, is illegitimate, a perception that encourages noncompliance. 97 It follows that areas in need of the greatest amount of law enforcement protection are also likely to have a large proportion of residents who distrust law enforcement. Racial profiling also exacerbates tensions between racial minorities and law enforcement, and undermines the rationale for community policing. Thus, efforts to engage these citizens in crime prevention partnerships with law enforcement face challenges that may not be present in other communities. David Harris also notes that racial profiling can have a negative impact on the way in which minority groups view law enforcement. Harris writes, "Racially targeted traffic stops cause deep cynicism among blacks about the fairness and legitimacy of law enforcement and courts .... Thus it is no wonder that Blacks view the criminal justice system in totally different terms than whites do.",98 For example, San Diego Police Chief Jerome Sanders and the San Diego Police Department voiced concerned that the "growing public perception that police target minority drivers [] was 'eroding public trust and need[ed] to be addressed if community policing. . . [was] [] to be successful."' 99 Not only is racial profiling harmful to individuals and communities, but, as previously discussed, there is evidence demonstrating that racial profiling is an ineffective law-enforcement tool. Despite the disproportionate number of stops and searches of African-Americans and Latinos, studies show that when searched, these groups were less likely than Whites to have contraband.'00 Together, these facts confirm not only the existence of racial profiling, but that racial profiling is an ineffective tool for law enforcement whose costs outweigh any negligible benefit. Given these societal costs, innovative solutions are required to address racial profiling. racial profiling=crime Racially biased laws increases crime Rivera 12 (Javan Rivera is a writer for Voices of Utah and a journalist at the University of Utah, “Salt Lake City police chief, Utah representatives combat new immigration laws,” 3/29/12, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, https://voicesofutah.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/state-immigration-laws-that-increase-crimeand-racial-profiling-salt-lake-city-police-chief-wants-no-part-of-it/, SZ) Burbank, whose infamously lenient take on illegal immigration has earned him the nickname “Sanctuary Burbank,” from opponents, said that the current proposed “solutions” for illegal immigration in Utah represent a serious threat to the civil liberties of U.S. citizens and could actually increase the crime rate of Utah should they be enacted. “These are ridiculous laws,” Burbank said of proposed immigration laws similar to those passed in Arizona. Arizona’s SB 1070 require police officers to actively check immigration status during legal stops, and require all aliens, legal or otherwise, to carry proper documentation of their citizenship at all times. Failure to do so could result in a misdemeanor charge. “Any time we as a society can say one segment of our population—because of who they are, what they look like, the language they speak—is more engaged in criminal behavior [as a result]. Well that’s as racist and biased as anything I’ve ever heard,” Burbank said. Burbank said that he believes by creating laws that target illegal immigrants, Utah will create significant problems for the community on two levels—crime increase, and the all too slippery slope of racial profiling. “You actually increase crime when you enforce these kinds of laws,” Burbank said. He cited the formation of the Italian Mafia as an example of racially specific profiling leading to increased crime, saying that due to the shunning of the Italian people on the East Coast, they began to look to each other for support and eventually turned to crime as an alternative to pursuing legal jobs outside of their own community. One of Burbank’s main concerns with the proposed laws, is that the threatened deportation of illegal immigrants increases the likelihood those immigrants won’t feel comfortable reporting crimes to the police for fear of calling deportation down on themselves. “When we have a segment of society that turns their back or says ‘We’re not going to interact with the police,’” Burbank said. “Well, the criminal element thrives.” The other great threat Burbank believes these laws represent is that of selective racial profiling. “We are a very effective form of oppression,” Burbank said of the dangers associated with racial profiling. “Those things [profiling] are wrong and it’s my job to prevent that from happening in my profession. I will not allow my officers to be involved in that behavior.” Burbank isn’t the only one interested in seeing Utah’s illegal immigration status solved through non-aggressive legislation. State Rep. Rebecca Edwards, R-North Salt Lake, also stated concerns similar to Burbank’s regarding an increase in crime, should these laws be enacted. “I think that [Burbank’s view] is probably true,” Edwards said. “I’ve talked to people in law enforcement who believe that it [immigration laws] would drive people who might report crime underground.” Not only did Edwards express concerns regarding a possible increase in crime, but also the potentially disastrous effect such laws could have on Utah’s economy, citing the numerous illegal immigrants who help maintain Utah’s farmland. Racial profiling causes gang violence- Increases immigrant gang activity Tanovich 5 (David M. Tanovich is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, “Racial profiling won't defeat gangs,” The Toronto Star August 17 2005, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, Lexis, SZ) A recent study suggests that 8 per cent of black youth are involved in gang activity. From a policing perspective, gang violence will only be deterred or solved with good intelligence and tips from the community. This point was made the other day by George Rhoden, a high-ranking member of Scotland Yard in a presentation to the National Black Police Association meeting in Toronto. One of the problems, however, is that individuals with relevant information often remain silent. This, in part, is due to the deep mistrust between visible minority communities and the police that is only perpetuated by racial profiling. But, racial profiling is a significant gang violence . In 1986, 131 blacks were admitted to Toronto jails for drug- perhaps most significantly, there is every reason to believe that contributing cause of gun and trafficking offences. This was the time period that the "war on drugs" changed gears and started to use a drug courier profile and intensive policing of poor and racialized neighbourhoods as its primary weapons. Six years later, the number of black admissions for drug trafficking offences increased to 1,656, an increase of more than 1,164 per cent, despite a population growth of approximately 31 per cent. By comparison, the white admission rate increased by 151 per cent. What the "war on drugs" and racial profiling have created is a one-way ticket to jail for many young black men in this city - despite the fact that drug use and trafficking is overwhelmingly a white activity. Limited education and employment opportunities that existed before prison because of systemic racism become even scarcer upon release. Is it really a surprise that many turn to informal structures to find self-worth, community and a means of earning a living? And it is not just racial profiling on the street that is contributing to the problem. The application of the Safe Schools Act in our high schools has had a disproportionate impact on black students. When students are expelled and cannot find work, trouble is not far ahead. This is not a black problem but one of human nature. Racial profiling, however, has made it a black problem. There is another link between racial profiling and gun violence. It is an alienating, humiliating and frightening experience to be confronted by the police when you have done nothing wrong. It confirms that race still matters and that no matter what you do or who you become, you will always be perceived as the "usual suspect." This is, in part, why racial profiling engenders a sense of anger, injustice and a lack of respect for law enforcement and the law. Moreover, as the Ontario Human Rights Commission documented in its racial profiling report, the stigmatizing of a community by treating violence as a race issue impacts on its psychological well-being and sense of self-worth. Racial profiling brings "fear, anxiety, intimidation, and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness ... suicidal thoughts, depression and drug abuse." It sends "a message to the person that he or she is less worthy of consideration and respect as a human being." This, in turn, can lead to a general devaluing of human dignity and ultimately the sanctity of life. For a small number of individuals, particularly those who have faced the brutality of prison, the damage becomes manifested in serious deviance and violence. racial profiling=high Current efforts against racial profiling are failing Clark 14 (Meredith Clark is a reporter for MSNBC, “Racial profiling report finds ‘not one state’ with acceptable protections,” 9/25/14, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/racial-profiling-report-finds-not-one- state-acceptable-protections, SZ) Racial profiling is still a major part of life for communities of color across the country, and a new report has found that legal protections from such profiling vary wildly from state to state. The NAACP report came the same day the families of three black men killed by police officers in recent months called for justice for their loved ones. After several noteworthy killings of black men by white police officers, the NAACP on Thursday released Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses and the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America, which looked at racial profile laws in all 50 states. It also examined how activists and civil liberties advocates in New York City successfully fought the NYPD’s discriminatory “stop and frisk” police search policy, which disproportionately targeted black and Hispanic residents. “In 2014 there is not one state that has a statute that can stand up against this pandemic of police misconduct,” NAACP President Cornell Brooks said of the report. According the NAACP’s review, 20 states don’t have a ban on racial profiling, and only 17 states with anti-profiling laws make violations a crime. The kind of data collected by law enforcement varies from state to state, the report found, making it difficult to compare communities and strategies effectively. Even recent guidelines on profiling are insufficient- Proves plan is key Hughes 14 (Brian Hughes is a White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, “Obama's racial profiling reforms seen as lacking,” 12/9/14, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas- racial-profiling-reforms-seen-as-lacking/article/2557118, SZ) New guidelines on racial profiling released by the Obama administration failed Monday to quell calls for an overhaul to how police target minorities suspected of crimes. Attorney General Eric Holder outlined new rules on Monday that banned profiling not just based on race and ethnicity, but also religion, gender and sexual orientation. Civil rights leaders welcomed the revisions but expressed disappointment with loopholes for border agents and those screening travelers at airports. National security exemptions allow many practices to continue that were not addressed by President George W. Bush’s ban on racial profiling in 2003. Perhaps most lacking, advocates said, were reforms that would apply to local police departments, now under heavy scrutiny following black suspects being killed by white officers in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City. “We urge the Department of Justice to continue its work beyond this guidance to prevent the street-level profiling which is ongoing across the country and to hold agencies accountable for engaging in profiling,” said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “It does not ban the offensive practice of ‘mapping’ American communities based on stereotypes, nor does it appear to curtail the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s authority to engage in unlawful and abusive surveillance of innocent Americans,” he added. The long-awaited update on racial profiling comes as the administration is attempting to overhaul police practices in predominantly minority communities and as President Obama tries to assuage growing criticism of his approach to racial issues. The president had already called for heightened oversight of the militarization of local police departments and funding for body cameras for up to 50,000 cops. But those measures, like the new racial profiling rules, received a less-than-enthusiastic response from civil libertarians. The change in racial profiling parameters will cover federal law enforcement officials but are solely guidance for state and local police officers, unless they are participating in federal investigations, according to the Justice Department. Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., among others, had pushed the White House to adopt rules that would cover local agencies. “I can definitely understand why a lot of people are disappointed today,” said a Democratic Senate aide who has worked extensively on the issue. “A lot of it seems cosmetic. There’s plenty left to get done — and now might have been the best time to do it.” Racial profiling is still an issue in society, causes distrust in the government- Proves plan is key Badger 14 (Emily Badger is a reporter for The Washington Post covering urban policy, “The long, halting, unfinished fight to end racial profiling in America,” 12/4/14, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/04/the-long-haltingunfinished-fight-to-end-racial-profiling-in-america/, SZ) In his very first address to Congress — in the speech where new presidents first detail their priorities for the nation — George W. Bush devoted a few moments to an unlikely topic: racial profiling. "Too many of our citizens have cause to doubt our nation's justice," he said, "when the law points a finger of suspicion at groups instead of individuals." The issue had, in fact, played into the 2000 election. The national news was full of stories of doctors and lawyers and NFL players stopped for "driving while black," in seemingly every state from California to Massachusetts. Both candidates that year were asked in a presidential debate if they would support a federal law banning racial profiling, and they said they would. Before Congress, Bush was unequivocal. "Earlier today, I asked John Ashcroft, the attorney general, to develop specific recommendations to end racial profiling," he announced. "It's wrong, and we will end it in America." More than a decade later, with a rare moment of bipartisan momentum long past, Bush's promise remains unfulfilled. Communities across the country still chafe at the profiling they perceive in state immigration laws that allow police to disproportionately challenge the status of Hispanics, in surveillance of local Muslim communities, and in statistics showing that blacks are still interrogated by police on the street at a far higher rate than other groups. Black drivers, nationwide, are twice as likely as whites to be arrested during a traffic stop. The consequences of this racial profiling are as evident as ever: in the frayed relationships between police and minorities, in the deep distrust among minorities of the justice system, and in the racial tension in Ferguson, Mo. The year Bush declared that profiling was wrong, a bill was introduced in Congress, the End Racial Profiling Act, that attempted to make good on his promise. It required federal agencies to stop the practice, and local agencies that wanted federal money to do the same. By the fall of 2001, though — after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 — the will to tackle the issue waned. People who opposed profiling black drivers on New Jersey highways found they felt differently about profiling Muslim passengers at airports. When he came to office, Barack Obama inherited much of the same problems that Bush described. And his attorney general, Eric Holder, vowed early in the new administration to pick up where Ashcroft left off, putting the weight of the federal government more firmly behind a policy to eradicate racial profiling. Holder's promise, though, has lingered for the last four years, the review of federal policy dragging on, the new guidance still unreleased as the final days of Holder's tenure wind down. Civil-rights groups have grown anxious waiting for it, as several incidents — from the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., to the shooting of Michael Brown, to the death of Eric Garner — have fanned racial tensions across the country. On Monday, speaking in Atlanta about the tension that erupted in Ferguson, Holder hinted that he would finally announce such changes in the coming days, unveiling "rigorous new standards" on the use of race by law enforcement — "to help end racial profiling," he said, "once and for all." The new policy would be one of the last major accomplishments of Holder's tenure, a central pillar of his civil-rights legacy. Law enforcement is racist- racial profiling and redundant violence Wolcott 15 (James Wolcott is an American journalist known for his critique of contemporary media and is the cultural critic for Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, “The Other Cultural Forces Behind Police Brutality,” From Vanity Fair July 2015, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/06/police-deaths-baltimore-ferguson- james-wolcott, SZ) It’s no great revelation that racism is rife in many police departments, even those in a city renowned for its liberal cosmopolitanism such as San Francisco, where a toxic spill of text messages between policemen (the most flagrant offender shared this handy health tip: “Cross burning lowers blood pressure! I did the test myself!”) led to officer dismissals and the review of thousands of cases. Such slur-slinging is sometimes defended as a combination of gallows humor and fraternal hazing, a Friars Roast on squad-car wheels that expresses camaraderie and releases job pressure, but the torture claims of nearly 200 black men at the hands of a white police commander and detectives in Chicago over the course of decades show that racial slurs emerge from embedded supremacist attitudes. No matter how unabashedly the novels of Joseph Wambaugh and James Ellroy or television series such as The Shield and True Detective unscrewed the skulls of the armed and dangerous guardians of law and order and gave us a tour of their lusts, greeds, paranoia, prejudices, and borderline-psycho compulsions, it’s the Dragnet ideal that dominates our political discourse and editorial pieties, a cardboard knighthood of fallen heroes and a few bad apples. But beneath the lip service, in the dirty rooting section of our limbic brains, we’ve been cultured to identify with the sentinels at the expense of those in the crosshairs, because that’s where power, authority, status, and prerogative suit up every day for duty. We may pity the victims, but pity is a watery emotion compared with the blood rush of a good chase and a vigorous takedown. The long-running success of Cops derives its voyeuristic fascination from this valorizing of the figure in the foreground, the camera riding sidekick on the night shift and allowing the viewer to share the cops’ windshield view of the world, which is often a pretty skanky panorama of sketchy behavior, so many of the perps appearing to opt for the pants-less look. Cops spawned a genre of police-perspective procedurals that make up the meat of the programming lineup of cable channels such as CI (Crime & Investigation), with its heavy rotation of Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force; Jacked: Auto Theft Task Force; and Dallas SWAT and its spin-off, Kansas City SWAT. Yes, this is a country that treats its urban SWAT teams as if they were Real Housewives, though in fairness the SWAT members behave far more admirably between Starship Trooper raids in full battle gear than those table-flipping divas in their gauche finery. Beyond the confines of reality-TV conventions, the picture is much uglier. The Cato Institute features a handy “interactive map of botched SWAT and paramilitary police raids” as a supplement to Radley Balko’s book Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America—raids described as “needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.” A reality almost never reflected in Hollywood films, where SWAT units are either anonymous centurions backing up the overpaid hero or fodder for some drug kingpin’s or super-villain’s booby trap. organized crime=econ Organized Crime is increasing- Vast economic impact UNICRI 14 (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, “The impact of organized crime on the legal economy: identifying strategies to disrupt criminal investment in key sectors,” 6/16/14, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, http://unicri.it/news/article/organized_crime_, SZ) Organized crime has demonstrated an increasing ability to adapt to rapid changes in the political and economic arenas, especially in recent years. Over the past few decades, criminal organizations have increased their sphere of action, perpetuating a vicious and inseparable cycle between the management of illegal activities and the reinvestment of capital in the legal economy. Reinvesting revenues from illegal activities and illicit markets into assets and the legal economy enables criminal organizations to launder proceeds of crime, diversify their activities, increase their funding sources, and exercise control over the territory at different levels. The negative consequences of this process, for governments and the society at large, are vast: the licit economy is infiltrated by criminal groups, competition is distorted and resources are diverted from public services. Furthermore, this process is facilitated by sophisticated money laundering mechanisms which make it difficult to separate the legal from the illegal economy. Organized crime destroys the economy FBI No date (FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States of America, “Organized Crime,” No date, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/overview, SZ) The Impact of Organized Crime. It isn’t easily measured, but we know it’s significant. Organized crime rings manipulate and monopolize financial markets, traditional institutions like labor unions, and legitimate industries like construction and trash hauling. They bring drugs into our cities and raise the level of violence in our communities by buying off corrupt officials and using graft, extortion, intimidation, and murder to maintain their operations. Their underground businesses—including prostitution and human trafficking—sow misery nationally and globally. They also con us out of millions each year through various stock frauds and financial scams. The economic impact alone is staggering: it’s estimated that global organized crime reaps illegal profits of around $1 trillion per year. Organized crime destroy economic development – proves plan is key UN 12 (United Nations General Assembly, “Thematic Debate of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Drugs and Crime as a Threat to Development On the occasion of the UN International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking,” 6/26/12, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/66/Issues/drugs/drugs- crime.shtml, SZ) As economic development is threatened by transnational organized crime and illicit drugs, countering crime must form part of the development agenda, and social and economic development approaches need to form part of our response to organized crime. If we are to ensure that the MDGs are achieved, we must strengthen strategies to deliver these goals, including stepping up efforts to address Organized crime every economy, in every country, but they are particularly devastating in weak and vulnerable countries. Weak and fragile countries are particularly issues such as money laundering, corruption and trafficking in wildlife, people and arms, and drugs. and drugs impact vulnerable to the effects of transnational organized crime. These countries, some devastated by war, others making the complex journey towards democracy, are preyed upon by crime. As a result, organized crime flourishes, successes in development are reversed, and opportunities for social and economic advancement are lost. Corruption, a facilitator of organized crime and drug trafficking, is a serious impediment to the rule of law and sustainable development. It can be a dominant factor driving fragile countries towards failure. It is estimated that up to US$40 billion annually is lost through corruption in developing countries. Drugs and crime undermine development by eroding social and human capital. This degrades quality of life and can force skilled workers to leave, while the direct impacts of victimisation, as well as fear of crime, may impede the development of those that remain. By limiting movement, crime impedes access to possible employment and educational opportunities, and it discourages the accumulation of assets. Crime is also more “expensive” for poor people in poor countries, and disadvantaged households may struggle to cope with the shock of victimisation. Drugs and crime also undermine development by driving away business. Both foreign and domestic investors see crime as a sign of social instability, and crime drives up the cost of doing business. Tourism is a sector especially sensitive to crime issues. Drugs and crime, moreover, undermine the ability of the state to promote development by destroying the trust relationship between the people and the state, and undermining democracy and confidence in the criminal justice system. When people lose confidence in the criminal justice system, they may engage in vigilantism, which further undermines the state. Organized crime substantially hurts the economy Pinotti 11 (Paolo Pinotti has a PhD in economics and is a professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management at Bocconi University, a Fellow of the Paolo Baffi Center, and a researcher at Dondena, “The Economic Consequences of Organized Crime: Evidence from Southern Italy,” Published November 2011, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/Paolo_Pinotti_paper.pdf, SZ) The present study provides the first available evidence on the economic costs of organized crime. The empirical exercise applies a transparent and intuitive policy evaluation method, originally devised by Abadie and Gardeazabal (2003), to study the economic effects of organized crime in two Italian regions recently exposed to this phenomenon. The results suggest that the aggregate loss implied by the presence of organized crime amounts to 16% of GDP per capita and goes mainly through a reallocation from private economic activity to (less productive) public investment. One limitation of the macroeconomic approach adopted here is that it does not lend itself easily to explore these mechanisms in greater detail. Another limit concerns the external validity of the estimates, which is constrained by the specificities of a complex phenomenon such as organized crime in different countries and periods. Finally, the outcomes examined here (primarily GDP per only some of the effects of organized crime on social welfare. Utility losses along many other dimensions (human, psychological and social) have no direct counterpart into observable quantities, even though indicators such as life expectancy and housing prices capita and its components) capture may go a long way in this direction (see, respectively, Thaler, 1978; Soares, 2006). For all these reasons, the present study should be seen as a first step to better understand the economic effects of organized crime, as well as an indication that such effects might be large enough to deserve further attention in the future. organized crime=terror Gang activity is intertwined with and a cause of terrorism Stanojoska 11 – (Angelina, Law professor at St. Kliment Ohridski in Bitola, “The Connection between Terrorism and Organized Crime: Narcoterrorism and other hybrids”, https://www.academia.edu/2163809/The_Connection_between_Terrorism_and_Organized_Crime_Na rcoterrorism_and_other_hybrids), “LJH” Historically, a fanatical sect of Ismaili Shiite Muslims active between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries in Syria and Iran provides the first known link between drugs and terrorist crimes. The very name “assassins” is thought to derive from Arabic Hashish in, the drug that reportedly used before engaging on their murderous missions of assassinations by dagger. Until this day, some terrorists (e.g. in Kashmir) are fired up by drugs as they are sent to commit acts of terrorism. Many centuries later, in the 1980s, the political aspirations of guerrillas in Latin America were called “narcoterrorism”. The term was used as a tool for their de-legitimization. Originally the term “narcoterrorism” was used to explain the usage of terrorist activities by drug traffickers in Peru and Colombia. Today it is used to refer to the use of profits from drug trafficking for financing terrorist activities. Also it is used to suggest an alliance between terrorism and organized crime. The term “narcoterrorism” was coined by Peruvian president Belaunde Terry in 1983 to describe violent attacks on antinarcotics police by the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) insurgents in Peru. Other Latin American countries have borrowed the term, most notably Colombia, in reference to links between drug traffickers and guerrillas. There is still a lack of consensus as to what exactly constitutes narcoterrorism, with critics suggesting that it connotes “too broad a range of activities to be definitive for a particular type of terrorism”. Some scholars suggest that it refers to all insurgent actors involved in the drug trade, whereas others argue the term only confuses the issues linking terrorism and drug trafficking. Most authorities agree, however, that it refers to a type of terrorism linked to the production of illegal drugs. Narco, or narcotic-related, terrorist activities are performed to further the aims of drug traffickers. These aims include financial gain, avoiding detection and apprehension, and establishing control over territories. This form of terrorism has been the focus of law enforcement and militaries from a wide array of countries for many years. Narcoterrorist activities are often directed toward judges, prosecutors, politicians, and law enforcement officials in the form of assassinations, extortions, hijackings, bombings, and kidnappings. As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the countries of Latin America are the best example of narcoterrorism territories. They are cultivation areas and important part of the chain called cocaine and heroin supply system. Also they are “cultivation” for much rebellion, military and terrorist groups. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) collects “taxes” from traffickers to raise funds to finance their lengthy war against the Government of Colombia. In some regions, U.S. sources believe, FARC also protects jungle laboratories and maintains airstrips for planes that carry cocaine out of remote areas for several of the cartels. They’re paid either in cash or in weapons. Sources give information that FARC’s prices for services to cartels are $15.70 per kilo of cocaine produced in laboratories, $4 210 per hectare of poppy field, $5 263 for international flights, and $2631 for protection of landing strips. Same as FARC, the National Liberation Army (ELN) works with drug trafficking groups in Colombia and Venezuela. They collect taxes for protecting and guarding marijuana and opium poppy fields. Although we speak for terrorist organizations in Latin America, we mustn’t forget that narcoterrorism can also be found in the Middle East where heroin is produced. In Afghanistan, that gives 70% from the world opium’s production, with the defeat of Taliban, many of the opium kingpins reemerged through the usage of the pro – American profile. In 2005, American authorities arrested Bashir Noorzai (Pablo Escobar of heroin trafficking in Asia) in New York City. Noorzai is charged with smuggling more than $50 million worth of heroin into the U.S. over a 14 – year period. He was reportedly supplying al – Qaeda operatives in Pakistan with 2 000 kilograms of heroin every eight weeks. That gave to Osama Bin Laden an annual income of $28 million. Narcoterrorism on the Balkan has emerged since the beginning of conflicts. The main players at the Balkan are former Albanian guerrilla and terrorist groups, the ‘ndrangheta of Southern Italy and the mafia – like Sacra Corona Unita from the Apulia area. They control many of the heroin routes from Afghanistan through Turkey, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, and on into Italy, where mafia groups distribute it in Western Europe. There are authors which explain narcoterrorism as a multistage process. In the first stage the two groups begin actively buy and sell services from each other, borrowing each other’s methods in a process of “activity appropriation”. Both groups in the next stage will begin to work more closely together in a symbiotic relationship once they mutually recognize their shared methodologies and motivations. As the most illustrative nexus between organized crime groups and a terrorist organization is the mutual relationship between the Albanian Mafia and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).Although KLA was born with the conflict in Yugoslavia, their link comes from much earlier, somewhere in 1990s.For a very short time, the Albanian Mafia gained control over heroin routes on the Balkans. Millions of dollars from drug trafficking were used of KLA’s weapons. By 1999, Kosovo was called Colombia of Europe. Terrorist groups by using drug trafficking provide them a degree of autonomy, flexibility and freedom. They also use narcoterrorism for weakening their enemies system. Drugs enter into target countries where they corrupt, harm future generations and open free paths for arms trafficking for future actions Small Business ICE hurts econ Immigration detention expensive on both local and federal levels Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas Program.)//lb This immigrant crime/prison complex overlaps with the citizen crime/prison complex. But there are important differences. While state and local governments in the face of budgetary and economic crises are starting to question the sustainability of the crime and punishment system as the costs of maintaining the penal system mount, DHS and DOJ are the beneficiaries of generous congressional funding increases for the immigrant crackdown. ICE alone spends $1.7 billion a year for immigrant detention. While DHS officials routinely say that immigration law enforcement aims to uphold the "rule of law," it's a rule of law for citizens alone that is being enforced. A far inferior and ever-more degraded set of laws and regulations rules the immigrant world. ICE’s enforcement program uses up $ without securing the community Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas Program.)//lb As lawmakers move to roll back drug laws and downsize the crime/prison complex, they would do well also to consider the costs of criminalizing and imprisoning immigrants. On the federal level, Congress should question whether the nation can afford the billions of dollars allocated annually for arresting and imprisoning immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security's immigration agencies should not get a free pass in a budget review of porkbarrel and unnecessary funding. Specifically, Congress should tell the president, Napolitano, and Holder that ICE's criminal alien programs are unfocused and as such do little to improve community security and public safety, as they claim. Immigrant Small Business Key Now is the key time -- Immigrants and Latino’s are opening up new businesses which account for ALL of the growth in small businesses Simon 5-27-15 (Ruth, “Immigrants, Latinos Helped Drive Business Creation Last Year”, May 27, 2015, Immigrants, Latinos Helped Drive Business Creation Last Year) Immigrants and Latinos helped drive an uptick in new business creation, according to a measure of 2014 U.S. startup activity to be released Thursday. Immigrant entrepreneurs launched 28.5% of the new businesses in 2014, up from 25.9% a year earlier and just 13.3% in 1996, according to an annual startup index by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City, Mo., nonprofit. Kauffman-funded researchers found that immigrants started new companies or became self-employed at nearly twice the rate of native-born Americans, creating an average of 520 businesses a month per 100,000 people last year. Immigrants accounted for 12.9% of the U.S. population in 2012, the most recent data available, up from 9.3% in 1996, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The share of new Latino business owners also climbed, to 22.1% in 2014 from 20.4% in 2013 and just 10% in 1996, Kauffman said. Latinos comprised 17.1% of the U.S. population in 2013, according to the most recent census count, up from 10.6% in 1996. The increase in startups could reflect greater opportunities for possible struggle for them to find salaried employment because of language barriers and other obstacles, said Alberto Dávila, chairman of the economics and finance Hispanic entrepreneurs as well as the department at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, Texas. He added that immigrant Latino entrepreneurs often start “small mom and pop shops” rather than the fast-growing firms that account for a disproportionate share of U.S. job growth. “If you dig into the numbers, it’s really Mexican self-employment that is carrying this growth” in Latino business-creation, he said, citing data from the census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of high-skilled immigrant business owners has risen in recent years as more immigrants with advanced degrees have opted to start their own firms, added Magnus Lofstrom, a senior research fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco who also analyzed census data. Yet, he said, many self-employed immigrants have a high-school education, or less, and their ventures may be less likely to result in high earnings. In 31 of the 50 largest U.S. metro areas, immigrants accounted for all of the net growth in owners of “Main Street” businesses such as restaurants, retailers, drycleaning services and beauty salons from 2010 to 2013, according to the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute and the Americas Society/Council of the Americas, which released a separate analysis of Census Bureau data earlier this year. Because they come from different backgrounds, some immigrants may be able to identify gaps in the marketplace for products or services that could benefit their local communities, said David Kallick, a senior fellow at the institute. For instance, Laura Gomez, 35 years old, last year launched Atipica Inc., a four-employee software startup that helps companies find and recruit more diverse workforces. “Two years ago, I wouldn’t have started a company,” said Ms. Gomez, who was born in Mexico. But today, it’s easier to get customers, she said, in part because “people are talking a lot more about the business need for diversity” not only in the technology sector but also in other industries. More than 93% of self-employed Latino immigrants had fewer than 10 employees, compared with 88.9% of self-employed non-Hispanic whites, according to a separate analysis of the 2014 Current Population Survey by Marie Mora, a University of Texas-Pan American economist. Adriana Perez of Norwalk, Conn., came to the U.S. from Colombia in 1985. She was working for a global marketing company when she was laid off in 2014. The 51-year-old started a marketing company to work with Hispanic business owners and to help U.S. business owners connect with the Hispanic market. Her young firm has no staff employees, though she uses independent contract workers. Latino businesses are more likely than non-Latino businesses to be family-owned and less likely to secure outside funding, according to Remy Arteaga, whose nonprofit Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative is building a database of Latino-owned firms in the U.S. in collaboration with Stanford University. Many Latino entrepreneurs struggle to “scale”—or rapidly expand—their businesses, Mr. Arteaga said, adding that roughly 25% of Latino firms get most of their sales from non-Latino customers, a figure that is about the same for young and older firms. Small Business is Key No Economic Recovery Without Small Business Recovery Bekore 13’ (Lynda [Lynda Bekore is the Content Director of Tarkenton Companies. Previously, she was the Social Sciences Editor for Collier's Encyclopedia, No Economic Recovery Without Small Business Recovery, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/no-economicrecovery-with_b_3451681.html) As small business goes, so goes the nation. That's the take-away from the recent news that 65% of small businesses (SMBs) don't plan to expand in the current period or the next 6 months. And if you think you're not affected by the woes of SMBs because you're employed by a big company or the government, think again. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), May showed a near zero hiring rate. Almost 80% of small businesses didn't hire anyone in the last month; 12% actually eliminated jobs. Considering that small businesses make up 49% of private sector jobs in this country, that means the job prospects of your newly-graduated daughter don't look too great, along with your unemployed, bookkeeper neighbor, or your girlfriend's hairstylist who's looking for a salon gig. News headlines, Wall Street, and the White House all tell us the economy is improving. But any small business person can tell you the economy is not recovering . And SMBs know that "the economy" is not the reason for high unemployment and slow growth--taxes and red tape are. Small Businesses are also key to global economy Schoen 14’ (John W., [John W. Schoen is an award-winning online journalist, who has reported and written about economics, business and financial news for more than 30 years. He is economics reporter for CNBC.com, and was a founder of msnbc.com, CNBC and public radio's Marketplace. His reporting covers a wide range of economic stories, from Beijing to Berlin. In the summer of 2012, he reported on the economic and financial turmoil in Europe as a fellow with the RIAS RTDNF German] Small-business slowdown holds back global recovery The small-business slowdown afflicting the U.S. is apparently a global phenomenon. American economists recently have pointed to the fading fortunes of U.S. small businesses—once the "engine" of job growth—as a key reason the economic recovery has been longer and deeper than in any postwar recession. But small businesses throughout the developed world are also struggling, according to research published this week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The slowdown in new company formation helps explain why the economies of the developed world are growing slowly or, in the case of much of Europe, mired in recession. In the 18 countries covered by the study, new and young companies (those less than 2 years old) still create 42 percent of new jobs, even though they account for just 17 percent of total employment. But that pace of job creation is falling as start-ups make up a smaller share of all companies. The decline in the formation of new businesses is a troubling sign for the economic health of the developed world. The churn of jobs—as they're destroyed by older companies and created by new ones—may be disruptive to the workers involved. But that churn—economists call it business dynamism—is essential to the long-term health of a growing economy. "A lot of the new ideas and business models come from (new companies)," said Dirk Pilat, deputy director of the OECD's Science, Technology & Industry Directorate and a co-author of the study. "This dynamism is a source of new job creation, but it's also really important in a dynamic economy where you need to constantly refresh your economy and move into new areas and new markets." Immigration Federalism Internal Links K2 CIR Immigration federalism solves the balance of power and spurs successful policymaking for comprehensive immigration reform— Sucheski 2011 2007 Buck Scholar, Senior Thesis at Claremont McKenna College (Laura, “Immigration and the States: Reinforcing Federalism through Limited Preemption”, pg. 116, http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=cmc_theses)//AN If the Courts reaffirm their commitment to the narrowest understanding of the Naturalization Clause, Congress would have to rely on statutory Forcing Congress to preempt through statute directly will reinvigorate the role of federalism in immigration policy . Congress retains its supremacy on immigration regulation, but they have to actively pass statutory language to do so. Until Congress takes action on an issue, states are free to regulate provided the regulation does not constitute a rule of naturalization, admission, or deportation. One can refer to this understanding of immigration law as a proposal for “immigration federalism.” Immigration federalism has several advantages for American public policy. First, reaffirming states’ initial equal authority over immigration regulation, states and local governments can pursue policies that are narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances of their state or region. This will give states a greater ability to respond quickly to emerging administrative problems. Some communities may decide they preemption to control immigration regulation. stand more to gain by accommodating illegal immigrants, while others may conclude they will benefit from deterring them. Immigration federalism best protects the federal-state cooperative effort in action today. States and local governments have already adopted many policies that could be invalidated through structural preemption if the Court interprets Congress’s implied power more broadly. Many policies now are permitted that could be preempted under a structural understanding of preemption. Moving to statutory preemption would legitimize those state actions and also protect other actions from arbitrary challenges. If a state enacts a policy Congress finds truly contrary to the national interest, it can pass its own law and preempt the state law. But to pass this law, Congress will need to convince a majority of representatives to invalidate the local law, a tough argument to make to representatives whose constituents are ambivalent on immigration policy. However, should the localized interest run contrary enough to the national interest, Congress could make persuasive arguments to adopt a contrary uniform national policy. Importantly, policy changes would have to garner a broad base of support before preemption of state regulation could occur. Several scholars argue limiting preemption on any number of different issues will force the federal government to take action rather than passively preempt. Influential legal scholar Professor Erwin Chemerinsky has written extensively on the valuable role limited preemption has in reinforcing federalism. Although Chemerinsky focuses on corporate and tort preemption, the values ascribes to limited preemption also apply to immigration policy. “There should only be two situations when there is preemption of state law. One is express preemption. The other is when federal law and state law are mutually exclusive, so it is not possible for somebody to comply with both. This would then eliminate preemption based on states interfering with the achievement of the federal objective. It would eliminate implied preemption based on the intent of Congress…Narrowing preemption means that in all other instances the state and local governments may regulate as they see fit. If Congress doesn’t like what state and local governments are doing, Congress can always step in and expressly preempt state and local laws.”214 Professor Matthew J. Parlow applies the immigration federalism argument in favor of permitting increased local regulation in the hopes that local ideas will spur higher government action. Letting states experiment with policy responses to illegal immigration could inspire Congress to adopt successful policy innovations on the national level. “Empowering local governments will stimulate more innovative policymaking in the immigration arena that may generate macro-level solutions for what is seen as an intractable problem,” he writes.215 Professor Clare Huntington’s argument for immigration federalism sees increased competition between state policies in the marketplace of ideas as a benefit to federal policymakers . After seeing what works at lower levels, federal policymakers can better respond to the needs of the states when enacting comprehensive immigration reform . “A system that allows states and localities to express divergent views on the benefits and costs of immigration would permit the development of a variety of policies rather than a single national policy,” Huntington argues, “Creating the proverbial laboratories from which the national government (or states and localities) can learn.”216 Opponents of immigration federalism might object that permitting more state regulation will create an incoherent patchwork of laws that treats illegal immigrants unequally based on state or local preference. Opponents may also be uncomfortable with the disadvantages of federalism generally, preferring a national system for its tendencies to create laws that apply equally to all people no matter where they live. But although some public issues are best addressed through legal centralization, in this illegal immigration case decentralization better suits the nature of the problem . Illegal immigration and its associated costs are not uniform across states, and neither are existing regulations. While statutory preemption would permit more regulatory “patchworking,” it might spur more national legislation as well. If Congress knows that it cannot rely on a constitutional challenge to clear the field of regulation it opposes, it will have to create policy in the affirmative to preempt and obtain the results it desires that under structural preemption it could preempt without action. Immigration federalism means that the political process will determine the balance of regulatory power between Congress and the states, consistent with the framers’ preference for political solutions to federalism questions. The Court’s limited view of exclusive federal power over immigration will restore deliberation to American immigration policy to the benefit of affected states and the country overall. K2 Federalism Federalism and immigration federalism feed off of each other—they are intrinsically tied Huntington 2008 Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. Columbia Law School; (Clare, “The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism”, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)// AN The competing values in federalism are always the subject of debate and disagreement. But the above discussion demonstrates that it is quite possible to take cognizance of important immigration concerns within the framework-the language, arguments, and interests-of federalism. Federalism is, in important ways, germane to sound immigration policy concerns. Further, once we view immigration through a federalism lens, it becomes apparent that federalism concerns do not univocally support federal exclusivity. Indeed, there is ample room for disagreement about which way the competing values cut. This room for debate only underscores the need to subject immigration to traditional arguments over federalism, as opposed to setting immigration apart as structural preemption would counsel. K2 Organized Crime This type of “community policing” constructed through immigration federalism has undermined critical trust between law enforcement and Hispanic communities—it relies on racist profiling techniques Decker et al. No Date Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University (Scott et. al., “Immigration and Local Policing: Results from a National Survey of Law Enforcement Executives- Appendix G”, pg. 169, http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/pftest1.drupalgardens.com/files/Appendix%20G.pdf)// AN The devolution of immigration policing authority from the federal to local governments represents a sharp break with a long-established tradition of federal control over all aspects of immigration enforcement and is giving rise to what some observers are calling “immigration federalism” (Spiro 1997; Huntington 2007). Although federal authority over immigration has always involved a degree of cooperation and occasional conflict between local and federal officials, the federal government has historically been recognized to have plenary power in this area. Being present in the U.S. without authorization is a civil violation under federal law, not a prosecutable crime under the jurisdiction of localities. In the past, state and local police forces played only a supportive role, sometimes sharing information about those they had detained as criminal suspects or assisting in enforcement actions. The federal government cannot require local governments to do immigration policing. Police powers are constitutionally reserved for the states and their the federal government has created an opening for localities to ask their police officers to be trained by and to join the federal government in enforcing immigration laws within the interior of the United States. Beginning in 2002, jurisdictional subunits, an arrangement that provides localities with significant flexibility and autonomy. But with the AEDPA and IIRIRA, informal working relationships between local police and federal immigration agents have developed in some departments. Others are seeking formal training from federal under the 287(g) program immigration authorities (referring to the section of the IIRIRA which authorizes such collaboration). Federal agents also are embedded in some police departments to assist in enforcement of drug and human smuggling laws. A number of state prisons and local jails send the names of criminal suspects an increasing number of police departments are electing to do their own immigration status checks. Within the past several years, the number of law enforcement agencies that have asked for training to to federal authorities to be checked for immigration violations. And make these checks has increased from eight to more than sixty (Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2008). Other local governments and police departments, stating concerns for public safety and the importance of police-community relationships, have rejected local civil immigration enforcement entirely—a small number have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities, while others follow a kind of informal “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding contacts with possible unauthorized immigrants. This devolution of immigration policing to the local level presents police departments with several important challenges. One is the potential for conflict between commitments to community policing and active involvement in immigration control. Community policing practices emphasize close communication and collaboration between police and community. Engagement in identifying and removing unauthorized immigrants challenges these relationships in areas with large numbers of Hispanic residents . As the Immigration Committee of the Major Cities Chiefs (2006, p. 3) observed, “Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many daunting and complex legal, logistical and resource issues for local agencies and the diverse communities they serve.” While stopping short of endorsing one approach for local law enforcement in the debate over how recommendations highlight the many challenges to local law enforcement in carrying out its primary function, including loss of trust among immigrant groups, inadequate resources, complexity of federal laws, lack of local legal authority for intervention, and risks of civil liability. A second concern is that immigration enforcement activities may discourage members of immigrant communities who are victims or witnesses of crime to come forward. Many new immigrant groups that may be best to respond to unauthorized immigration, the vulnerable to high rates of victimization come from countries where distrust of authorities—particularly law enforcement—is a valid concern. In such cases, building community trust in the police is already a difficult task. A 2007 report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police notes that local immigration enforcement makes that task even more difficult. This report identifies eight specific areas of conflict between communities, elected officials, and federal and local law enforcement. A third concern is that the core commitment to local concerns in policing will be lost in the process of developing stronger links with federal immigration authorities. American policing spent the last half of the twentieth century elaborating on and strengthening local control. During this period, the focus of police evolved from an emphasis on administrative and professional issues, to community relations and interaction. Problem solving and fear reduction and an emphasis on “zero-tolerance” have also been added to the policy mix (Greene 2001). Each of these re- conceptualizations of American policing, despite their differences, has a decidedly local character . Local communities have provided an important check on the expansion of police authority and jurisdiction, reflecting the historical antipathy of the American populace toward police commitments to avoid racial profiling are put at risk by active involvement in immigration enforcement because the drive to eliminate unauthorized immigrants has focused on people who have crossed the nation’s southern border from Mexico . Although many departments have developed antiprofiling policies , immigration enforcement subtly encourages officers to focus on people who “look Mexican” or who are heard to speak a foreign language. Also, enforcement efforts federalizing law enforcement (Mastrofski 1988). Finally, that target unauthorized immigrants will inevitably draw some naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and citizens into newly intrusive contacts with the police. The over half of all Latinos in the United States fear that they or someone close to them may be deported in the current enforcement climate (Pew Hispanic Center 2007). How, then, should police respond? Will enforcing civil immigration laws erode climate is reportedly becoming inhospitable for many people: as detailed in a recent Pew Hispanic Center report, community policing ideals, particularly in towns and cities with significant immigrant populations? Are other essential elements of local police services at risk? The growing involvement of local police in immigration enforcement has gained enormous momentum with almost no systematic research or information base (though see Waslin 2007 and www.trac.syr.edu). Law enforcement executives, public officials, and scholars seeking information on this topic have largely had to rely on media accounts, anecdotal information, and reports by advocacy groups of one stripe or another. To respond to the need for systematic information on this topic, the authors have launched a four-stage project, which includes two rounds of survey research and two rounds of local, in-depth, comparative case studies. Our research is geared toward describing the range of actions local police have taken in regard to unauthorized immigration and ultimately describing the context for these actions. This report presents the initial results of our first These issues include the role of local politics in setting police policy, the relationship of local police departments with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities, the range of variation in local practices and policies, and community relations. The results indicate that local police nationwide survey of police executives in large U.S. cities. We report on several issues. play a critical role in the ways in which local communities relate to immigrants, particularly in their exercise of discretion with regard to immigration enforcement. K2 State Economies Federal control over immigration bogs down state economies and trust in local governments Sucheski 2011 2007 Buck Scholar, Senior Thesis at Claremont McKenna College (Laura, “Immigration and the States: Reinforcing Federalism through Limited Preemption”, pg. 116, http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=cmc_theses)//AN The way in which our legal system distributes authority for immigration regulation and the way in which the costs manifest only on the state level violates the principle of constitutional federalism. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority in New York v. United States, succinctly articulated what it is to violate the constitutional principle of federalism: “Accountability is thus diminished when, due to federal coercion, elected state officials cannot regulate in accordance with the views of the local electorate.”177 Illegal immigration creates a problem that states cannot regulate but that they must pay for, causing voters to hold them accountable for the effects of the problem. Whether the states can pursue a remedy to this problem is another question. The nature of the problem has neutralized the reality of a possible political process solution. Immigrationaffected states’ senators and congressmen represent a small minority in Congress. Overall, Congress is ambivalent when it comes to immigration policy. By passively permitting a great deal of illegal immigration, the economy benefits overall from the induction of lowskilled labor, but existing law allows them to exclude illegal immigrants from federal disbursements. On the state side, the state too benefits from the economic boost but must provide public services with little federal assistance. The effect of this scenario is that voters tend to punish state elected officials for problems they are powerless to control . Pursuing a judicial remedy to this violation of federalism is complicated by several factors inherent in the nature of the problem. First, although “the fiscal impact of immigrants …appears to be the classic example of an unfunded mandate,”178 making the problem effectively similar to one identified in New York v. United States, it is not directly analogous. The federal government’s ineffective immigration enforcement saddled states with the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, but it is not because the government has refused to take legislative action. If the Supreme Court gets involved, they may be excessively burdened with determining the effectiveness of the implementation of any federal law that adversely affects a state. The Court would have to develop a standard to determine the point at which state sovereignty was impermissibly violated. 179 Developing those standards could unduly involve the courts in the political processes, a prospect that neither the courts nor the other branches relish. Furthermore, the Court rejected this line of reasoning in Garcia after experimenting with a standard of “necessary governmental function” following National League of Cities. State-controlled immigration policies key to spur economic development in cities—Detroit proves Wainer and Singer 2014 Senior Immigration Policy Analyst for Bread for the World Institute, Senior fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program (Andrew, Audrey, “Immigration Policy: Is Federalism the Answer?”, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/04/21-immigration-policy-federalismwainer-singer)//AN For those of us tracking immigration policy, the shift is undeniable. With President Obama recently pointing out just how gridlocked a once-promising bipartisan Senate immigration proposal has become, cities and states have become the new immigration-policy innovators. They are filling the void. U.S. immigration policy has been the purview of the federal government for more than a century. But it was not always that way. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, individual states had their own immigration laws. States typically sought to regulate immigrant influxes with policies that reflected particular concern about the arrival of poor European newcomers. Now, immigration policy is, in some ways, returning to its roots. Increasingly, places that want to put out the welcome mat and encourage entrepreneurial activity are sharing ideas. And as a quick federal fix to immigration policy looks like a long shot, local and state proposals are gaining traction. In perhaps the most well-known current example of state-level immigration strategy, Michigan's Republican governor, Rick Snyder, proposed in January bringing 50,000 immigrants to Detroit over five years through a visa program aimed at immigrants with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities in science, business, or the arts. These immigrants would have to live and work in the struggling city. Detroit, a city that lost about 237,500 residents—a full quarter of its population— between 2000 and 2010 alone, needs people. The hope is that immigrant newcomers will occupy empty residential blocks, launch small businesses, and fill both high- and low-skill job niches. Perhaps that's why Snyder's proposal has been endorsed by conservative think tanks and newspapers. But given congressional control over immigration policy, it looks unlikely to become law in the near future. Nevertheless, Snyder's proposal ranks among a growing list of ideas emanating from states and cities seeking ways to manage immigration. In 2013, there was a 64 percent increase in proposed or enacted state laws dealing with immigration, compared with 2012. And that increase follows a doubling of state immigration legislation between 2006 and 2010. Moreover, these initiatives reflect a shift from those focused on immigration enforcement and deflecting immigrants to those that expand state benefits such as extending driver's license eligibility and in-state tuition to unauthorized residents. In the latest state attempt to work around the federal stalemate, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick unveiled the Global Entrepreneur Program that recruits foreign students to stay and work on new start-ups in the state. It exploits an existing loophole in the federal H-1B visa program . State laws can make a difference in the lives of immigrants and their families. In late 2013, California approved the "Trust Act," which directs state law enforcement to expedite the release of detained unauthorized immigrants after they are determined not to have serious criminal records rather than quickly turn them over to federal officials, who can deport them. Implemented in January, the law has already slowed the rate of deportations in California by 44 percent, according to an Associated Press analysis. To craft effective policies, communities must understand the drivers that direct immigrants to certain towns or regions. This is easier said than done. About a decade ago, the Abell Foundation studied the issue for Baltimore and found, "The few comparable cities that reversed their population decline through immigration did not plan their success." Today's immigration is driven by a variety of factors. Recent research released by Bread for the World Institute on "blue-collar" immigrants in Baltimore and Detroit provides some clues about what attracts working-class immigrants to cities. While a reputation as an immigrant-friendly city can't hurt, lower- skilled immigrants who are helping revitalize these cities tend to select a new city to call home based on three primary factors: low housing costs, a plentiful manual-labor job market, and family connections. As one Baltimore-area construction company owner who observed the increase in Latino immigration noted, "Rent was cheap, and the work was there; that's really the bottom line." Family and community connections are also important. Once an immigrant has settled in a U.S. city, it's a safe bet that if others from that person's region, village, or family decide to migrate, they will begin that journey in cities where they know people who can help them find housing or offer them a place to stay, connect them with jobs, and explain the way things work in their new home. Municipalities with large and diverse immigrant populations such as New York are leading the way when it comes to taking economic drivers into account. Its blueprint for immigrant integration includes assistance for immigrant entrepreneurs and employment services for underemployed immigrants with in-demand skills. These practical programs align with most immigrants' primary goal—economic advancement—which can also potentially contribute to a city's economic development. But whatever the configuration of state and municipal immigrantattraction strategies, they are not a substitute for federal legislative action. It is federal, not state or local, policy that controls the laws that allow immigrants to enter the country to live and work. As long as immigration reform remains stuck in Congress, states and cities will continue to generate new policies, for better or for worse. ***Impacts *High Skilled Visas Impact Science Diplomacy Science Diplomacy Good Science diplomacy provides a cooperative framework to avoid conflict Royal Society, 10 – a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine (January, 2010, “New frontiers in science diplomacy” https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/new-frontiers-sciencediplomacy/)//gingE Science diplomacy is not new, but it has never been more important . Many of the defining challenges of the 21st century— from climate change and food security, to poverty reduction and nuclear disarmament—have scientific dimensions. No one country will be able to solve these problems on its own. The tools, techniques and tactics of foreign policy need to adapt to a world of increasing scientific and technical complexity. There are strong foundations on which to renew momentum for science diplomacy. Advances in science have long relied on international flows of people and ideas. To give an example close to home, the post of Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society was instituted in 1723, nearly 60 years before the British Government appointed its first Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Throughout the Cold War, scientific organisations were an important conduit for informal discussion of nuclear issues between the United States and the Soviet Union. Today, science offers alternative channels of engagement with countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The potential contribution of science to foreign policy is attracting more attention in several countries. In the UK, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently called for a ‘new role for science in international policymaking and diplomacy’ (Brown 2009). This report attempts to define this role, and to demonstrate how scientists, diplomats and other policymakers can make it work in practice. The report is based on the evidence gathered at a two-day meeting on ‘New frontiers in science diplomacy’, which was hosted by the Royal Society from 1_2 June 2009, in partnership with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The meeting was attended by almost 200 delegates from twenty countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North and South America. Attendees included government ministers, scientists, diplomats, policymakers, business leaders and journalists (see Appendix 1 for the meeting agenda). Three dimensions of science diplomacy Drawing on historical and contemporary examples, the meeting explored how science can contribute to foreign policy objectives. Key points to emerge from the discussion include: • ‘Science diplomacy’ is still a fluid concept, but can usefully be applied to the role of science, technology and innovation in three dimensions of policy: The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I v � informing foreign policy objectives • with scientific advice (science in diplomacy); � facilitating international science cooperation (diplomacy for science); � using science cooperation to improve international relations between countries (science for diplomacy). • Scientific values of rationality, transparency and universality are the same the world over. They can help to underpin good governance and build trust between nations. Science provides a non-ideological environment for the participation and free exchange of ideas between people, regardless of cultural, national or religious backgrounds. • Science is a source of what Joseph Nye, the former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, terms ‘soft power’ (Nye 2004). The scientific community often works beyond national boundaries on problems of common interest, so is well placed to support emerging forms of diplomacy that require non- traditional alliances of nations, sectors and non-governmental organisations. If aligned with wider foreign policy goals, these channels of scientific exchange can contribute to coalition- building and conflict resolution. Cooperation on the scientific aspects of sensitive issues—such as nuclear non-proliferation—can sometimes provide an effective route to other forms of political dialogue. vi I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society Science diplomacy seeks to strengthen the symbiosis between the interests and motivations of the scientific and foreign policy communities. For the former, international cooperation is often driven by a desire to access the best people, research facilities or new sources of funding. For the latter, science offers potentially useful networks and channels of communi- cation that can be used to support wider policy goals. But it is important that scientific and diplomatic goals remain clearly defined, to avoid the undue politicisation of science. • Foreign ministries should place greater emphasis on science within their strategies, and draw more extensively on scientific advice in the formation and delivery of policy objectives. In the UK, the appointment of Professor David Clary FRS as the Chief Scientific Adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office creates an important opportunity to integrate science across FCO priorities, and develop stronger linkages with science-related policies in other government departments. • Regulatory barriers, such as visa restrictions and security controls, can also be a practical constraint to science diplomacy. Immediately after September 11 2001, the imposition of stringent travel and visa regimes in countries like the US and the UK severely limited opportunities for visiting scientists and scholars, particularly from Islamic countries. Whilst the strictest controls have since been lifted, the value of scientific partnerships means that further reforms may be needed. • Scientific organisations, including national academies, also have an important role to play in science diplomacy, particularly when formal political relationships are weak or strained. The scientific community may be able to broker new or different types of partnerships. The range of actors involved in these efforts should expand to include non-governmental organisations, multilateral agencies and other informal networks. • There need to be more effective mechanisms and spaces for dialogue between policymakers, academics and researchers working in the foreign policy and scientific communities, to identify projects and processes that can further the interests of both communities. Foreign policy institutions and think tanks can offer leadership here, by devoting intellectual resources to science as an important component of modern day diplomacy. • Science diplomacy needs support and encouragement at all levels of the science community. Younger scientists need opportunities and career incentives to engage with policy debates from the earliest stage of their careers. There is much to learn from related debates over science communication and public engagement by scientists, where there has been a culture change within science over the past ten years. • Three immediate areas of opportunity for science diplomacy were highlighted at the meeting: � New scientific partnerships with the Middle East and wider Islamic world A new initiative to support these efforts, ‘The Atlas of Islamic-World Science and Innovation’, was announced at the meeting, with partners including the Royal Society, Organisation of Islamic Conference, Nature, the British Council and the International Development Research Centre (see Case study 1). � Confidence building and nuclear disarmament The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I vii � With the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) taking place in May 2010, it is timely to consider how cooperation on the scientific aspects of nuclear disarmament could support the wider diplomatic process. Governance of international spaces International spaces beyond national jurisdictions – including Antarctica, the high seas, the deep sea and outer space – cannot be managed through conventional models of governance and diplomacy, and will require flexible approaches to international cooperation, informed by scientific evidence and underpinned by practical scientific partnerships (see Case study 2). Key to cooperation with other countries Royal Society, 10 – a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine (January, 2010, “New frontiers in science diplomacy” https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/new-frontiers-sciencediplomacy/)//gingE ‘International scientific and engineering collaboration is imperative to meet global challenges. Models of international scientific collaboration can lead the way for international diplomacy and policy.’ Professor John Beddington FRS, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government The second dimension of science diplomacy—diplomacy for science—seeks to facilitate international cooperation, whether in pursuit of top-down strategic priorities for research or bottom-up collaboration between individual scientists and researchers. Flagship international projects, such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are one approach. These projects carry enormous costs and risks, but are increasingly vital in areas of science which require large upfront investments in infrastructure, beyond the budget of any one country . However, such projects are the visible tip of a large iceberg of everyday, bottom-up collaboration that takes place between individual scientists and institutions. The stereotype of the scientist as a lone genius no longer holds true. The scientific enterprise is now premised on the need to collaborate and connect. Globally there is ‘an invisible college of researchers who collaborate not because they are told to but because they want to ... because they can offer each other complementary insight, knowledge or skills’ (Wagner 2008). Collaborations are no longer based purely on historical, institutional or cultural links. This creates an opportunity for the foreign policy community. Science can be a bridge to communities where political ties are weaker, but to develop relationships in these areas, scientists may require diplomatic assistance, whether in contract negotiations, intellectual property agreements or dealing with visa regulations. Many countries conduct bilateral summits specifically on science issues, in order to establish government-level agreements on joint funding and facilitation of research. The UK, for example, has regular high-level meetings on science and innovation with Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa and South Korea. These are not only symbolic of cordial relations, but they provide an overarching framework within which scientists can work together. For the UK, these processes have resulted in a number of successful funding initiatives, including the UK-India Education and Research Initiative and the Science Bridges schemes with China, India and the US. Research Councils UK (RCUK) has also opened offices in Beijing, Brussels, New Delhi and Washington DC as part of the UK’s efforts to drive bilateral research with strategic countries. Global policy challenges must be addressed in a holistic way, drawing not only on science and technology, but also on economic, social, political and behavioural sciences. Interdisciplinary collaboration will be crucial, as illustrated by the recent consultation by the International Council on Science (ICSU) on the future of earth system research, which highlighted ‘the complex inter-relationships between biological, geochemical, climate and social systems’ and suggested that ‘natural science should no longer dictate the Earth system research agenda; social science will be at least as important in its next phase’ (Reid et al. 2009). Competition hasn’t gone away: the growing scientific capabilities of China, India, Brazil and others will challenge Europe and the US in some areas. But it is short sighted to view these developments primarily as a threat. As science and innovation capabilities grow worldwide, a central question is whether more defensive, national strategies gather momentum, or whether the countervailing impulse towards global collaboration will prove stronger. Efforts to strengthen national science and innovation systems remain vital, but must increasingly be accompanied by more creative and better- resourced mechanisms for orchestrating research across international networks in pursuit of shared goals— such as tackling climate change, food and energy security. The Large Hadron Collider is an excellent example of what countries can achieve by working together: a scale of scientific investment and ambition that no one country could manage alone. Instability coming now—science diplomacy increases soft power that’s necessary to prevent military conflict Royal Society, 10 – a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine (January, 2010, “New frontiers in science diplomacy” https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/new-frontiers-sciencediplomacy/)//gingE ‘Science diplomacy and science and technology cooperation . . . is one of our most effective ways of influencing and assisting other nations and creating real bridges between the United States and counterparts.’ Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State A third dimension of science diplomacy is science for diplomacy. Joseph Nye, former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University famously distinguished between ‘hard power’, which uses military and economic means to coerce the behaviour of other nations, and ‘soft power’, which builds on common interests and values to attract, persuade and influence (Nye 2004). Science has always played a role in the development of hard power capabilities, such as military technologies. But science for diplomacy primarily draws on the ‘soft power’ of science: its attractiveness and influence both as a national asset, and as a universal activity that transcends national interests. The soft power of science interacts with international relations in several ways, ranging from cultural diplomacy to more traditional forms of negotiation and mediation (see Figure 1). Types of science for diplomacy include: • Science cooperation agreements, which have long been used to symbolise improving political relations, for example between the US, USSR and China in the 1970s and 1980s. A scientific agreement was the first bilateral treaty to be agreed between the US and Libya in 2004, after Libya gave up its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes. • New institutions can be created to reflect the goals of science for diplomacy. Perhaps the best example is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), which was founded after World War II to help rebuild bridges between nations. CERN enabled some of the first post-war contacts between German and Israeli scientists, and kept open scientific relations with Russia and other Eastern bloc countries during the Cold War. • Educational scholarships are a well- established mechanism for network- building and encouraging partnerships. For example, the Royal Society runs the Newton International Fellowships scheme, in partnership with the Royal Academy of Engineering and British Academy, to select the best early stage post-doctoral researchers from around the world, and offer them long-term support to sustain relations with institutions in the UK.7 • ‘Track two’ diplomacy can be used to involve those working outside an official negotiation or mediation process, including scientists and other academics. To be effective, it requires outside participants who remain credible and influential. Official ‘track one’ processes must also recognise the role of track two efforts. For example, it was openly acknowledged during the Cold War meetings between national academies that both sides would report back to their political leaders. • Science festivals and exhibitions, particularly linked to the history of science, can be an effective platform from which to emphasise the universality of science, and common cultural interests. China, India, Iran and other Islamic countries are particularly proud of their contributions to the history of science (see Case study 1). 4.1 New dimensions of international security Cooperation on the scientific aspects of sensitive issues may sometimes be the only way to initiate a wider political dialogue. The soft power of science, and the universality of scientific methods, can be used to diffuse tensions even in ‘hard power’ scenarios , such as those relating to traditional military threats. For example, technologies to verify nuclear arms control agreements were a rare focus of joint working between the US and USSR during the Cold War. Lessons from the Cold War are once again highly pertinent. In the run-up to the May 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nuclear disarmament is firmly back on the international agenda. However, the timescale for disarmament is long, as illustrated by the history of negotiations over the Chemical Weapons Convention. After the Geneva Convention banned the use of chemical weapons in 1925, negotiations for a treaty banning their production and stockpiling did not start until the 1980s, and the convention entered into force only in 1997. Even now, stockpiles of chemical weapons in the US and Russia have yet to be destroyed. So focusing in 2010 on the challenges of the final stages of a nuclear disarmament proc ess may be premature. A more practical next step could be to establish the scientific requirements for the verification regime necessary to support future stages of negotiation (Pregenzer 2008). In 2008, the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that a high-level Intergovernmental Panel on Nuclear Disarmament could be established (based on the model of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This panel could begin by identifying the scientific and technical aspects of disarmament, and then set out a research agenda necessary to achieve them. International cooperation would be essential, both between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, as all would need to have confidence that Figure 2. Multiple stress zones. reductions are taking place. The recent initiative between the UK and Norwegian governments on disarmament verification sets a precedent here, and could be expanded to include additional States (VERTIC 2009). However, security threats now extend beyond the military domain, with environmental security attracting particular attention (Abbott C, Rogers P & Sloboda S 2007). Essential resources, such as freshwater, cultivable land, crop yields and fish stocks, are likely to become scarcer in many parts of the world, increasing the risk of competition over resources within and between states (UNEP 2009). This could intensify as previously inaccessible regions, such as the Arctic Ocean, open up as a consequence of climate change and ice melt. Substantial parts of the world also risk being left uninhabitable by rising sea levels, reduced freshwater availability or declining agricultural capacity. Many of the regions that are vulnerable to the impacts of these multiple stresses are already the locus of existing instability and conflict (see Figure 2). Science diplomacy key to reversing all existential impacts Sackett, 10 – former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program Director at the NSF, PhD in theoretical physics (Penny, August 10, 2010, “Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,” Forum for Australian-European Science and Technology cooperation magazine, http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2010/08/science-diplomacy-collaboration-forsolutions/)//gingE Imagine for a moment that the globe is inhabited by a single individual who roams free across outback plains, through rainforests, across pure white beaches — living off the resources available. Picture the immensity of the world surrounding this one person and ask yourself, what possible impact could this single person have on the planet? Now turn your attention to today’s reality. Almost 7 billion people inhabit the planet and this number increases at an average of a little over one per cent per year. That’s about 2 more mouths to feed every second. Do these 7 billion people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An irreversible impact? Probably. Taken together this huge number of people has managed to change the face of the Earth and threaten the very systems that support them. We are now embarked on a trajectory that, if unchecked, will certainly have detrimental impacts on our way of life and to natural ecosystems. Some of these are irreversible, including the extinction of many species. But returning to that single individual, surely two things are true. A single person could not have caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated problems. The message here is that the human-induced global problems that confront us cannot be solved by any one individual, group, agency or nation. It will take a large collective effort to change the course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is facing several mammoth challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants. Wicked problems such as climate change, over-population, disease, and food, water and energy security require concerted efforts and worldwide collaboration to find and implement effective, ethical and sustainable solutions. These are no longer solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions must be viable in the larger context of the global economy, global unrest and global inequality. Common understandings and commitment to action are required between individuals, within communities and across international networks. Science can play a special role in international relations. Its participants share a common language that transcends mother tongue and borders. For centuries scientists have corresponded and collaborated on international scales in order to arrive at a better and common understanding of the natural and human world. Values integral to science such as transparency, vigorous inquiry and informed debate also support effective international relation practices. Furthermore, given the longestablished global trade of scientific information and results, many important international links are already in place at a scientific level. These links can lead to coalition-building, trust and cooperation on sensitive scientific issues which, when supported at a political level, can provide a ‘soft politics’ route to other policy dialogues. That is, if nations are already working together on global science issues, they may be more likely to be open to collaboration on other global issues such as trade and security. Many countries have recognised the value of science diplomacy. Cyber Security US cybersecurity is low—high skilled workers are crucial to solve—visas are key Gjelten 2010 (Tom, Correspondent – NPR, "Cyberwarrior Shortage Threatens U.S. Security", NPR)//AN There may be no country on the planet more vulnerable to a massive cyberattack than the United States, where financial, transportation, telecommunications and even military operations are now deeply dependent on data networking. A shadowy hand hovers over a computer keyboard.i U.S. industry, government and military operations are all at risk of an attack on complex computer systems, analysts warn. What's worse: U.S. security officials say the country's cyberdefenses are not up to the challenge. In part, it's due to a severe shortage of computer security specialists and engineers with the skills and knowledge necessary to do battle against would-be adversaries. The protection of U.S. computer systems essentially requires an army of cyberwarriors, but the recruitment of that force is suffering. "We don't have sufficiently bright people moving into this field to support those national security objectives as If U.S. cyberdefenses are to be improved, more people like Gosler will be needed on the front lines. Gosler, 58, works we move forward in time," says James Gosler, a veteran cybersecurity specialist who has worked at the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Energy Department. at the Energy Department's Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M., where he focuses on ways to counter efforts to penetrate U.S. data networks. It's an ever-increasing challenge. "You can have vulnerabilities in the fundamentals of the technology, you can have vulnerabilities introduced based on how that technology is implemented, and you can have vulnerabilities introduced through the artificial applications that are built on that fundamental technology," Gosler says. " It takes a very skilled person to operate at that level, and we don't have enough of them." Web Resources CSIS Report On Cybersecurity Gosler estimates there are now only 1,000 people in the entire United States with the sophisticated skills needed for the most demanding cyberdefense tasks. To meet the computer security needs of U.S. government agencies and large corporations, he says, a force of 20,000 to 30,000 similarly skilled specialists is needed. Some are currently being trained at the nonprofit SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security) Institute outside Washington, D.C., but the demand for qualified cybersecurity specialists far exceeds the supply. Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell INTELLIGENCE SQUARED U.S. Has The Cyberwar Threat Been Exaggerated? "You go looking for those people, but everybody else is looking for the same thousand people," says SANS Research Director Alan Paller. "So they're just being pushed around from NSA to CIA to DHS to Boeing. It's a mess." The Center for Strategic and International Studies highlights the problem in a forthcoming report, "A Human Capital Crisis in Cybersecurity." According to the report, a key element of a "robust" cybersecurity strategy is "having the right people at every level to identify, build and staff the defenses and responses." The CSIS report highlights a "desperate shortage" of people with the skills to "design secure systems, write safe computer code, and create the ever more sophisticated tools needed to prevent, detect, mitigate and reconstitute from damage due to system failures and malicious acts." U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team/National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Centeri The U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team/National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center is designed to help protect the technical infrastructure of the United States. Win McNamee/Getty cyber manpower crisis in the United States stands in sharp contrast to the situation in China, where the training of computer experts is a top national priority. In the most recent round of the International Collegiate Programming Contest, co-sponsored by IBM and the Association for Computing Machinery, Chinese universities took four of the top 10 places. No U.S. university made the list. The Chinese government, in fact, appears to be systematically building a cyberwarrior force. "Every military district of the Images The Peoples' Liberation Army runs a competition every spring," says Alan Paller of SANS, "and they search for kids who might have gotten caught hacking." One of the Chinese youths who won that competition had earlier been caught hacking into a Japanese computer, according to Paller, only to be rewarded with extra training. "Later that year, we found him hacking into the Pentagon," Paller says. "So they find them, they train them, and they get them into operation very, very fast." Some members of Congress, eager to follow China's example, are now promoting a U.S. Cyber Challenge, a national talent search at the high school level. The aim is to find up to 10,000 potential cyberwarriors, ready to play both offense and defense. "The idea is for schools around the country to field teams, and the teams would compete against one another," says Sen. Thomas Carper, a Delaware Democrat who is one of the backers of the effort. He sees the challenge as an opportunity "not only for them to hone their skills on being able to hack into other systems, particularly those of folks we may not be fond of, but also to use what they learn to strengthen our defenses." In order to protect a computer system, one needs to know how someone might attack it. Last year's preliminary Cyber Challenge game was won by a 17-year-old from Connecticut — Michael Coppola — who was smart enough to hack into the game computer and add points to his own score. "There's actually a flaw within that Web application," Coppola says. "Using that, I was able to execute commands on the computer running the scoring software, and I was able to add points and basically do whatever I wanted." It was certainly an unconventional approach, but the competition judges were so impressed by Coppola's ability to hack into the computer game that they actually rewarded him for changing his score. "It's cheating," Michael says, "but it's like the entire game is cheating." Indeed. People who know how to cheat will soon be on the front lines of cyber defense, because the best way to defend a computer system from attack is to figure out how an adversary would be able to hack into it. Now 18, Coppola is himself looking to a career in cybersecurity. US is extremely vulnerable to cyber attacks on power grids—most recent evidence proves Inquisitr 6/30/15 News Agency (“Power Grid Vulnerable To Cyber Attack, Former Defense Secretary Says”, http://www.inquisitr.com/2213678/power-grid-vulnerable-to-cyber-attackformer-defense-secretary-says/)//AN power grid is vulnerable to a terrorist attack, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen said. A direct assault on the electrical system would cause chaos and civil unrest throughout the country, the former government official said. The Natural disasters, such as Carrington Event-level solar flares, could also take down the power delivery system nationwide. William Cohen was a Republican Senator from Maine and is currently serving as the CEO and chairman of The Cohen Group. Cohen recently released a new thriller, Collision, which is published by Forge Books. Cohen served as destruction of the power grid by terrorists would not necessarily have to involve an EMP attack, according to Cohen. “ You can do it through cyber attacks , and that’s the real threat coming up as well. We have to look at cyber attacks being able to shut down our power grid, which you have to remember is in the private sector’s hands, not the government’s. And we’re Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton from 1997-2001. The vulnerable,” the former Secretary of Defense added. “It’s possible and whether it’s likely to happen soon remains to be seen.” As previously reported by the Inquisitr, former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that a cyber attack on the power grid was a matter of “when,” not “if.” Former senior CIA analyst and EMP Task Force On National Homeland Security Director, Dr. Department of Peter Vincent Pry, told Newsmax TV that that America is a “sitting duck” for a terror attack that could completely destroy the power grid and take the lives of every nine out of ten Americans in the process. William Cohen detailed the power grid threats and what role modern technology could play in a terror attack that would leave all of America sitting in the dark. “That’s because the technology continues to expand and terrorism has become democratized. Many, many people across the globe now have access to information which allows them to be able to put together a very destructive means of carrying out their terrorist plans. We’re better at detecting than we were in the past. We’re much more focused in integrating and sharing the information that we have, but we’re still vulnerable and we’ll continue to be vulnerable as long as groups can operate either on the margins or covertly to build these kind of campaigns of terror.” The American Society of Civil ASCE) reviewed the soundness and functionality of the power grid, and gave the vital piece of infrastructure a barely passing grade of “D+.” The rating means the power grid is in “poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” The ASCE review also revealed that a “large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration” with a “strong risk of failure.” Do you think enough attention and funds are being given in Engineers ( order to the secure the power grid? Grid collapse causes nuclear meltdowns—causes extinction Drell, 9 Professor emeritus of theoretical physics at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and Science Advisory Committee, 12 (THE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE High-Consequence Accidents: How to Enhance Safety and Minimize Risks in Nuclear Weapons and Reactors, pg. 1-3) We live in dangerous times for many reasons. Prominent among them is the existence of a global nuclear enterprise made up of weapons that can cause damage of unimaginable proportions and power plants at which accidents can have severe , essentially unpredictable consequences for human life. For all of its utility and promise, the nuclear enterprise is unique in the enormity of the vast quantities of destructive energy that can be released through blast, heat, and radioactivity. We addressed just this subject in a conference in October 2011 at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. The complete set of papers prepared for the conference is reproduced in this book. The conference included experts on weapons, on power plants, on regulatory experience, and on the development of public perceptions and the ways in which these perceptions influence policy7. The reassuring outcome of the conference was a general sense that the U.S. nuclear enterprise currently meets very high standards in its commitment to safety and security. That has not always been the case in all aspects of the nuclear enterprise. And the unsettling outcome of the conference was that it will not be the case globally unless governments, international organizations, industry7, and media recognize and address the nuclear challenges and mounting risks posed by a rapidly changing world. The acceptance of the nuclear enterprise is now being challenged by concerns about the questionable safety and security of programs primarily in countries relatively new to the nuclear enterprise, and the potential loss of control to terrorist or criminal gangs of fissile material that exists in such abundance around the world. In a number of countries, confidence in nuclear energy production was severely shaken in the spring of 2011 by the Fukushima nuclear reactor plant disaster. And in the military sphere, the doctrine of deterrence that remains primarily dependent on nuclear weapons is seen in decline due to the importance of non-state actors such as al Qaeda When risks and consequences are unknown, undervalued, or ignored, our nation and the world are dangerously vulnerable. Nowhere is this risk-consequence equation more relevant than with respect to the nucleus of the atom. The nuclear enterprise was introduced to the world by the shock of the devastation and terrorist affiliates that seek destruction for destruction's sake. We have two nuclear tigers by the tail. produced by two atomic bombs hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern nuclear weapons are far more powerful than those early bombs, which presented their own hazards. Early research depended on a program of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. In the early years following World War II, the impact and the amount of radioactive fallout in the atmosphere generated by above-ground nuclear explosions was not fully appreciated. During those years, the United States and also the Soviet Union conducted several hundred tests in the atmosphere that created fallout. The recent Stanford conference focused on a regulatory weak point from that time that exists in many places today, as the Fukushima disaster clearly indicates. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was initially assigned conflicting responsibilities: to create an arsenal of nuclear weapons for the United States to confront a growing nuclear-armed Soviet threat; and, at the same time, to ensure public safety from the effects of radioactive fallout. The AEC was faced with the same conundrum with regard to civilian nuclear power generation. It was charged with promoting civilian nuclear power and simultaneously protecting the public. Progress came in 1963 with the negotiation and signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) banning all nuclear explosive testing in the atmosphere (initially by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom). With the successful safety7 record of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, domestic anxiety about nuclear weapons receded somewhat. Meanwhile, public attitudes toward nuclear weapons reflected recognition of their key role in establishing a more stable nuclear deterrent posture in the confrontation with the Soviet Union. The positive record on safety of the nuclear weapons enterprise in the United States—there have been accidents involving nuclear weapons, but none that led to the release of nuclear energy—was the result of a strong effort and continuing commitment to include safety as a primary criterion in new weapons designs, as well as careful production, handling, and deployment procedures. The key to the health of today's nuclear weapons enterprise is confidence in the safety7 of its operations and in the protection of special nuclear materials against theft. One can imagine how different the situation would be today if there had been a recognized theft of material sufficient for a bomb, or if one of the two four-megaton bombs dropped from a disabled B-52 Strategic Air Command bomber overflying Goldsboro, North Carolina, in 1961 had detonated. In that event, just one switch in the arming sequence of one of the bombs, by remaining in its "off position" while the aircraft was disintegrating, was all that prevented a full-yield nuclear explosion. A close call indeed! In the twenty-six years since Chernobyl, the nuclear power industry has strengthened its safety practices. Over the past decade, growing concerns about global warming and energy independence have actually strengthened support for nuclear energy in the United States and many nations around the world. Yet despite these trends, the civil nuclear enterprise remains fragile. Following Fukushima, opinion polls gave stark evidence of the public's deep fears of the invisible force of nuclear radiation, shown by public opposition to the construction of new nuclear power plants in close proximity. It is not simply a matter of getting better information to the public but of actually educating the public about the true nature of nuclear radiation and its risks. Of course, the immediate task of the nuclear power component of the enterprise is to strive for the best possible safety record with one overriding objective: no more Fukushimas. Another issue that must be resolved involves the continued effectiveness of a policy of deterrence that remains primarily dependent upon nuclear weapons, and the hazards these weapons pose due to the spread of nuclear technology and material. There is growing apprehension about the determination of terrorists to get their hands on weapons or, for that matter, on the special nuclear material—plutonium and highly enriched uranium—that fuels them in the most challenging step toward developing a weapon. The global effects of a regional war between nuclear-armed adversaries such as India and Pakistan would also wield an enormous impact, potentially involving radioactive fallout at large distances caused by a limited number of nuclear explosions. This is true as well for nuclear radiation from a reactor explosion—fallout at large distances would have a serious societal impact on the nuclear enterprise. There is little understanding of the reality and potential danger of consequences if such an event were to occur halfway around the world. An effort should be made to prepare the public by providing information on how to respond to such an event. Space Colonization/Asteroids Restrictive Visa policies bog down international cooperation over space policy—that decks any chance of space col or productive scientific progress Abbey and Lane 2005 Senior Fellow in Space Policy – Baker Institute and Neal, Professor of Physics – Rice University (George and Neal, “United States Space Policy Challenges and Opportunities”, https://www.amacad.org/publications/spacePolicy.pdf)//AN foreign-born individuals are an integral part of the continued success of the U nited S tates in scientific and technological endeavors, export controls inhibit precisely the type of study that attracts these talented individuals and the research collaboration that benefits U.S. science and technology. While not the subject of this paper, the cumbersome and slow visa approval process compounds the problem by making it much less attractive for foreigners to come to the United States to study, attend conferences, or collaborate on research projects. In a survey of 126 institutions released in October of 2004, the Council of Graduate Schools found an 18-percent decrease in admissions of foreign graduate students in the fall of Though these 2004 compared with the fall of 2003. The graduate school council expected actual enrollments of new foreign graduate students to be down by an amount similar to the 18-percent fall in admissions.16The NSB identifies three possible outcomes of these trends in the growth and composition of the S&E workforce: “The number of jobs in the U.S. economy that require science and engineering training will grow; the the availability of people from other countries who have science and engineering training will decline, either because of visa restrictions or number of U.S. citizens prepared for those jobs will, at best, be level; and because of intense global competition for people with these skills.”17 The NSB report also notes that actions taken today to alter trends in the U.S. S&E workforce may require 10 to 20 years to take effect. “The students entering the science and engineering workforce in 2004 with advanced degrees decided to take the necessary math courses to enable this career path when they were in middle school, up to 14 years ago. The students making that same decision in middle school today won’t complete advanced training for science and engineering occupations until 2018 or 2020. If action is not taken now to change these trends, we the ability of U.S. research and education institutions to regenerate has been damaged and that their preeminence has been lost to other areas of the world.”18 Comparison between the U.S. and other industrial nations, as shown in Table 2, clearly illustrates this critical national problem. Concurrent with these educational challenges, the United States faces daunting demographic shifts. The American workforce is aging; over the past 20 years the primeage (25–56) workforce grew 44 percent, but it will have zero growth over the next twenty years .19 In addition, the increase in the share of workers with could reach 2020 and find that post–high school education grew 19 percent during the last twenty years and is projected to grow only 4 percent over the next twenty years. These statistics, when compared to numbers from the NSB’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, raise concern about future S&E needs. The report notes that the number of jobs requiring S&E skills in the U.S. labor force is growing almost 5 percent per year. By comparison, the rest of the labor force is growing at just over 1 percent. Before September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projected that S&E occupations would increase at three times the rate of all occupations. The rise projected by the BLS was 2.2 million, representing a 47-percent increase in the number of S&E jobs by 2010. The rates of increase between 1980 and 2000 ranged from 18 percent for the life sciences to 123 Many of those who entered the expanding S&E workforce in the 1960s and 1970s (the baby boom generation) are expected to retire in the next 20 years. The children of that percent for jobs in math and computer science.20 The average age of the S&E workforce is rising. generation are not choosing careers in S&E in the same numbers as their parents. During the 1950s and 60s, the U.S. government invested heavily in research and development (R&D). Government research laboratories and agencies conducted a substantial amount of in-house research. This led to the creation of a workforce with significant technical and management capabilities. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics had outstanding technical skills and potential. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency, formed with Werner Von Braun and his team of scientists and engineers, was equally well qualified. These two groups there was a highly qualified workforce that had conducted aeronautical research from the end of World War II through the 1960s. They pushed the limits of aeronautical research with their aircraft and research vehicles and arrived at the edge of space with the X-15. NASA grew to approximately 36,000 employees during the 1960s. That organization today employs approximately 18,000 people. Over the past few years, the aerospace industry has been unable to develop the experienced workforce that they had during the 1960s due to consolidations and the absence of new programs . These are important factors in assessing whether the skill base exists to implement a major new space program. THE formed the nucleus of NASA. Within the contractor community, THIRD BARRIER: INADEQUATE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF NASA AND THE U.S. CIVILIAN SPACE PROGRAM President George W. Bush, in his speech of January 14, 2004, proposed that NASA refocus its programs and resources with the objective of returninghumans to the Moon and plan for the prospect of humans going to Mars sometime in the distant future.21 The plan, “Vision for Space Exploration” (referred to here as the “NASA Plan”) has three goals: 1. Complete the International Space Station by 2010. 2. Develop and test a new spacecraft by 2008 and conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. 3. Return to the Moon by 2020, as a launching point for missions beyond. President George W. Bush’s NASA Plan, which echoed that of President George H. W. Bush over a decade before, is bold by any measure. It is also incomplete and unrealistic. It is incomplete, in part, because it raises serious questions about the future commitment of the United States to astronomy and to planetary, earth, and space science. It is unrealistic from the perspectives of cost, timetable, and technological capability. It raises expectations that are not matched by the Administration’s commitments. Indeed, pursuit of the NASA Plan, as formulated, is likely to result in substantial harm to the U.S. space program. The first part of the NASA Plan, as proposed, was to be funded by adding $1 billion to the NASA budget over five years, and reallocating $11 billion from within the NASA budget during the same time frame. These amounts were within the annual 5 percent increase the current Administration planned to add to the NASA base budget (approximately $15 billion) starting in fiscal year 2005. This budget, however, was very small in comparison to the cost of going to the Moon with the Apollo program. The cost of the Apollo program was approximately $25 billion in 1960 dollars or $125 billion in 2004 dollars, and the objectives of the NASA Plan are, in many ways, no less challenging. The U.S. Congress has made clear with its NASA appropriation for fiscal year 2005 that it has serious questions about the NASA Plan. Moreover, The G.W. Bush Administration’s budget request for the fiscal year 2006 falls over $500 million short of what the President committed when he announced his plan. Over the period 2006–2009, the Administration’s out-year projections fall $2.5 billion short of what NASA has said would be required to implement the plan. It is clear space science is given a low priority . While the overall NASA budget increases by 2.4 percent, the basic research portion is cut by 7 percent. NASA’s contributions to interagency initiatives are also cut: Nanotechnology by 22 percent, Networking and Information Technology R&D by 70 percent, and the Climate Change Science Program by 8 percent. Even with these dramatic cuts in science programs, and equally alarming cuts in Earth observations, which are vital to weather and climate forecasting, the NASA budget will not allow for serious progress toward the ambitious mission to send humans to the Moon, then eventually to Mars. Nonetheless, the NASA Plan will continue to shape that in the 2006 budget, the debate over space policy. NASA has reorganized itself and begun to implement the early phases of the plan. There are many in Congress who will continue to push for some of the elements of the NASA Plan regardless of future White House policy. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the NASA Plan, as currently described by the agency, is the plan for U.S. space science and human exploration. These concerns and criticisms are offered in the hope that a new, more realistic, and better-balanced plan will emerge.22 Space-Based Science The NASA Plan redirects NASA’s science program in ways that might entail serious consequences. Although it makes sense to focus research carried out on the space station on the long-term effects of zero gravity and radiation on the human body, eliminating all other research is shortsighted. Of equal concern, the under-funding of other elements of the ambitious NASA Plan is likely to cut deeply into all NASA research programs. Science has been fundamental to NASA’s success in advancing human understanding of the universe, the solar system, and the Earth, and in providing the knowledge and technology that enable human exploration of space. Unless NASA asserts that science is one of its highest priorities, it will be relegated, in Washington parlance, to the “to be protected” category, rather than remaining in the “to be enhanced” unique contributions that NASA can make to astronomy and to planetary, earth, and space science will be lost , and America will no longer occupy its leadership role in these frontier areas of science. column. Any rational and truly visionary plan for NASA’s future should specify science, including robotic exploration of space, as one of NASA’s principal goals. Otherwise, the Actions taken by the NASA leadership in the latter part of 2004 and early 2005, following the controversial early cancellation of the Hubble telescope repair mission, particularly the budgetary tradeoffs necessary to even begin to follow the NASA Plan, make clear that science is already a lower priority. The cuts in President Bush’s 2006 request for NASA, described above, only confirm the future downward spiral for science. This is the wrong direction for NASA and for the United States. Earth Observations NASA’s Earth Observation System (EOS) missions have contributed not only to increased scientific understanding of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, but they have also been critically important to weather prediction, hurricane tracking, response to natural disasters, and many other societal applications. Planning has been underway for several years for a post-EOS era in Earthobservation and a corresponding set of missions. Unfortunately, the redirection of NASA priorities toward human exploration of the Moon and Mars has resulted in delays or cancellations of many critical Earth-observation missions, including the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, a follow-on to Landsat 7, the Glory mission to measure aerosols, the Geostationary Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS), and others. The ongoing NASA road-mapping exercise will likely propose new Earth-observation missions. In addition, a National Research Council decadal study of “Earth Science and Applications from Space” has been launched at the request of NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This study is expected to make recommendations on future Earth-observation missions. An interim report, “Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation,” was released in April 2005. However, the Administration’s budget projections for the next several years, coupled with the redirection of priorities toward human exploration, present a serious obstacle to future earth science and applications missions.There are other troubling aspects of the NASA Plan that require clarification. The Space Shuttle is to be returned to flight as soon as possible, when the safety concerns recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board have been addressed. According to the plan, the shuttle’s chief purpose is to assemble the International Space Station. In 2010, the Shuttle is to be retired. There are a number of serious difficulties with this part of the plan. The space station’s full potential will be realized when it is completely assembled and when all of the modules, including those of our international partners, are in orbit. To accomplish meaningful science, the station requires both up-mass (delivering payloads from Earth to orbit) and down-mass (returning payloads from orbit to Earth) capability. If the shuttle is retired in 2010, that down-mass capability will clearly be unavailable. There is no space vehicle other than the shuttle that has significant down-mass capability, nor are there plans for such a vehicle. Moreover, if the space station is to produce serious scientific research, it must have larger crews. Crew size is limited by accommodations and supplies, as well as by crew-escape capability. If NASA retires the shuttle, crew-escape capability will rely solely on Russian Soyuz spacecraft, which can provide escape capability only for a crew of three. Increasing the size of the crew, above the present two or three, will require an additional Soyuz spacecraft, as no other available vehicle can take its place. All partners are aware of these constraints, and the source of funding for the additional spacecraft is unclear. The United States is expected to contribute to the cost of additional transportation to and from the space station, but the Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2000 directly affects cooperation between the United States and Russia and limits U.S. ability to fund additional Soyuz vehicles. The French are already working with the Russians toestablish a Soyuz capability in Korau, French Guinea. With that capability, Europeans will no longer be as dependent on the United States for human access to space. Beyond 2010, when the shuttle is supposed to be permanently grounded, U.S. participation in the space station is also in question. Because the NASA Plan’s proposed new manned space vehicle is scheduled to begin flight no earlier than 2014, there will be a gap in the U.S. human space-flight program. The United States should recognize the critical support that Russia provides for the space station and direct funding to Russia to maintain the station and its crew. The United States and Russia should reach an agreement on the additional Soyuz vehicles required for the program. All partners should agree on a schedule for increasing the crew size to the planned six or seven astronauts and cosmonauts. Russia has been a vital partner in the construction of the station and, following the tragic Columbia accident, our only means of getting crews to the station and back to Earth. Russia has excellent space technology, skilled workers, considerable experience in orbit, and an admirable safety record. However, it is a mistake to be completely dependent on any one nation’s space program (whether that of Russia or the United States) when lives are at stake. The Space Shuttle should return to flight once the recommended safety improvements have been made and should continue to fly until a new space vehicle with the necessary up-mass and down-mass capability has been designed, tested, and placed into operation. The long-planned Space Shuttle upgrades, including those recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, should be implemented to improve shuttle safety and reliability. One of the most important questions plaguing the current NASA Plan is the degree to which other nations will be invited to join the United States as true partners and to participate in the early planning stages of future human exploration missions. President Bush, in his speech of January 14, 2004, appeared to invite other nations to share the challenges and opportunities of his vision and the new era of discovery. However, NASA leadership subsequently contradicted that promise when then-NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe stated that the new space initiative was “very much going to be a U.S. led endeavor. That’s our intent. And, again, much of what we had been directed and what the President envisions we do is to achieve this set of American, U.S. exploration objectives.”23 This is not an invitation to partnership. Partnership, of course, does not exclude national objectives, but it does require a sharing of vision, objectives, and commitments, at the earliest United States cannot expect other nations to participate enthusiastically and to provide the necessary staffing and funding. Based on the authors’ conversations, it is clear that scientists, engineers, and policy makers around the world perceive that the United States has no interest in bringing other nations into the planning process, though it expects them to take on the operation of the space station and to provide assistance for other U.S.-led space efforts when asked. Given the present limited U.S. capability to undertake a major program such as returning humans to the Moon and sending stages of planning. Otherwise, the them, eventually, to Mars, it is clear that international cooperation is necessary for these missions. Furthermore, even if the United States had all the necessary resources, why would it make sense to go it alone in the scientific and human exploration of space? For international cooperation to be a realistic possibility the United States will have to take a very different approach to prospective partnerships, in tone and in America does not have a future in space—human exploration, space science, or without considerable international cooperation. The degree of cooperation that will be necessary will not be possible under current export control and other restrictive policies . The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle programs, as well as many of the most successful robotic science missions, were accomplished with substance. Whatever path the United States chooses to follow with its policies, commercial space activities— considerable international involvement and the free exchange of data and technical information. Neither of these programs could have been successful under any other conditions. The creation of complex systems, which operate in an integrated fashion in order to support human life in a hostile environment, requires an international partnership, with open discussions and sharing of information and technology. As important a role as these matters play in discouraging cooperation with the United States in space, the issue most threatening to cooperation may well be a growing international perception that the United States intends to control space militarily. Although it is not the subject of this paper, military space policy is a matter of profound importance to the future of U.S. civilian space programs and the space programs of other nations.24 In recent years, the United States has accelerated its efforts to put in place a primitive missile-defense system. The decision was made apparently without any international consultation and before adequate R&D and testing had shown the feasibility of such a system. This action suggested that the United States is impatient to signal to the rest of the world that it intends to treat space differently in the future than it has in the past. Many members of Congress who have been advocating for a missile-defense system for several decades heartily endorsed the decision. Powerful industrial interests are also at stake. Missile defense is only one aspect of the increased military use of space. “The Report of the Commission to Assess the United States NationalSecurity Space Management and Organization,” published in 2001, identifies the importance of space to national security and outlines a series of recommendations for the future of military space activities.25 The report proposes, among other things, that the military vigorously pursue capabilities that would enable the President to deploy weapons in space “to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests.”26 This proposal represents a departure from President Kennedy’s vision of 1962, when he vowed, “We shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.”27 Placing offensive weapons in space would be a cause for alarm throughout the world and, in the context of the issues addressed in this paper, would create a major obstacle to international cooperation in space. American companies could expect an even more restrictive U.S. export control policy. Such restrictions could further damage commercial space activities and preclude the willingness of other nations to join U.S.-led programs for both human and robotic space science and exploration missions. The placement of weapons in space would reinforce in the world community the feeling that the United States increasingly is basing its foreign policy on unilateral initiatives. As such, it would severely impact the progress that has been made over the last fifty years towards multilateral international cooperation. The four barriers to progress in the U.S. space program described in this paper need not remain obstacles to future U.S. efforts in space commerce, science and technology, and human exploration. However, in order to remove them, the United States will need to reassess current space policy and, where necessary, make corrections. The world has changed in fundamental ways in the forty years since President Kennedy challenged the American people to take humans to the Moon and return response of the U.S. government to 9/11 has been to take visible measures to improve the personal safety of American citizens. Some of those measures are placing unintended barriers in the way of progress for the U.S. space program. There is no question that the U nited S tates must, as its highest priority, protect its citizens from attacks by terrorists and other hostile forces. However, this can and should be accomplished in a manner that does not damage other national interests. The United States should base its export control and visa policies on reason and common sense . Clearly, the government must identify and protect critical technologies, but policies should recognize that the strength of U.S. industry depends on its ability to compete effectively in the world market. This requires exporting goods and cooperating with other countries them safely to Earth. The fear of the Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union, has been replaced by a very different, largely decentralized, fear of terrorism. The when doing so is beneficial to American companies. Just as clearly, the United States should prevent individuals who intend to do harm from entering the country; however, the government should put in place a rational and efficient process for making that determination. The future vitality of the U.S. aerospace industry in the increasingly competitive world market and the ability of the United States to undertake major cooperative space-science and human-exploration endeavors, as suggested by the President, depend on the revision of American export controls and other overly restrictive policies. The international community believes that U.S. rules currently display arrogance and a mistaken assumption that the development of advanced technologies is unique to the United States. That the United States is alone in its level of technological development clearly is not the case, nor has it been for some time. The United States must protect its citizens and prevent the proliferation of potentially dangerous technologies. However, restrictions on U.S. products are ineffective, even counterproductive, when substitutes for regulated products exist on the world market. In this situation, embargos and regulations serve no purpose. The United States should identify satellite technologies and processes that are unique and vital to national security interests, hence appropriate for licensing by the State Department under ITAR. All other exports of satellites If rational steps are taken to review and modify the U.S. policy on export controls, not only will satellite and related industries be better positioned to compete in the world space market, but such actions might also foster U.S. cooperation with other nations in space activities. As the United States prepares for future space science and human exploration, possibly with an expanded role for industry, as outlined in “A Journey to Innovate, Inspire, and Discover,” and satellite components and technologies should be licensed by the Commerce Department. the report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, the best route will be through strong international cooperation, where collaborators share the costs as well as the benefits.28 While the commission did not address export controls, a serious weakness of their report, it is clear that present export control policies should be changed. That’s key to space colonization—extinction Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power, professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008, , Evan] 7.2. High return in safety from extra-terrestrial settlement Investment in low-cost orbital access and other space infrastructure will facilitate the establishment of settlements on the Moon, Mars, asteroids and in man-made space structures. In the first phase, development of new regulatory infrastructure in various Earth orbits, including property/usufruct rights, real estate, mortgage financing and insurance, traffic management, pilotage, policing and other services will enable the population living in Earth orbits to grow very large. Such activities aimed at making near-Earth space habitable are the logical extension of humans' historical spread over the surface of the Earth. As trade spreads through near-Earth space, settlements are likely to follow, of which the inhabitants will add to the wealth of different cultures which humans have created in the many different environments in which they live. Success of such extra-terrestrial settlements will have the additional benefit of reducing the danger of human extinction due to planet-wide or cosmic accidents [27]. These horrors include both man-made disasters such as nuclear war, plagues or growing pollution, and natural disasters such as super-volcanoes or asteroid impact. It is hard to think of any objective that is more important than preserving peace. Weapons developed in recent decades are so destructive, and have such horrific, long-term side-effects that their use should be discouraged as strongly as possible by the international community. Hence, reducing the incentive to use these weapons by rapidly developing the ability to use space-based resources on a large scale is surely equally important [11,16]. The achievement of this depends on low space travel costs which, at the present time, appear to be achievable only through the development of a vigorous space tourism industry. Space access solves inevitable global resource wars—kills vtl and causes extinction Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power, professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008, Evan] 7. World peace and preservation of human civilisation The major source of social friction, including international friction, has surely always been unequal access to resources. People fight to control the valuable resources on and under the land, and in and under the sea. The natural resources of Earth are limited in quantity, and economically accessible resources even more so. As the population grows, and demand grows for a higher material standard of living, industrial activity grows exponentially. The threat of resources becoming scarce has led to the concept of "Resource Wars". Having begun long ago with wars to control the gold and diamonds of Africa and South America, and oil in the Middle East, the current phase is at centre stage of world events today [37]. A particular danger of "resource wars" is that, if the general public can be persuaded to support them, they may become impossible to stop as resources become increasingly scarce. Many commentators have noted the similarity of the language of US and UK government advocates of "war on terror" to the language of the novel "1984" which describes a dystopian future of endless, fraudulent war in which citizens are reduced to slaves. 7.1. Expansion into nearEarth space is the only alternative to endless "resource wars" As an alternative to the "resource wars" already devastating many countries today, opening access to the unlimited resources of near-Earth space could clearly facilitate world peace and security . The US National Security Space Office, at the start of its report on the potential of space-based solar power ( SSP) published in early 2007, stated: "Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy as the foremost threat to national security" [38]. The report ended by encouraging urgent research on the feasibility of SSP: "Considering the timescales that are involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative that this work for "drilling up" vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately" [38]. Although the use of extra-terrestrial resources on a substantial scale may still be some decades away, it is important to recognise that simply acknowledging its feasibility using known technology is the surest way of ending the threat of resource wars . That is, if it is assumed that the resources available for human use are limited to those on Earth, then it can be argued that resource wars are inescapable [22,37]. If, by contrast, it is assumed that the resources of space are economically accessible, this not only eliminates the need for resource wars, it can also preserve the benefits of civilisation which are being eroded today by "resource war-mongers", most notably the governments of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries and their "neo-con" advisers. It is also worth noting that the $1 trillion that these have already committed to wars in the Middle-East in the 21st century is orders of magnitude more than the public investment needed to aid companies sufficiently to start the commercial use of space resources. Industrial and financial groups which profit from monopolistic control of terrestrial supplies of various natural resources, like those which profit from wars, have an economic interest in protecting their profitable situation. However, these groups' continuing profits are justified neither by capitalism nor by democracy: they could be preserved only by maintaining the pretence that use of space resources is not feasible, and by preventing the development of low-cost space travel. Once the feasibility of low-cost space travel is understood, "resource wars" are clearly foolish as well as tragic . A visiting extra-terrestrial would be pityingly amused at the foolish antics of homo sapiens using longrange rockets to fight each other over dwindling terrestrial resources—rather than using the same rockets to travel in space and have the use of all the resources they need! An asteroid impact is inevitable—it’s only a question of how to deflect it— and US-International coop is key to prevent the collapse of civilization Schweickart '7 (Russell L., Former Apollo Astronaut and Chair – B612 Foundation, New York Times, 3-16, Lexis)//AN 850-footlong asteroid called Apophis could strike Earth with catastrophic consequences on April 13, 2036. What few probably realize is that there are thousands of other space objects that could hit us in the next century that could cause severe damage, if not total AMERICANS who read the papers or watch Jay Leno have been aware for some time now that there is a slim but real possibility — about 1 in 45,000 — that an destruction. Last week two events in Washington — a conference on “planetary defense” held by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the release by NASA of a report titled “Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection Analysis of Alternatives” — gave us good news and bad on this front. On the promising side, scientists have a the government doesn’t seem to have any clear plan to put this expertise into action. In 1998, Congress gave NASA’s Spaceguard Survey program a mandate of “discovering, tracking, cataloging and characterizing” 90 percent of the near-Earth objects larger than one kilometer (3,200 feet) wide by 2008. An object that size could devastate a small country and would probably destroy civilization. The consensus at the good grasp of the risks of a cosmic fender-bender, and have several ideas that could potentially stave off disaster. Unfortunately, conference was that the initial survey is doing fairly well although it will probably not quite meet the 2008 goal. Realizing that there are many smaller but still terribly destructive asteroids out there, Congress has modified the Spaceguard goal to identify 90 percent of even smaller objects — 460 feet and larger — by 2020. This revised survey, scientists feel we have the technology to intercept and deflect many asteroids headed toward Earth. Basically, if we have early enough warning, a robotic space mission could slightly change the orbit of a dangerous asteroid so that it would subsequently miss the planet. Two potential deflection techniques appear to work nicely together — first we would deflect the asteroid with kinetic impact from a missile (that is, giving us decades of early warning, will go a long way toward protecting life on the planet in the future. The good news is that running into it); then we would use the slight pull of a “gravity tractor” — a satellite that would hover near the asteroid — to fine-tune its new trajectory to our liking. (In the case of an extremely large object, probably one in 100, the missile might have to contain a nuclear warhead.) To be effective, however, such missions would have to be launched 15 or even 30 years before a calculated impact. The bad news? While this all looks fine on paper, scientists haven’t had a chance to try it in practice. And this is where NASA’s report was supposed to come in. Congress directed the agency in 2005 to come up with a program, a budget to support it and an array of alternatives for preventing an asteroid impact. But instead of coming up with a plan and budget to get the job done, the report bluntly stated that “due to current budget constraints, NASA cannot initiate a new program at this time.” Representative Bart Gordon, Democrat of Tennessee, was right to say that “NASA’s recommended approach isn’t a credible plan” and that Congress expected “a more responsive approach” within the year. Why did the space agency drop the ball? Like all government departments, it fears the dreaded Congress has the habit of directing agencies to do something and then declining to give them the money to do so. This is understandable. But in this case, Congress not only directed NASA to provide it with a recommended program but “unfunded mandate”; also asked for the estimated budget to support it. It was a left-handed way for the Congress to say to NASA that this is our priority ... like it or not. But for some reason NASA , it estimated that using a nuclear-armed missile to divert an asteroid would be “10 to 100 times more effective” than non-nuclear approaches. It is possible that in some cases — such as an asteroid greater than a third of a mile across — the nuclear option might be seems to have opted for a federal form of civil disobedience. Another problem with the report was that, while it outlined other possibilities necessary. But for the overwhelming majority of potential deflection cases, using a nuclear warhead would be like a golfer swinging away with his driver to sink a three-foot putt; the bigger bang is not always better. Why the concern? First, even with good intentions, launching a nuclear-armed missile would violate the international agreements by which all weaponry is banned from space. Second, the laws of probability say we would be struck by such a large asteroid only once every 200,000 years — that’s a long time to keep a standing arsenal of nuclear asteroid-blasters, and raises all sorts of possibilities of accidents or sabotage — the old “cure being worse than the disease” phenomenon. In the end, this is not just America’s problem, as an asteroid strike would be felt around the globe. The course is international coordination on deflection technology, along with global agreements on what should be done if a collision looks likely. Along these lines, the Association of Space Explorers, a group of more than 300 people of course, best from 30 nations who have flown in space (of which I am a member), is beginning a series of meetings in cooperation with the United Nations to work out the outlines of such an little will be accomplished unless the United States takes the lead agreement. Still, as with many global issues, . With the entire planet in the cross hairs, NASA can’t be allowed to dither. If Congress’s mandates and budget requests aren’t energizing the agency, perhaps public hearings would shame it into action. *CIR Impact Competitiveness/STEM Safe and sound immigration reform is key to solve STEM workers and economic competitiveness PRNewswire 2015 News Agency based in NYC (“Poorly Designed Immigration Reform Will Negatively Impact American Innovation and Economic Growth”, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/poorly-designed-immigration-reform-willnegatively-impact-american-innovation-and-economic-growth-300058490.html)//AN S. is on the brink of a new IT revolution that could produce $5 trillion in economic gains by enabling companies to drive innovation, jobs and income growth, and opportunity from a new wave of technologies requires updated immigration and visa policies, The U. concludes a new report released today by the American Competitiveness Alliance (ACAlliance). The new paper — "IT Services, Immigration, and American Economic Strength" by Professor Matthew J. Slaughter, incoming Dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth—identifies the policy challenges facing the U.S. labor market as it expands its high-value knowledge and technology-based economy. It advances the requirements for a suite of recommended actions that Congress can take to address the shortage of specialized STEM workers at U.S. companies and further harness the IT sector as a driver of American new wave of IT innovation is building around social, mobile, analytical, and cloud technologies," said Slaughter, incoming Dean of the Dartmouth Business School. "This next IT revolution could create economic value worth 10% to 30% of U.S. GDP—manifested in new jobs, new goods and services, and rising incomes—if America has sufficient access to global talent." The report, drawing on both employment and economic data, finds that IT services companies are increasingly critical to America's economic future. Professor Slaughter's research also illustrates how current U.S. immigration policies, many hatched years ago in the PC and early internet era, unduly constrain American companies' ability to hire immigrants with specialized new technology skills from the global pool of talent and deploy them in support of American innovation and competitiveness . Professor Slaughter also finds that proposals presented during the last Congress could have caused substantial harm to U.S. economic growth, including fewer jobs innovation and growth. "Today a created, higher employer and consumer costs, reduced quality of service, and decreased innovation. Slaughter also notes the strong and positive impact that skilled immigrants have had in supporting new job 2015 H-1B visa lottery will serve as yet another reminder that the U.S. needs access to a larger pool of the world's professional STEM workers. creation and rising wages in America by helping drive American innovation. This week's On April 1, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting H-1B petitions for fiscal year 2016. The current annual cap for H-1B visas is set at 65,000, with an additional 20,000 reserved for foreign nationals graduating with a U.S. master's degree or higher. In 2014, there were 172,500 applications for H-1Bs, surpassing the quota within days of the first application-filing date. An United States today continues to confront a competitiveness challenge of recruiting and securing talent for jobs. Too many improving economy and an increasing demand for qualified workers to supplement America's current skilled worker shortage suggest a similar story for 2015. "The of the world's smartest workers are going to competing markets," said Rosario Marin, former U.S. Treasurer and Co-Chair of the ACAlliance. "Professor Slaughter's work highlights the potential for America to Doing so will require sound U.S. policies based on a sound understanding of how innovative U.S. companies succeed in today's complex global economy." Professor Slaughter's paper joins volumes of research highlighting America's serious STEM skills deficit. While advancing STEM education programs is essential for long-term success, support the creation of millions of high-quality, high-paying jobs right here in America. Slaughter's paper outlines policy recommendations that will enable companies across the U.S. economy to better harness IT for innovation, efficiency, and growth today. "Nearly every aspect of America's economy "Our elected officials can and should advance modern, constructive policies that support the dynamic companies that drive innovation , jobs, today is supported by some sort of IT system that improves efficiencies, quality, or growth, but our public policies are out of date," said Slaughter. and opportunity—companies like America's IT-services providers. By taking action now, Congress can ensure access to the kind of global talent that could create tremendous economic value for the United States." Matthew J. Slaughter is the Signal Companies' Professor of Management and associate dean for faculty at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. He was named the school's 10th dean in January, a role he will assume on July 1, 2015. A scholar of international economics and an expert in globalization, Slaughter is the founding Faculty Director of the Center for Global Business and Government. He is also currently a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; an adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; a member of the advisory committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; and a member of the academic advisory board of the International Tax Policy Forum. From 2005 to 2007, Professor Slaughter served as a Member on the Council of Economic Advisers in the Executive Office of the President. In this Senate-confirmed position he held the international portfolio, advising the President, the Cabinet, and many others on issues including international trade and investment, currency and energy markets, and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Competiveness key to hegemony Segal 2004 Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-itsedge.html)//AN The U nited S tates' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The U nited S tates will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the U nited S tates must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home. Hegemonic decline leads to transition wars-empirics prove Kupchan 14< Security Studies Volume 23, Issue 2, 2014 The Normative Foundations of Hegemony and The Coming Challenge to Pax Americana Charles A. Kupchan Dr. Kupchan is Professor of International Affairs in the School of Foreign Service and Government Department at Georgetown University pages 219-257 Publishing models and article dates explained Published online: 16 May 2014> In order to advance understanding of the normative dimensions of hegemony, this article has thus far examined different orders in isolation rather than focusing on the interaction among them. However, extending the analysis to periods of systemic transition, when hegemons intensely interact with one another, only confirms this article's core claims. During hegemonic transitions, great powers compete not just over the international pecking order, but also over the norms and rules that each power seeks to enforce internationally. After the Roman Empire split into eastern and western halves in the fourth century, competition between Rome and Constantinople was about governance, culture, and religious doctrine as much as status or territory. The conflict that raged between the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Persia during much of the sixteenth century was rooted in competition between Sunni and Shiite traditions. World War I, World War II, and the Cold War were contests over ideology as well as hierarchy and territory, with liberal democracies generally lining up against monarchic, fascist, and communist alternatives. It can hardly be accidental that the only peaceful power transition in history occurred between Great Britain and the United States; the baton was passed “within the family,” from one Anglo-Saxon great power to another. It is of important geopolitical consequence that hegemony has normative dimensions and that power transitions entail clashes among competing norms. The world is entering a period of transformation as power shifts from the West to the rising rest. One school of thought—which dominates in Washington—holds that emerging powers are poised to embrace the existing international order; Western norms are universal norms, and the dictates of globalization are ensuring their worldwide spread. According to Ikenberry, “The United States’ global position may be weakening, but the international system the United States leads can remain the dominant order of the twenty-first century.” The West should “ sink the roots of this order as deeply as possible” to ensure that the world continues to play by its rules even as its material preponderance wanes. “China and other emerging great powers,” he concludes, “do not want to contest the basic rules and principles of the liberal international order; they wish to gain more authority and leadership within it.” 82 US hegemony key to solve great power war Ikenberry, International Affairs Professor at Princeton, Brooks, Associate Professor of Government at Brooks, Dartmouth government professor, et al., 13 [Brooks, Stephen G., Ikenberry, G. John, Wohlforth, William C., STEPHEN G. BROOKS is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. G. JOHN IKENBERRY is Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH is Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, Foreign Affairs, “Lean Forward”, Jan/Feb2013, Vol. 92, Issue 1, Academic Search Complete, accessed 7-4-13, AA] even if it is true that the costs of deep engagement fall far below what advocates of retrenchment claim, they would not be worth bearing unless they yielded greater benefits. In fact, they do. The most obvious benefit of the current strategy is that it reduces the risk of a dangerous conflict. The United States' security commitments deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and dissuade U.S. partners from trying to solve security problems on their own in ways that would end up threatening other states. Skeptics discount this benefit by arguing that U.S. security guarantees aren't necessary to Of course, prevent dangerous rivalries from erupting. They maintain that the high costs of territorial conquest and the many tools countries can use to signal their benign intentions are If Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South Korea would likely expand their military capabilities and go nuclear, which could provoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It's worth noting that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan tried to obtain nuclear weapons; the only thing that stopped them was the United States, which used its security commitments to restrain their nuclear temptations. Similarly, were the United States to leave the Middle East, the countries currently backed by Washington--notably, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia--might act in ways that would intensify the region's security dilemmas. There would even be reason to worry about Europe. Although it's hard to imagine the return of great-power military competition in a post-American Europe, it's not difficult to foresee governments there refusing to pay the budgetary costs of higher military outlays and the political costs of increasing EU defense cooperation. The result enough to prevent conflict. In other words, major powers could peacefully manage regional multipolarity without the American pacifier. But that outlook is too sanguine. might be a continent incapable of securing itself from threats on its periphery, unable to join foreign interventions on which U.S. leaders might want European help, and vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. Given how easily a U.S. withdrawal from key regions could lead to dangerous competition, advocates of retrenchment tend , few doubt that the United States could survive the return of conflict among powers in Asia or the Middle East--but at what cost? Were states in one or both of these regions to start competing against one another, they would likely boost their military budgets, arm client states, and perhaps even start regional proxy wars, all of which should concern the United States, in part because its lead in military capabilities would narrow. Greater regional insecurity could also produce cascades of nuclear proliferation as powers such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan built nuclear forces of their own. Those countries' regional competitors might then also seek nuclear arsenals. Although nuclear deterrence can promote stability between two states with the kinds of nuclear forces that the Soviet Union and the United States possessed, things get shakier when there are multiple nuclear rivals with less robust arsenals. As the number of nuclear powers increases, the probability of illicit transfers, irrational decisions, accidents, and unforeseen crises goes up. The case for abandoning the United States' global role misses the underlying security logic of the current approach. By reassuring allies and actively managing regional relations, Washington dampens competition in the world’s key areas, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse in which countries would grow new military capabilities. For proof that this strategy is working, one need look no further than the defense budgets of the current great powers: on average, since 1991 they have kept their military expenditures as A percentage of GDP to historic lows, and they have not attempted to match the United States' top-end military capabilities. Moreover, all of the world's most modern militaries are U.S. allies, and the United States' military lead over its potential rivals .is by many measures growing. On top of all this, the current grand strategy acts as a hedge to put forth another argument: that such rivalries wouldn't actually hurt the United States. To be sure against the emergence regional hegemons. Some supporters of retrenchment argue that the U.S. military should keep its forces over the horizon and pass the buck to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing rising regional powers. Washington, they contend, should deploy forces abroad only when a truly credible contender for regional hegemony arises, as in the cases of Germany and Japan during World War II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yet there is already a potential contender for regional hegemony--China--and to balance it, the United States will need to maintain its key alliances in Asia and the military capacity to intervene there. The implication is that the United States should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, reduce its military presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia. Yet that is exactly what the Obama administration is doing. *Federalism Ukraine Ukraine’s on the brink of collapse—economic debt and downturn in the energy sector prove Butler 7/12/15 Author of FT's Energy and Power blog and Visiting Prof at Kings College London. (Nick, “Ukraine – the dangers of neglecting Europe’s other debt crisis”, http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/07/12/ukraine-the-dangers-of-neglecting-europes-otherdebt-crisis/)//AN With all attention concentrated on Greece for the past month there is a real danger that an even greater problem is developing, almost unnoticed, in Ukraine . The economy there is in deep trouble. A further collapse, perhaps triggered by a debt default, could lead to an outflow of refugees that would make the problem of migrants crossing the Mediterranean look trivial . Energy is at the heart of the crisis but could just possibly be part of the Politicians and policy makers can only focus on one problem at a time. solution. The basic story is well known. Since the Maidan demonstrations in November 2013, the Ukrainian economy has shrunk. A 5 per cent fall last year is variously forecast to be followed by a contraction of between 5 and 10 per cent in 2015. Investment has ground to a halt and in the energy sector big potential projects such as the shale gas fighting in the east has cut off coal supplies to the rest of the country from the 300 mines in the Donbass region. The Russian annexation of Crimea has cut off gas supplies from the developments managed by Chernomorneftegaz in the Black Sea. Ukraine, as a result, has become even more dependent on imports of coal and gas from South Africa, Australia, other parts of Europe and even ironically from Russia. These supplies do not come cheap and in many cases suppliers will only do business if they are paid in advance and in hard currency. All this has produced a growing national debt burden that by common consent is now unsustainable. Ukraine cannot afford to service the debts it already has and developments planned by Shell and Chevron have been halted. The every monthly repayment is turning into a moment of trauma. The Government in Kiev is reported to be close to defaulting on some or all of the debts – a step that would halt The risk is not just that a default would alienate lenders and investors. It could also push thousands of Ukrainians to migrate across the country’s long and porous borders with Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. If Europe cannot cope with the limited flow of people crossing the Mediterranean one can only imagine the panic and chaos that would follow an exodus from Ukraine . Can anything be done? A big conference is being held in Washington this week to encourage new investment both further lending and the desperately needed flow of new industrial investment that offers the only prospect of halting economic decline. in Ukraine. The effort is admirable and a further demonstration of the fact that the US government is taking the situation in Ukraine more seriously than anyone in Europe. But effort will fail unless the debt issue is resolved and a default prevented the . The IMF and a group of private creditors, mostly US based, have been in intensive discussions around a rescheduling package but to be acceptable all round such a deal needs to be linked to investments that offer a real prospect of financial returns from which the debts can eventually be repaid. Energy should be at the heart of this. Ukraine has resources that can and should be developed. Even if those situated close to the fighting in the east (such as Shell’s prospective shale gas development around Yuzivska) are still beyond reach because of the physical risks involved other projects are viable. Gas – conventional and unconventional, hydro and biomass are all identified as priorities in a report recently published by the International Energy existing nuclear stations are ageing and need refurbishment and in some cases complete renewal. The electricity grid needs to be modernised and there is enormous potential for investments in energy efficiency. All these Agency. The projects would create jobs and provide secure supplies to local users (including other industries) while reducing the burden of imports. Over time there is even the possibility of Ukraine becoming a supplier of electricity to other parts of the region. Each of the potential projects would generate revenue and it cannot be beyond the intelligence of investors and the international institutions to design a package in which a share of the revenue is allocated to creditors in return for a rescheduling of the current debt and some limited Ukraine badly needs a new business model for its economy and energy has to be at the heart of the answer. None of this, of course, solves the problems created by the continuing separatist conflict in the east. The political situation can only be resolved when Russia gets tired of funding a conflict that it is not winning and tired too of the relative isolation that sanctions bring. The west is clearly not ready to fight for eastern Ukraine. But we do need to act to stop the country entering a downward spiral that could end up with a failed state of and focused new lending. Some debt could for instance be swapped for an energy bond. 45m people less than 350 miles from Budapest and only 250 from Warsaw. A system of decentralization is key to solve the Ukraine crisis—US input and modeling are vital Joseph 2014 Executive director of the Institute of Current World Affairs and a lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. (Edward P., “How Putin could achieve all of his designs on Ukraine -- without sending a single tank across the border.”, http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/24/constitutional-conquest/)//AN if the Ukraine crisis is ever going to subside, Kiev and its backers in the West will need to come up with a viable formula for boosting the power of ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the With the threat of a Russian invasion still heavy in the air of eastern Ukraine, it’s understandable that the esoteric subject of constitutional federalism isn’t plastered across the headlines. But country without giving Moscow everything it wants. Last week’s Geneva agreement between Russia, Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States endorsed the concept of greater autonomy in eastern urgent imperative for Washington and Kiev is to devise a way to devolve power that stems, rather than accelerates, the centrifugal dynamics that are currently destabilizing Ukraine. The stakes couldn’t be higher: A poorly crafted autonomy plan risks helping Russia achieve all of its designs on Ukraine without sending a single tank across the border. The best place to draw lessons about the risks of autonomy is the Balkans, where a variety of federalization models have been applied to the region’s ethnic conflicts. The biggest federalization failure — and therefore the Ukraine, but the all-important details have yet to be worked out. The preferred model for Moscow — is Bosnia’s Dayton Agreement, which provided rebellious Serbs with an autonomous but non-independent entity known as Republika Srpska. Rather than attenuate Serb demands with ironclad security and extensive self-government, this arrangement has had the opposite effect, serving only to reinforce Serb separatism. Granted both sweeping executive powers and a defined territory over which it has near-wholesale control, Republika Srpska has little incentive to cooperate with the central government in Sarajevo. Over the last eight years, while the international community’s gaze was trained elsewhere, the leadership of Republika Srpska has worked assiduously to erode painstakingly constructed state-level institutions. Numerous desperately-needed governance reforms have stopped; Bosnia’s , it is hard to envision a solution to the Ukrainian crisis that better serves Russian interests than Bosnia-style federalization. At this point, it is hard to envision a solution to the Ukrainian progress towards European Union and NATO membership has stalled out. At this point crisis that better serves Russian interests than Bosnia-style federalization.Without a pliable, Russian-oriented autocrat like the departed Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev, Moscow’s imperative is to weaken and delegitimize Ukraine’s central government, stymie its advancement towards Euro-Atlantic institutions, and consolidate Russian influence in the east of the country. Ultimately, of course, Moscow would like to see the new "region" eventually hold a referendum to secede, as Crimea has done. But even the threat of secession serves Russian interests: Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik’s deft use of this tactic is a powerful demonstration of just how pernicious wide, regional autonomy can be. Underscoring the appeal of the Bosnia model, Dodik visited Moscow last month at Ukrainian leaders are wise to this danger, and have already rejected the term "federalism" in negotiations. But the real lesson from Bosnia is the need to go beyond semantics and transfer meaningful power away from the center — but to the municipal, rather than provincial level. Doing so would give restive minorities a greater stake in government without simultaneously enhancing their ability to sabotage the state, or worse, secede altogether. In the height of crisis over Crimea, proclaimed his unabashed support for Russian policy in Ukraine, and left with a commitment for a whopping €270 million credit line for Republika Srpska. this sense, a far better model from the fractious Balkans is Macedonia, which unlike Bosnia, forged a deal with its once-rebellious ethnic Albanian minority to increase their powers both at the central and local government levels without creating any new "regions" or "entities" at all. Doing so has constrained the ability of would-be Albanian separatists to coalesce in a bid to undermine state authority. On the contrary, to realize their communal rights, Albanians must go to the capital, Skopje, and participate actively in central government institutions, thereby reinforcing the country’s unity. Steps to boost Albanian power at the local level, meanwhile, have proven popular across the country, including in predominantly Macedonian towns. To be sure, ethnic divisions, mistrust, and misrule still dog Macedonia, but none is institutionalized Ukraine’s existing constitution provides ample space for local self-government on the Macedonian model. as all three are in Bosnia. Unlike Bosnia, Macedonia is a divided, but functioning state that has progressed to the doorstep of NATO membership and kept its EU aspirations in view. Some western Ukrainian towns like Lviv, for example, are already taking advantage of the arrangement, developing their local economies and increasing their tax revenue independently of the central government. challenge is to make decentralization at the local level appealing to the east of the country, where a significant segment of the ethnic Russian population has demanded greater autonomy — not as a way of reforming government, but as a way of perpetuating the role of the state as sole the provider. Breaking this Soviet-style, statist mentality will take more than just reasserting Kiev’s control. If a deal on decentralization is to be struck and implemented, the E uropean U nion is going to have to step in with generous programs that reward local self-reliance, and emphasize accountability and transparency in local government. Just as Albanian and Macedonian mayors learned to cooperate with one another in order to wrest powers from the stifling central state, so might Ukraine’s successful mayors in the west work together, under EU auspices, with their colleagues in the east to make decentralization work , cooperating in the popular fight against rapacious corruption at the central level. The United States should work closely with Kiev and its EU partners to develop a package deal for Ukraine’s ethnic Russians that is grounded in sensible, broad principles, but also specific on concrete EU assistance The potentially contested southern town of Odessa, seen as the next Russian domino, has also made moves in this direction. The programs, particularly at the local level. As part of this arrangement, the Ukrainian government should allow the direct election of all provincial officials, not only in the east but all over the country. (Most decentralization provisions should be uniform throughout the country, so as to prevent the exploitation of special privileges — like those enjoyed by Crimea prior to its annexation — to move toward secession.) Language provisions, including the right to use Russian in the national parliament, should be clarified, not just by law but in the constitution. This would amount to an important symbolic commitment to , Ukraine should resist efforts to allow the provinces to join together in a formal association like the Serbs in Kosovo have done. Devolving additional power to the provincial, rather than local level, risks deepening divisions and inviting a regional secessionist movement. Would such a prudent package, backed by serious EU money, have any chance of winning backing from Moscow? Perhaps not at present, but if Washington backs up its tough rhetoric with protecting the rights of ethnic Russians. Critically, however concrete steps to counter Russian aggression, Ukraine has another card to play: its relationship with NATO. Beyond federalism, Moscow is also demanding that Ukraine promise to remain outside the alliance. The truth is that NATO membership is not in the cards for Ukraine at the moment anyway, given the mountain of reforms that its weak military would need to accomplish and the anxiety many allies feel about bringing in a member with Ukraine’s level of security exposure to Ru ssia. It is telling that the alliance has evinced no appetite for advancing Georgia’s NATO prospects, even though it is smaller, better organized, it is within the realm of possibility to imagine a deal in which Kiev trades its immediate, largely illusory NATO prospects for Moscow’s acceptance of a viable decentralization plan backed by the United States and European Union. The deal, of course, would be expressly conditioned on Russian respect for and has a stronger military than Ukraine. In other words, Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Should a secessionist movement emerge in the future, Kiev would be free to move ahead with NATO membership — providing a real incentive for Moscow to actually honor an agreement with Ukraine. Naked Russian aggression in Ukraine makes it much harder to address the legitimate concerns of the country’s ethnic Russian citizens. But Kiev and its Western backers should still be exploring a range of options for doing so, from risky federalism to benign decentralization . As they ponder constitutional revisions, however, they would do well to recall the lessons of the Balkans, lest they unwittingly deliver eastern Ukraine to Russia on a platter. That solves Ukrainian state collapse Roberts and Fisun 2014 Expert on democracy development assistance and is the Director of the International Development Studies Program at the The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Oleksandr Fisun is an expert in post-Soviet politics and regime types, especially as they relate to Ukraine and is the Chair of the Political Science Department at the Kharkiv National University (Sean and Olkesander, “LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND DECENTRALIZATION ASSESSMENT: IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED REFORMS IN UKRAINE”, http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/LOCAL%20GOVERNANCE%20ASS ESSMENT%20FINAL.pdf)//AN At the same time, many international and local experts have suggested that decentralization is the most critical reform for Ukraine at the moment. As will be further discussed below, a well designed decentralization plan could help to dismantle the vertical power structures that have been the primary forms of political power since independence, hence improving efficiency of governance and reducing at least the largest scale corruption that has continually plagued the country, especially under Viktor Yanukovych’s leadership. Furthermore, decentralization that encourages local variance and is based in locally driven initiatives will be critical politically in re-uniting Ukraine in the aftermath of the divisive conflict that continues in the east of the country. For all of these reasons, many of the local experts with whom the assessment team met suggested that serious progress on decentralization reforms is critical to Ukraine’s future and must be adopted as quickly as possible. The most passionate stakeholders even suggested that a failure of this reform could lead to the failure of the Ukrainian state all together given the other pressures the country presently faces. At the same time, most local experts acknowledged that this reform would not be easy either politically or technically. The challenges faced by the reforms and the important role they can play in democratizing Ukraine’s present model of governance are discussed below in the analysis of the country’s general political economy. Causes war with Russia and becomes a global hotspot—extinction Bandow 2014 (Doug, senior fellow at CATO institute, "Avoid War, Cold Or Hot, with Russia over Ukraine: Finding a Way Back from the Catastrophic Brink," March 3, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/avoid-war-cold-or-hot-russia-over-ukrainefinding-way-back-catastrophic)//AN Ukrainians won an important political battle by ousting the corrupt Viktor Yanukovich as president. But replacing Yanukovich with another dubious politico, such as opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, just released from prison, would change little. Washington also triumphed. Without doing much—no troops, no money, few words—Americans watched protestors rebuff police attacks, force Yanukovich to flee, and frustrate Russia’s Vladimir Putin. A trifecta at virtually no expense. Contrast that with U.S. debacles in Iraq, Egypt, and more. But now Russia is attempting to win as well, intervening in Crimea to an unknown end. Whether intending to simply reinforce Moscow’s influence or completely sever the region from Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has created a tinderbox that could burst into flames with one errant shot from a Russian or Ukrainian soldier, or even angry protestor. The only certainty is that the U.S. should avoid being drawn into a war with Russia over Ukraine’s future. Kiev called for a UN Security Council meeting and pointed to general territorial guarantees included in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by Washington governing divestment of nuclear weapons left in Ukraine. Moscow’s conduct is Conflict with Russia would be many times worse. The Ukrainian people have suffered much throughout history, especially under Communist oppression—highlighted by mass starvation under Joseph Stalin and briefly interrupted by brutal Nazi intolerable. occupation. Independence came two decades ago. But the nation’s politics have remained tempestuous. The 2004 Orange Revolution led to the election of U.S. favorite Viktor Yushchenko, who exhibited unparalleled incompetence and inconstancy. He broke with his ally Tymoshenko, the legendary “gas princess,” and eventually appointed Yanukovich, whom he had accused of attempted assassination during the presidential campaign, as prime minister. Yushchenko received just 5.4 percent of the vote in his reelection bid, while Yanukovich defeated Tymoshenko in a poll considered to be fair if not entirely clean. Yanukovich’s corrupt proclivities surprised no one. In just a couple years his son, a dentist, became one of the country’s wealthiest businessmen. But victory by the scandal-tainted Tymoshenko would only have rearranged the oligarchs at the public trough. Indeed, her premiership under Yushchenko was friendlier towards Moscow than was Yanukovich’s presidency. Even in accepting Putin’s largesse last November Yanukovich refused to sign the Russian-led Customs Union; the Ukrainian president looked like the proverbial rug merchant squeezing the last penny out of his Russian customer. Protestors filled Maidan Square in Kiev over Yanukovich’s rejection of a trade agreement with the European Union, but it was not Washington’s business. If the democratically elected government Ukraine desired to look east rather than west economically, so be it. The EU wasn’t happy, but it was outbid. Brussels assumed Ukraine had no choice. Brussels was wrong. The issue, in contrast to Kiev’s later brutal treatment of protestors, had nothing to do with democracy, human rights, or even sovereignty. In fact, inking the proposed European pact would have meant agreeing to far more, and far more onerous conditions. Associating with Europe likely would have meant a more prosperous and freer future, but that was up to the Ukrainian people acting through their elected government. Ironically, plenty of Greeks and other Europeans now want to reconsider the EU deals struck by their past leaders. And Ukraine is divided . Broadly speaking, the nation’s west is nationalist and leans European while the east is Russo-friendly. Kiev falls within opposition territory—two-thirds of city voters chose Tymoshenko over Yanukovich—so anti-government protestors rally easily. Demonstrations over policy quickly turned into a de facto putsch or street revolution, a machtuebernahme. It was as if Republican Party politicians, Ron Paul fans, and Tea Party activists showed up in Washington to protest ObamaCare and took over the Mall, occupied the Treasury Department, surrounded the White House, burned down the Democratic National Committee, blockaded key intersections, armed nationalist radicals, tossed firebombs at the police, demanded Barack Obama’s resignation, and threatened more violence if he didn’t quit immediately. Good demands, perhaps, but dubious tactics. Even so, that wasn’t Washington’s problem either. Yanukovich’s ouster was Ukraine’s gain, especially if its people prove able to create a more liberal political order. However, the price paid may be high. Democratic parties allied with the neo-fascist Svoboda Party and strongly nationalistic Right Sector. Worse, street violence, especially by extreme nationalists, helped overturn the Yanukovich and could be deployed against better and more honest elected leaders in the future. Unfortunately, the “good guys” can’t assume only they get to violate democratic norms. Indeed, many of those who look east and voted for Yanukovich—even if unenthused about his obvious failings, including newly exposed lavish lifestyle—feel cheated. There was no fascist coup, but the government they helped elect was violently overthrown. Some of them might prefer to shift their allegiance to Russia. These sentiments appear to be strongest in the Crimea, a Tartar state allied with the Ottoman Empire until conquered by the Russian Empire in the 18th Century. In 1954 Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Nikita Krushchev, from Ukraine, gifted Crimea to Ukraine, largely for economic reasons. At the time the switch meant nothing internationally since no one expected the U.S.S.R. to split apart. But after the Soviet Union’s disintegration in late 1991 Ukraine departed with Crimea in tow. Moscow was forced to lease back its Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. National accommodation should be possible today through a commitment by Kiev to engage both east and west, which the Ukrainian people clearly desire. Moreover, the government should address disenfranchised Yanukovich backers, perhaps offering greater regional autonomy. Kiev also should reassure Moscow that Ukraine is not about to join any anti-Russia bloc, including NATO. But if Crimeans, in particular, want to return to Russia, they should be able to do so. It still wouldn’t be easy, since no region of Ukraine is truly monolithic. But We should wish Ukrainians of all regions well as they attempt to rebuild amid the political rubble left by Yanukovich’s violent ouster. But there is no important let alone vital security issue at stake for the U.S. in the specific choices they make. And certainly nothing that warrants the sort of intrusive meddling evident in the recorded phone call between Victoria Nuland, the 1993 “Velvet Divorce” between the Czech and Slovak sections of Czechoslovakia offers an obvious model. However, none of this should matter much to America. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Most important, the extended and violent protests against the Yanukovich government demonstrate that Moscow has no hope of dominating the country. A Russian invasion would face resistance from a determined people as well as sizable military and victory would yield perpetual conflict and instability. Kiev will be independent and almost certainly will look west economically. The only question is how much of Ukraine. n principle that also isn’t Washington’s concern. It is hard for American officials to acknowledge that not everything requires Washington’s attention. But what is in or out of Ukraine does not. Indeed, in a poll last week just 17 percent of Americans wanted the U.S. involved. That shouldn’t stop the EU from playing a new Great Game if it desires. Europe is both wealthy and next door: the European nations could offer foreign aid and the EU could promise membership. If Brussels believes Kiev’s orientation is critical, then the former should outbid Russia. That shouldn’t be hard, since the EU has ten times the GDP of Putin’s bedraggled wannabe empire. Hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for Europe’s benefit. But rather than play the game Vladimir Putin has upended the board and scattered the pieces. Russia introduced troops, taking effective control of the Crimea at the formal request of Sergei Aksyonov, the region’s new proRussian premier. What comes next no one knows. Of course, Russia shouldn’t meddle. However, a U.S. government that is ever ready to make demands, offer aid, impose sanctions, support leaders and factions, undermine governments, launch covert actions, and, most important, bomb, invade, and occupy other nations is in a weak position to criticize Moscow’s involvement in Ukraine. The most militarily interventionist state today is America. However good Washington’s justifications—and, frankly, in many cases they have not been very good—U.S. leaders have no principled argument against other governments acting in similar ways even if for more venal, even criminal, reasons, as in this case. As for Ukraine’s east, and especially Crimea, all sides should abide by the wishes of its residents, many of whom appear committed to separation. In fact, in 1992 the Crimean parliament voted to secede, though advocates settled for additional autonomy. Now they may be more serious. Washington should discourage the new Ukrainian government—both unrepresentative and unstable—from using force to hold any region which genuinely seeks separation. Yet Putin, demonstrating the hubris that comes naturally with authoritarian control, tossed aside his trump card, a planned referendum by Crimea’s residents. A majority secession vote would have allowed him to claim the moral high ground in standing by a kindred people. Aksyonov announced that he is advancing the poll, which will occur on March 30 and offer choices of autonomous status quo, independence, and Russian affiliation. However, an election conducted under foreign occupation lacks credibility. As it stands Could Russia attempt to take Ukraine in two gulps rather than one, rather like Adolf Hitler grabbed Czechoslovakia? Russia isn’t Nazi Germany and Ukraine isn’t 1938 Czechoslovakia, with or without the Crimea. Ukraine’s west wouldn’t be incorporated easily or completely. So far the participants have not lost their heads and started shooting. That could lead to genuine disaster . Russia has more than ten times Ukraine’s GDP and outspends Ukraine 20-1 on the military. The former should easily win any conventional contest. But the aftermath, Russia has committed acts of aggression and war. The only good news is that Putin’s ends almost certainly are limited. especially if Moscow sought to occupy anything more than the most heavily pro-Russian areas, would be continuing resistance and strife. Hopefully one Chechnya is enough for Vladimir Putin. Even in the worst case the U.S. has no cause for military intervention. Andrew C. Kuchins of the Center for Strategic and International Studies complained: “If you are effectively taking the stick option off the table, then what are you left with?” However, it would be foolish to wave the stick if using it would risk far more than is at stake. Who controls the Crimea just ain’t worth a possible nuclear confrontation. Putin is a nasty guy with a Ukraine is not “in the center of Europe” as the only thing worse than a completely unnecessary conflict would be a completely unnecessary conflict involving America— especially with a nuclear-armed power. This possibility offers a stark reminder of the case against inducting Ukraine into NATO, which would have created a formal legal commitment to start World War III. The allies should develop an out for Russia. Moscow can yet step back. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov nasty agenda, but Great Power wannabe Russia is no ideologically-driven superpower Soviet Union. Moreover, Washington Post strangely proclaimed. Moscow perceives its vital interests as securing regional security, not winning global domination. The said the troop presence was required “until the normalization of the political situation.” How so? One scenario: Russia withdraws its forces while Kiev schedules independence referendums in Russian-leaning areas. Popular approval would lead to a negotiated separation process. Other modus Vivendi also are possible. If Putin refuses to draw back, Washington and Brussels have little choice but to retaliate, imposing allies could impose a range of sanctions— cancelling the June G-8 summit in Sochi, abandoning new economic or trade negotiations, denying visas to leading Russians, recalling ambassadors, refusing normal diplomatic discourse, excluding Russian banks from international finance—but none of these actions, except perhaps the latter, would have much impact. Tougher would be banning investment and trade, which might build domestic political opposition to Putin. However, such a policy also might perversely strengthen the Russian state by making private Russian business more dependent on the authorities. Moreover, the Europeans are unlikely to stop purchasing natural gas from Moscow. The other problem with retaliation is that the tougher the response the more likely Moscow would harm American interests “costs,” in the president’s word. Secretary of State John Kerry promised “to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia.” The elsewhere: interfere with operations in Afghanistan, offer positive support for Iran and its nuclear program, enhance backing for Syria’s Bashar Assad, and provide succor to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Today Putin’s machinations in Ukraine are not directed at the U.S. But Moscow could take over that spot if it desired. Whatever else Washington does, it needs to keep communications open, as even President Ronald Reagan did with the Evil Empire during the Cold War. The struggle in Ukraine is vital for Ukrainians. However, history, geography, and reality all defy hysterical claims as to Ukraine’s global and historic importance. Its people deserve prosperity, stability, liberty, and democracy. America also would benefit from that result. But that future is not within Washington’s power to bestow, on Ukraine or anyone else. Today the U.S. should concentrate on pulling Russia back from the brink in Ukraine. A new cold war is in no one’s interest. A hot war would be a global catastrophe. Russia is not, as Mitt Romney bizarrely claimed, America’s number one geopolitical adversary. And *Organized Crime Find an impact to this from organized crime adv— *State Economies *Terrorism Scenario Decentralizing immigration is key to domestic counterterrorism – prioritizes federal homeland security Davon M Collins 2007; J.D. Candidate – Yale Law School, “Toward a More Federalist Employment-Based Immigration System1,” 25 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 349, Spring, Lexis In this age of international terrorism, the American immigration system is caught between our national security be reconceived and administered in a way that further increases economic opportunities while better protecting the homeland. To that end, this Note advocates reshaping our economic immigration system into a cooperative federalist system 2 in which the federal government allows states more responsibility for selecting employment-based immigrants while simultaneously shifting greater federal resources into immigration services and enforcement. 3 Specifically, Congress should needs and a socioeconomic imperative to remain a "nation of immigrants." 1 Yet the system can affirmatively decentralize 4 to the states administrative control over employment-based (EB) immigration decision-making, in the model of the 1996 welfare reforms and emissions trading [*351] credits. 5 As discussed in greater detail below, many scholars and policymakers have called for increasing the states' role in law enforcement 6 or in distributing public benefits. 7 This Note proposes instead that states exercise greater control over the admission of employment-based immigrants. Three basic premises underlie this proposal. First, lawful immigration produces net benefits for the United States and should be encouraged. Second, employment-based immigration primarily implicates local economic interests, such as education and labor regulation. Third, the federal and state governments' distinctive competencies should be exploited to the benefit of both immigrants and the entire nation. While the states are more responsive to local economic needs and interests, the federal government is better positioned to regulate aspects of immigration affecting the nation as a whole, such as security, overseas consular administration, and the prevention of spillover and race-to-the-bottom effects. I elaborate upon these themes throughout the Note. Means and motive for nuclear terrorism are inevitable – efficient immigration resource allocation is key to solve Eugene E Aloise, Susan M Collins, and Joseph Lieberman 6-30-2010; Director – Natural Resources and Environmental Division – GAO; Susan M., Senator (R-ME), and Joseph, Senator (ID-CT), “Nuclear Terrorism: Strengthening Our Domestic Defenses, Part I” Hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Federal News Service, 6/30, Lexis SEN. LIEBERMAN: Good morning and welcome. This is the eighth in a series of hearings our committee has held since 2007 to discuss how our nation is confronting the real the threat of nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is growing faster than our ability to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, on our homeland, and obviously as the and dire threats posed by nuclear terrorism. And I must say today that it seems to me, as I look back, I look at where we are now, that homeland security committee, this is of great and growing concern to us. I know that most people would prefer not to think about the unthinkable, but President Obama, to his credit, has clearly recognized the threat that brings us together this morning. At the 47-nation nuclear summit held in April, the president outlined the dangers here quite clearly, Nuclear materials that could be sold and fashioned into a nuclear weapon exist in dozens of nations . Just the smallest amount of plutonium, about the size of an apple, could kill and injure hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Terrorist networks, such as al Qaeda, have tried to acquire the material for a nuclear weapon, and if they ever succeeded, they would surely use it." These are all continuing quotes from the president. "Were they to do so, it would be a catastrophe for the world, causing extraordinary loss of life and striking a major blow to global peace and stability. In short, it is" -- and this is President Obama concluding -- "it is increasingly clear that the danger of nuclear terrorism is one of the greatest threats to global security, to our collective security ," end of quote. Then, a month or so later, the National Security Strategy released by the administration added, quote, "The American people face no greater or more urgent danger than a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and materials. Terrorists are determined to buy, build, or steal a nuclear weapon," end of quote. The International Atomic Energy Agency's Illicit Trafficking Database, which and I quote: " tracks all reported cases of smuggling, theft, unexplained losses, or black-market sales of nuclear materials, reports that there have been 1,340 confirmed incidents of smuggling since 2007 that involve materials that could at least be used to make a so-called "dirty bomb." And of those cases, 18 involved the smuggling of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the material that is critical to the making of an actual atomic weapon. In 2008, our committee held hearings to examine the office created in our government to counter this threat, the little-known Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, DNDO, within the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the question was: How do we keep DNDO on track? Today, I ask seriously whether DNDO has been on the right track and moving rapidly enough to achieve its critical mission. Though most Americans have never heard of DNDO, its mission is clearly vital to our homeland security in the world in which we live today. President Bush established the DNDO in 2005 to coordinate and oversee federal efforts to protect the U.S. against nuclear terrorism. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 14 designated DNDO as the lead organization for domestic nuclear detection, and charged it to work with the Departments of Defense, Energy, and State, and others to develop a GNDA Global Nuclear Detection Architecture. Though it has never been defined in statute, the GNDA, the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, seems to consist of programs across numerous agencies designed to stop terrorists from getting nuclear materials or weapons, and if they do get them, to stop them from bringing them into the United States. And I they do bring them into the United States, to stop them from successful detonating them. DNDO was given the critical job of coming up with an overall plan about how the different departments would work together to implement that plan, and then to recommend what kind of investments in technology would be needed. This was a big mission that they were given. And so in fairness, I should say that, and DHS has deployed nearly two thirds of the more than 2,100 radiation portal monitors identified in its deployment plan at established ports of entry on the northern and southern borders. Today, nearly 100 percent -- 100 percent of the seaport containerized cargo and 100 percent of vehicle traffic on the southern and northern borders are scanned for nuclear material. But there also have been omissions and failures, and they're serious. Cargo coming by rail from Canada or Mexico is still not scanned. Only a small there have been some successes. For instance, percentage of international air cargo is scanned, and DNDO apparently has no plans to scan commercial aviation aircraft of baggage. Five years into its existence, based on its record, it's just inescapable to conclude that DNDO requires real retooling, and quickly. It's made too little progress on its major mission, which is the development of the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture. Even DNDO seems to have concluded that its approach to this task is fundamentally flawed and now seeks an increase of $13 million in next The time for urgent action really is now. We're going to hear today that DNDO has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to develop a new year's budget for a new round of studies to produce yet another overarching strategy plan over the next several years. The time for multi-year studies is over. radiation detection technology that GAO concludes is only marginally better than we have now. Known as the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal, or ASP, this program has clearly drained resources from other programs, including development and deployment of mobile, portable, or hand-held technologies that could screen other types of inbound cargo or bulk shipments, like in -- those on international -- on trains or commercial aviation. I know that the administration is reexamining DNDO. We hope that DHS, Department of Homeland Security, would come and testify today. They said they weren't ready. We've set down a hearing for July 21st to hear their response to what we're going to hear from this distinguished group of independent evaluators of DNDO. And I'll say that it's certainly my expectation that what we need to hear from DNDO, from the Department of Homeland Security, is exactly what the intent -- to do with and to DNDO to make sure that it gets its critical mission right, and quickly. Senator Collins. SEN. SUSAN M. Safeguarding our nation against the threat of nuclear terrorism is surely one of the most important responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security. The WMD Commission in its 2008 reported predicted that "it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used COLLINS (R-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013." Technological innovation is a critical element in our efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism. It is, therefore, troubling that the department's efforts to develop a next-generation technology for scanning cargo for nuclear materials at ports of entry have been less than successful. As the chairman has pointed out, the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program has repeatedly encountered problems since its inception in 2004. As a result, the ASP has been relegated to being a potential secondary scanning tool, although that technology has yet to receive certification from DHS for even this limited function. Given the unwavering ambitions of America's enemies, our nation cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The DHS office currently responsible for making decisions about the development, testing, evaluation, and acquisition of detection equipment is the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, DNDO, as the chairman pointed out in his remarks. This office simply must make well-informed and threat-based investment decisions to meet the challenge of interdicting illicit nuclear material not only at our nation's borders, but also within our country. Given our nation's significant investment in this critical area, it is disappointing that DNDO has not made more progress. DNDO must also serve as the responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. Again, the department has fallen short in this area as well. As we navigate the road forward, the department must have a clearer strategy for developing the next generation of scanning technologies to detect and identify shielded and unshielded nuclear materials. The three organizations represented at our hearing today, GAO, CRS, and the National Research Council, have all produced recent reports that have found significant problems with the ASP program. They can give us valuable insights into the challenges the department confronts and that Congress must consider, as we move beyond the ASP program. It is surely significant that the department is not represented here today. They are not represented because they are not prepared to give us that strategy forward and to respond to these reports. So the second hearing that the chairman has announced for next month is also going to be extremely important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you very much, Senator Collins. And we'll go right to the witnesses with thanks for the considerable work you did in preparing your reports and your testimony, all of which will be entered by consent in the record in addition to the testimony you'll deliver. First witness -- help me with the pronunciation of your last name. MR. ALOISE: Aloise. SEN. LIEBERMAN: That's exactly what I would've said, but I wanted to make sure. (Laughs.) MR. ALOISE (Right ?). (Laughs.) SEN. LIEBERMAN: Eugene Aloise, director of the Natural Resources and Environment Division at the United States Government Accountability Office. Thanks, Mr. Aloise, and please proceed with your testimony. MR. ALOISE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the progress DHS has made in deploying radiation detection equipment to scan cargo and conveyances entering the United States by land, sea, and air for nuclear and radiological materials and the development of a strategic plan for the Global Nuclear Detection System. My testimony is based on our numerous issued reports, as well as current work assessing U.S. government efforts to deploy a radiation detection system at home and abroad. On the positive side, and as you just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, DHS has made progress and reports that it scans nearly 100 percent of the cargo and conveyances entering the United States through land borders and major seaports. On the downside, however, DHS has made little progress in scanning radiation in railcars entering the United States from Canada and Mexico, international air cargo, and international commercial aircraft, passengers and baggage. Nationwide, about 1,400 radiation detection portal monitors have been deployed. That's about two thirds of the 2,100 monitors planned for deployment, and another 700 monitors are needed. Scanning for nuclear materials in international rail and air cargo are presenting DHS with unique challenges. For example, the length of trains presents a huge scanning problem because trains can be up to two miles long. And separating alarming cars from other train cars for a closer look is very difficult. Air cargo is a problem because, among other things, there is a lack of natural choke points in airports where fixed detection equipment can be deployed. And until solutions can be found, DHS' goal of scanning 99 percent of air cargo at the 3,300 national airports in the United States by 2014 is currently on hold. The only scanning for radiation that is now occurring for international rail and air cargo is being done with hand-held detectors, not portal monitors. In addition, DHS' efforts to plug the gaps in the nuclear detection system is just at the early stages of development. Current gaps include land border crossings between U.S. ports of entry, international general aviation, and small maritime crafts, such as recreational boats and fishing vessels. It is important to close these gaps, because dangerous quantities of nuclear materials can be portable enough to be carried across by borders by vehicles or pedestrians on most private aircraft Closing the gaps is a major challenge because the United States has over 6,000 miles of land borders with many locations outside of established ports of entry where people and vehicles can enter. Also, according to the Coast Guard, small boats pose a greater threat for nuclear smuggling than shipping containers, because, among other things, there are at least 13 million pleasure craft and 110,000 fishing vessels in the United States. DHS is addressing these gaps by, among other things, developing testing and deploying radiation detection equipment and developing threat studies, but these efforts are all in their very early stages. Regarding DHS' strategic plan for the Global Nuclear Detection System, it has been two years since we testified or small boats. before this committee and recommended such a plan, but no such plan yet exists. DHS officials told us they are working on a plan and hope to complete it by this fall. The lack of a strategic plan has limited DHS efforts to complete the Global Nuclear Detection System. Without a plan, it has been difficult for DHS to address the gaps in the system. Also, DNDO's failed four-year effort to develop the next generation portal monitor, the ASP, is a consequence of not reaching consensus on a strategic plan with other federal agencies. We believe the proposed deployments of ASPs distracted DNDO from finishing the nuclear detection system and closing the gaps in it. In short, Mr. Chairman, because it had no plan to follow, DNDO took its eye off the ball. Instead, DNDO focused on replacing current equipment with questionably performing ASPs in areas where a detection system was At this moment DHS is at a crossroads. Because of the vast land borders, coast lines, and air space to protect, addressing the gaps in the detection system is in many ways more challenging than preventing nuclear smuggling through fixed ports of entry. Now that the ports of entry are more secure, it makes the gaps in the system more attracted to would-be smugglers or terrorists. With increasingly limited federal resources, it is especially important for DHS to develop a strategic plan which prioritizes how it will address the gaps in the detection system and allocate resources accordingly. already in place. Nuclear war Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies, Director of Strategic Studies: New Zealand, Senior Research Associate with Oxford’s Centre for International Studies. “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July 2010, pages 571-593) Washington's early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country's armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents' … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that …might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. Extra Solvency Executive Key Executive action is key to spur congress and state cooperation over immigration federalism Ramakrishan 14 (Karthick; professor of public policy and political science at the University of California, "Immigration federalism: Obama's actions likely to spur states, not Congress, to act", www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_27046376/immigration-federalism-obamas-actions-likelyspur-states-not, December 6, 2014)//ADS When the president announced his plans for administrative relief for unauthorized immigrants in the U nited S tates, he expressed hope that his executive action will spur congressional legislation on immigration . Indeed, most executive actions on immigration since 2006 were intended, at least in part, to prod Congress. However, our analysis of executive discretion on immigration indicates that presidential action has led to greater policy responses at the state level, what we call a "federalism effect," rather than a legislative response at the national level. Much of the debate surrounding the president's executive action has centered on its legality and on the war of words between the president and his Democratic allies and Republican opponents in Congress. However, most legal experts, including those who have served in Republican administrations, say the president is within his legal authority, particularly given limited resources from Congress. Indeed, prior While Congress can still counter the president's moves, with options ranging from impeachment to passing an enforcement bill that can override his veto, these are not likely to occur with a party that needs a modicum of Latino support to win the presidency in 2016. Instead, we will likely see significant policy actions at the state level . First, state and local lawsuits against the president's 2012 deferred action program have failed to gain traction in federal courts. administrative processes and record-keeping will be important for undocumented immigrants who must prove their long-term residency and good standing through government documents, such as school enrollment, tax, judicial and municipal utility records. In addition, state and local policies on driver's licenses, in-state tuition and public assistance will significantly impact the realization of the president's policy goals. Finally, state motor vehicle departments will have to deal with the increased number of deferred action recipients who may now seek driver's licenses to get to work or college. Indeed, we can look back to the Obama administration's prior executive action -- its 2012 Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program -- to see how presidential action can spur policy changes at the state level. In the two years since DACA's implementation, 46 states clarified that they would provide licenses to DACA recipients. DACA appears to have also advanced momentum on other state and local policies, as advocates pushed for expanded access to health care and in-state tuition for deferred action recipients and undocumented immigrants more generally. On the other hand, we have also seen instances where conservative advocates have been able to use state policy to push back against federal momentum. This is particularly true in Republican-led states, which have been less likely to pass immigrant integration laws and more likely to pass pro-enforcement laws. With greater Republican control of state governments in 2014, we might see more conservative legislation and administrative action at the state level. At the recent annual meeting of the Republican Governors Association, several members said they would try to thwart the . States are where we see policies that deeply affect the daily lives of immigrants, including those who are beneficiaries of deferred action. It is at this level where activists will likely focus their efforts, and where the interested public would be well advised to pay attention president's new policies. Thus, despite all the bluster, Congress remains an unlikely place for legislative action on immigration Case AT: Racism Turns States that hate workers can just defer acting on immigration – they’ll go to states where political pressure is lower Davon M Collins 2007; J.D. Candidate – Yale Law School, “Toward a More Federalist Employment-Based Immigration System1,” 25 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 349, Spring, Lexis Federalism can also function as a steam-valve. In the immigration context, Spiro has described this steam-valve effect as the capacity of "those states harboring intense antialien sentiment to act on those sentiments at the state level, thus diminishing any interest on their part to seek national legislation to similarly restrictionist ends." 198 The absence of such a steam-valve in the immigration arena has been thought by some to be a contributing factor to the flashes of anti-immigration legislation at the national level, such as those that prompted the Chinese Exclusion Act. Presumably, areas with high anti-immigrant sentiment are unable to affect change at the local level, and thus forced to seek immigration restrictions in Congress. And due to the nature of political logrolling, a small interest group with an intense preference pitted against the neutral posture of other, larger groups may prevail in the legislature. 199 While some scholars dispute this steam-valve theory as an explanation for every instance of major restrictionist legislation, 200 steam-valve federalism is a [*387] well understood aspect of public choice analysis generally. Thus, greater local input in EB admissions under DEBI might help interest groups currently threatened by the influx of tech workers from such places as India would be able to oppose their entry within their own states. Perennial high-stakes fights in Congress over the number of H1-B visas might thereby be scattered across the several states, as congressional debate focused on total immigration cap-setting. Ultimately, tech workers might be funneled through the visa market into high-demand states and deflected from high-resistance states, resulting in greater overall opportunities for economic growth and human happiness. to reduce pressure at the state level before it percolates up to Washington. For example, Counterplans AT: Legalization CP Legalization efforts are tunnel visions defending the immigration surveillance state Kalhan 2014 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, “Immigration Surveillance”—Maryland Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 1, Article 2, pg. 54, http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3646&context=mlr)//A N expansions in the scope of immigration enforcement, together with major investments to construct the technological infrastructure to support those expansions, have given rise to what I described above as the immigration surveillance state. 217 In its current incarnation, the immigration surveillance state has most visibly facilitated a regime of mass detention and deportation. However, as an approach to governance, immigration surveillance runs much deeper, encompassing a broader range of activities that both control and facilitate migration and mobility of both noncitizens and U.S. citizens, both within and outside the United States. Accordingly, in this Part, I explain why comprehensive immigration reform and other legalization proposals, while holding the potential to drastically reduce the number of noncitizens subject to removal from the United States, are not only unlikely to slow or reverse the development of the immigration surveillance state but, to the contrary, are likely to consolidate and extend its reach .218 To begin with, comprehensive approaches to III. LEGALIZATION AND THE IMMIGRATION SURVEILLANCE STATE These broad immigration reform conventionally have been understood to entail a pairing between two sets of objectives: regularization of current undocumented immigrants and increased future immigrant and nonimmigrant flows, on the one hand, along with increased investments in border control and immigration enforcement, on the other.219 Accordingly, like IRCA’s legalization provisions in 1986, the past decade’s leading comprehensive reform proposals—from the Bush Administration’s reform principles in 2004, to the bills passed by the Senate in 2006 and 2013, to the Obama Administration’s reform principles in 2013, to the reform principles briefly floated by House Republicans in January 2014—all forcefully pledge major investments to expand immigration enforcement activities across all of the many domains in which they now take place, including further legalization also reinforces immigration surveillance at an even more basic level. Like other aspects of immigration governance, legalization programs—even if they take the form of straightforward “amnesty” rather than the more demanding “earned legalization” that today’s leading proposals contemplate—necessarily require identification, screening, and authorization of individuals to determine whether they meet certain eligibility criteria and to formally confer the investments in the new technologies used to fashion the immigration surveillance state. However, legal status that they seek. For example, IRCA’s legalization program—which granted permanent residence to individuals meeting the relatively straightforward criteria of having resided in the United States before a specified cutoff date or having performed agricultural work for at least ninety days during the prior year—required applicants to provide documentation establishing their identity, residence, financial responsibility, and proof of employment; to be fingerprinted and photographed; and to appear for an in-person interview.220 The “earned legalization” approaches contemplated by today’s comprehensive reform proposals are considerably more complex, involving stringent initial applicants must satisfy a series of continuing obligations to “earn” legal status.221 For example, under the initial eligibility criteria in the Senate’s 2013 reform bill, applicants not only must satisfy a durational residence requirement but also must not have convictions for specified offenses; pay an application fee, a penalty, and any back taxes; submit biometric and biographic data; and successfully complete national security, criminal law, and immigration background checks. After eligibility criteria and long probationary periods during which extended periods of time in this provisional status, individuals may adjust to permanent resident status if they continue to satisfy the initial eligibility criteria, successfully complete a second set of background checks, and meet a series of additional prospective criteria, such as obtaining employment, satisfying minimum income requirements, registering for the military draft, meeting English language proficiency and civics knowledge requirements, and others.222 To implement and monitor compliance with these requirements, authorities invariably will turn to the techniques and technologies of immigration surveillance—collecting, storing, analyzing, and disseminating vast quantities of information on millions of eligible noncitizens, on an ongoing basis, to identify and ascertain who qualifies for legalization and, remaining continuously physically present in the United States, ultimately, for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. In a world in which the availability of more information is almost always assumed to be better, the likelihood of long retention periods and secondary use of that data for purposes not contemplated at the time of collection is quite high.223 By definition, not every unauthorized migrant will be able to regularize his or her status. Those who ultimately fall short of these requirements and remain undocumented—an enduring will effectively become “super-undocumented,” even more deeply in the shadows than population that, as Michael Wishnie describes, current undocumented immigrants—will continue to face the entire spectrum of enforcement practices, processes, and penalties that have emerged in recent decades, if not more aggressive and intrusive mechanisms of surveillance and control.224 Albeit on a comparatively modest scale, the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood DACA”) program offers a glimpse at how immigration reform reinforces the immigration surveillance state.225 Strictly speaking, DACA involves a categorical but temporary exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but the “DACAmented” status it confers Arrivals (“ should be understood as a form of quasi-legalization.226 The program permits unlawfully present noncitizens under the age of thirty-one to request a renewable, two-year period of temporary relief from deportation and employment authorization if they arrived in the United States while below age sixteen; have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007; are currently enrolled in school, graduated from high school or a GED program, or received an honorable U.S. military discharge; have not been convicted of certain specified criminal offenses; and do not otherwise present any threat to national security or public safety.227 DACA applicants must submit documentation to USCIS establishing their identity and fulfillment of these eligibility criteria. In addition, USCIS collects detailed biographic information and biometrics (photographs, fingerprints, and signatures) from all applicants in order to conduct criminal history and national security background checks against FBI’s IAFIS, DHS’s TECS, and other 1.8 million individuals could be eligible for DACA, and as of March 2014, over 673,000 DACA applications had been received.229 Whether as part of comprehensive immigration reform or in some other incarnation, any legalization program that Congress ultimately might adopt would invariably require—on a much larger scale—similar processes of data collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of personal information.230 While legalization usually is framed in public discourse as a means of advancing justice , compassion, and human dignity, advocates and policymakers increasingly government databases, and to enroll individuals into IDENT if their biometric records are not already included.228 Experts have estimated that as many as characterize legalization as a means of achieving instrumental objectives closely tied to the logic of immigration surveillance. For example, some legalization advocates emphasize the social harms that arise from a large “underground shadow population” and the benefits legalization would bring by enabling authorities to “learn the names and addresses of the nation’s inhabitants.”231 Especially in the wake of the 2001 attacks, these instrumental arguments are frequently advanced in the name of national security and public safety : [T]he security dangers of allowing a large, unauthorized population to remain are substantial. Effective homeland security requires that the U.S. government know who is living in this country to the greatest extent possible. It is simply not safe to allow so many to live a shadow existence in the country. in an effort to evade immigration enforcement, Efforts at deportation will only drive such people further underground when U.S. security would be better served by making their presence here lawful.232 With these pragmatic concerns front and center, the task of making unauthorized noncitizens visible and legible to government authorities invariably becomes a central objective in any legalization scheme.233 To that end, the logic, practices, and institutions of immigration surveillance— of identification, screening and authorization, mobility tracking and control, and information sharing— also become critical. AT: Transparency CP Information sharing and greater transparency still affects immigrants—it exacerbates existing problems Kalhan 2014 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, “Immigration Surveillance”—Maryland Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 1, Article 2, pg. 73, http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3646&context=mlr)//A N Immigration surveillance demands reassessment of the interests at stake when personal information and travel history are collected, maintained, analyzed, and disseminated for purposes related to immigration control and the mechanisms to protect those interests.304 The proliferation of zones where immigration control activities take place—and where detailed information on individuals and their migration and mobility histories is collected and subsequently aggregated, stored, and disseminated—carries a range of social costs.305 While it is entirely appropriate to collect, maintain, and disseminate personal information for immigration control purposes in some contexts and subject to certain constraints, both individuals and society as a whole have legitimate interests in preserving zones in which these immigration surveillance activities do not take place and in making sure that when they do take place those activities are appropriately limited and constrained. To some extent, those interests are individual interests, stemming from the value of preserving individual anonymity or quasianonymity more generally and the individual harms that can result when individuals’ migration and mobility are routinely tracked and detailed information is maintained.306 But they also arise from a broader set of social concerns that surveillance and information privacy scholars have increasingly recognized as important. These social interests—for example, preventing coercive or excessive aggregations of unrestrained government power—often have less to do with the particular information being collected in any given instance than with the harms that can arise from the means of surveillance and information management.307 In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has signaled a willingness to give greater weight to these kinds of interests than they have traditionally received.308 Vindicating these interests in the context of immigration surveillance therefore requires context-appropriate constraints on the collection, use, storage, and dissemination of personal information for immigration enforcement purposes—including robust limits on retention periods and secondary uses of information that were not originally contemplated. To date, however, exuberance over the potential benefits of interoperable databases and other new technologies has clouded attention to the continued importance of these limits when implementing these systems for migration and mobility control purposes. In an era in which more data is almost always assumed to be better, more information sharing and interconnectivity between database systems is also often assumed to be better as well.309 But as John Palfrey and Urs Gasser have emphasized, “complete interoperability at all times and in all places . . . can introduce new vulnerabilities” and “exacerbate existing problems.” Accordingly, they argue, placing constraints upon information sharing and interoperability and retaining “friction in [the] system” may often be more optimal.310 AT: Border Surveillance CP “probable cause” warrants are bad—they are powerful tools that are still used at the justification of authorities Kalhan 2014 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, “Immigration Surveillance”—Maryland Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 1, Article 2, pg. 74, http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3646&context=mlr)//A N Immigration surveillance sits at the intersection of several different doctrines that afford significant deference to government actors in border, migration, and mobility control. Under its border enforcement jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has afforded federal officials considerable latitude to conduct immigration and customs enforcement activities. This deference is strongest at the physical border itself, where the Court has deemed “routine,” suspicionless searches and seizures of individuals and property for purposes of enforcing immigration and customs laws to be per se reasonable, and therefore exempt from the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable cause requirements, “simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border.”311 The Court has reached this conclusion with little explanation, often relying on conclusory statements or invocations of history and tradition with little more.312 In some instances, the Court has explicitly invoked and tied this “border exception” to the federal government’s power over immigration, which it has long deemed to be plenary. In others, the Court has instead characterized border searches as falling within the categories of exceptions from ordinary Fourth Amendment limits for administrative or “special needs” searches.313 In a world in which the migration border is effectively everywhere, policed by large numbers of actors other than federal immigration officials—and in which immigration surveillance activities reach large numbers of U.S. citizens and noncitizens with lawful immigration status— the justifications for such sweeping deference become more difficult to maintain. The categories of potential deprivations that can result from immigration surveillance activities have multiplied drastically beyond the simple ability to enter and remain in the United States. With the expansion of the domains of enforcement and the tools of immigration surveillance, these enforcement activities can place restrictions on the rights to international and domestic travel, employment, education, social service benefits, and freedom from physical restraint in both the criminal justice and immigration enforcement processes. As discussed above, the powerful tools of immigration surveillance create significant risks of erroneous deprivations and are easily susceptible for uses beyond those originally contemplated when implemented. Courts have slowly begun to recognize that significant interests are at stake in immigration surveillance activities for both noncitizens and U.S. citizens.314 However, these interests have continued to be given insufficient weight by Congress , which has exempted records of most noncitizens from the Privacy Act, and the executive branch, which has invoked the Act’s exemptions from its coverage for databases used for law enforcement and national security purposes. Narrowing these exemptions in the Act’s coverage would enable these interests to be given the weight that they deserve, and ensure that any countervailing government interests are recognized and given effect only when supported by reasoned justifications. Health Care Immigrants need health care Undocumented immigrants fear deportation – can’t get access to medical care Hacker et al. 12 (Karen Hacker [M.D.], Jocelyn Chu [ScD, MPH ], Lisa Arsenault [PhD], Robert Marlin [PhD]; Provider's Perspectives on the Impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Activity on Immigrant Health; Journal of health care for the poor and underserved 23.2 (2012): 651-65; ProQuest)//AJ Qualitatively, of those observing negative effects of ICE on either health or health access, 57% (n=43) provided specific examples. Four salient themes emerged from these narratives centered on the fear of deportation: 1) deportation fear affected emotional health; 2) deportation fear led to interrupted care; 3) familial separation resulting from detention and/or deportation affected health and well-being; and 4) deportation fear also created perceived barriers to access. Over 40% of responses referred to "stress," "fear," and "anxiety" in their patients resulting from the threat of deportation. A few months ago I saw a patient with post-traumatic stress disorder whose husband was picked up in one of the raids. She was very reluctant to come out of the house to the clinic for fear of being stopped by the police. Her symptoms of anxiety, insomnia had worsened significantly. Examples detailed how ICE activity and the resulting fear of deportation led to interrupted medical care. At the time of the raids in New Bedford, some patients did not come for follow-up visits. Fear of getting deported keeps all these folks away-also even folks with green cards are afraid of losing their insurance now and have stopped getting necessary treatments. Children miss their well-child appointments because their parents are afraid of immigration services. A case comes to mind of a young man badly injured in a work accident. As soon as he was conscious, but still badly injured, he tried to leave the hospital because he was so fearful of being discovered and deported. I have a toddler [a patient] whose father was in jail for immigration and the patient was living with friends of the father. During this period of time, the toddler missed well-child checks and now has speech delay. I see patients with longstanding anxiety disorders who have been forced to remain "on the move" as a result of immigration policies. As such, they have not been able to maintain a stable mental health provider. Responses described the impact of deportation of loved ones on patient's emotional and physical health, as well as the financial burden created by additional responsibilities. I saw a . . . couple from El Salvador whose son had been marked to be deported. The [woman] is a diabetic/cardiac patient; her blood sugar was out of control, her blood pressure was out of control. [My patient] . . . from Uganda with HIV/AIDS and end-stage renal disease was unable to consistently keep appointments for dialysis because she needed to work to support her sister's two children after [her] sister was arrested by immigration. Concerns about ICE and deportation were also seen as obstacles to health care access. Patients feared that providing any documentation for insurance enrollment purposes would risk exposure. It is important to note that in Massachusetts, undocumented immigrants have access to the Health Care Safety Net, a state-funded program. This is often mistakenly considered health insurance as it requires documentation for enrollment. Patients [are] afraid to apply for insurance or accept visiting nurses for fear they will be reported. I also know some of my immigrant patients are nervous about getting needed services and avoid giving information about their true identity, which often impacts health (difficult getting old records when patient uses another name). Overall, the examples helped to depict how ICE activity had negative emotional and physical consequences for immigrant patients. Allowing undocumented immigrants to access health care is key to the economy Glen 13 – Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (Patrick Glen; Health Care and the Illegal Immigrant; Spring 2013; http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1788&context=facpub; Vol 23 Health Matrix; 197-236)//AJ The staggering costs of health insurance, care, and services in the United States were a primary motivating factor behind the push for general healthcare reform in 2010. As Peter Orszag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in the wake of the ACA’s passage, “[t]he Congressional Budget Office projects that between now and 2050, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal spending on health care will rise from 5.5 percent of GDP to more than 12 percent.”133 If public financing is combined with private financing, total spending in 2010 reached almost 17 percent of GDP, “or over $7,000 on each American annually.”134 An increasingly large share of this price is the result of uncompensated healthcare costs—costs that are not paid out-of-pocket by the individual treated, by the government via a public benefits program, or by a private insurance company. Between 1994 and 2000, uncompensated care costs were approximately $26 billion.135 In 2001, the University of Arizona’s Udall Center estimated that uncompensated healthcare costs ranged from $34 to $38 billion.136 These costs are the result of an uninsured population in the United States that exceeds 46 million individuals.137 Measuring the number of illegal immigrants in this population is difficult given an understandable reluctance to state that one lacks legal status to be in a country. Nevertheless, most studies note clear trends in insurance coverage related to whether an individual is a citizen, lawful resident, or illegal immigrant. A study published in Health Affairs in 2006 reported that 68 percent of illegal immigrants lacked coverage versus 23 percent of naturalized US citizens.138 Moreover, while 23 percent of illegal immigrants possessed insurance coverage through their employer, nearly 60 percent of naturalized citizens had such coverage.139 The next year, Health Affairs estimated that 65 percent of illegal immigrants lacked insurance coverage versus 32 percent of lawful residents.140 A 2007 JAMA article reported the uninsured percentage of illegal immigrants at 77 percent,141 while a 2008 USA Today report indicated that 59 percent of illegal immigrants are uninsured, versus 25 percent of lawful residents and 14 percent of US citizens.142 Whatever the exact number of uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States, these studies show that the number is substantial, especially when contrasted against the number of uninsured US citizens and lawful residents. Along with the difficulty in estimating the exact number of the illegal immigrant population, pinpointing the costs of health care attributable to this segment has proven equally troublesome. There are “no reliable national figures on hospital costs for undocumented immigrants”143 and no reliable figure regarding what amount of uncompensated healthcare costs are attributable to illegal immigrants.144 Nevertheless, there have been attempts to estimate the cost of providing health care to illegal immigrants within discrete regional areas. For instance, one study of Medicaid spending from 2001 to 2004 in North Carolina estimated that 99 percent of emergency Medicaid recipients were illegal immigrants.145 This number casts some light on the issue but focuses only on one type of medical spending in a single state. Studies in Colorado and Minnesota estimated that those states spent $31 million and $17 million respectively on health care for illegal immigrants in 2005, while a 2004 California study found the state’s expenditures at $1.4 billion, and the Texas state comptroller estimated that state spent $1.3 billion in 2006.146 As with the number of illegal immigrants, whatever the true cost of providing health care and services to these individuals, it is not de minimis. Bringing illegal immigrants within the fold of the official US healthcare system—by allowing them to come within the bounds of Medicaid or providing subsidies through which to purchase private insurance—could help to significantly lower many of these costs. The idea that extending government benefits could reduce costs is perhaps counterintuitive, but a similar projection holds for the course of the ACA itself. As Orszag noted, “[p]rojections from the CBO suggest that the added cost of covering millions more Americans will initially exceed the cost reductions included in the legislation but that eventually the pattern will be reversed.”147 Likewise, adding illegal immigrants, although adding costs at some points in the system, should save money on a system-wide basis. This is a function of two trends. First, including illegal immigrants in the pool of those insured should spread costs more broadly across the system, especially as immigrants tend to seek and use fewer health services. Second, by encouraging insurance coverage, public or private, the government can save costs elsewhere, such as in emergency Medicaid spending and by paying for cheaper, preventative treatments before chronic issues arise. Undocumented immigrants are costing society a fortune because they can only get care in emergency rooms Asbury 13 – Chief Executive of The Legacy Companies (Neal; The Cost of Permanent Patients; May 9, 2013; http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/NealAsbury/Immigration-healthcare-illegalemergency/2013/05/09/id/503579) The United States currently has an estimated 11 million immigrants who entered this country illegally. According to the National Research Council, the migration of these individuals into the United States costs American taxpayers $346 billion annually. Now we are starting to get a feel for the costs being absorbed by one sector — the U.S. healthcare system — to treat this population. And the cost is staggering. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the current cost of treating uninsured immigrants who entered this country illegally at all levels of government to be $4.3 billion a year, primarily at emergency rooms and free clinics. This doesn't take into account the billions being absorbed by in-patient care delivered by hospitals. Who is picking up these costs? Every American taxpayer — not to mention medical facilities and insurance companies who turn around and raise their rates for everyone else. For instance, it may surprise you to learn that immigrants who entered this country illegally, who have not paid one dime into Medicaid, are receiving Medicaid benefits. Kaiser Healthcare News reports that "federal law generally bars immigrants who enter this country illegally from being covered by Medicaid. But a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance illegally. This only covers emergency room care, but many thousands of patients in the United States who lack health insurance but who need long-term care program for the poor has long paid about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals, mostly comprise this class of immigrants." A 2007 report by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that in a four-year period, about 99 percent of those who used Emergency Medicaid were determined to be immigrants that entered this country term care wind up lingering in hospitals for many weeks, months or even years because the current healthcare system doesn't offer workable solutions for them. There is a term for these people: "permanent patients," because they have no relatives, insurance or an established address where they can go once released. Ashish Jha, associate professor of health policy and management at Harvard School of Public Health, told NBC, "It's completely illogical that hospitals have to spend about $2,000 a day on patients who could be cared for much more cheaply in a skilled nursing or rehabilitation facility. But because the law prohibits hospitals from discharging patients without a plan in place for ongoing care — and because nursing homes and rehabs are not required to take patients without insurance — many hospitals wind up keeping these patients for long periods of time." Many patients are stuck because they have no money or insurance to pay for long-term care. Other patients may have insurance, but their medical needs are too complex for most skilled nursing facilities to accept. Then there are those in limbo at the hospital waiting sometimes for months to qualify for Medicaid. Once they're approved, Medicaid will cover the nursing or rehab facility they need. In a case documented by NBC News, a Polish native, who had cleaned homes in the Chicago area for 20 years, suffered a stroke while on the job. An ambulance took her to Adventist La Grange Memorial Hospital in Illinois. She stayed at La Grange for two years, costing the hospital $1.4 million. A skilled nursing facility would have been a fraction of the cost, but they were prohibited from transferring her because she couldn't pay for care and had no insurance. Once a patient is in stable condition, the hospital is technically not required to continue care. However, some desperate hospitals have turned to "medical repatriations" — a term used when a hospital deports an injured or sick immigrant to a different medical facility in their home country without their consent. A report reveals that over the past six years, several organizations have registered over 800 cases of attempted or achieved medical repatriations. This, despite the fact that according to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, hospitals are required to screen and treat all patients for emergency care regardless of their health insurance coverage or immigration status. In one recent case that received extensive press, a Colorado medical facility that had been treating two illegal Mexican immigrants for some time without any compensation or a timeframe for discharge, flew them back to Mexico. We talk about an immigration policy where people can become permanent legal residents, but instead find ourselves dealing with illegal permanent patients. This is a sad little secret in our overall immigration and healthcare discussion that gets little attention and is costing us dearly. Extending health care stops the outbreak of disease Glen 13 – Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (Patrick Glen; Health Care and the Illegal Immigrant; Spring 2013; http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1788&context=facpub; Vol 23 Health Matrix; 197-236)//AJ Thomas Rundall argues that “an effective public health system reduces the need for medical services to treat conditions that can be prevented, thereby helping to control costs and make personal health care affordable.”166 However, at present, because preventative and ambulatory care are too expensive or inaccessible for broad swaths of the population, including illegal immigrants, the healthcare system must spend even higher amounts at the back-end of illnesses by treating more virulent and troublesome manifestations using procedures far more expensive than primary care.167 This is an obvious extension of the economic argument made in the preceding section: by providing insurance to illegal immigrants, the system can save money by offering cheaper preventative care that makes the need for subsequent emergency care or more sophisticated procedures less likely. The extension of insurance thus trades higher-priced health services for lowerpriced alternatives. It also frees up resources for other public health programs that could prove beneficial to the population as a whole.168 Yet this argument contains more than just an assertion that preventative care can lessen the general economic strains on the healthcare system. The true public health benefits lies in preventing diseases, including possible epidemic and other contagious conditions, and thereby safeguarding the health of the public as a whole.169 For instance, contagious diseases such as tuberculosis may cause widespread infection if not properly diagnosed and treated at the outset. The unavailability of a service that would permit treatment at the earliest stages makes such diagnosis and treatment less likely, which in turn increases the possibilities of broader infections amongst the entire population.170 This scenario is applicable to all types of infectious disease. By making primary care more difficult or costly to obtain, the entire population is opened up to greater exposure to infection and contagious disease. When preventative or educational care is unavailable, the dangers of illnesses like heart disease and diabetes risk being magnified, and care is ultimately shifted from prevention to more costly treatments.171 This side of the issue is especially important because, despite the initial general good health that immigrants enjoy, their health eventually deteriorates to a level consistent with US citizens.172 Preventative care can ensure better health over longer periods of time, benefiting both the economic and public health aspects of the healthcare system. Denying coverage for preventative care, but permitting emergency treatment, also has a perverse effect in the context of family planning. “By not providing prenatal care and routine or preventative services,” the system is unlikely to see fewer babies born, but it will see fewer healthy babies born as inadequate numbers of expecting mothers will receive quality medical care during their pregnancies.173 Thus, the pernicious effects of denying coverage may begin at the very birth of these children (who would be US citizens), bringing about a possible lifetime of expensive care that could have been avoided by providing certain benefits and coverage to the illegal immigrant mother. Disease harms the entire population – expanding health care solves Glen 13 – Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (Patrick Glen; Health Care and the Illegal Immigrant; Spring 2013; http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1788&context=facpub; Vol 23 Health Matrix; 197-236)//AJ Behind the simple economic calculations that weigh in favor of bringing illegal immigrants within the purview of governmental health benefits, there are pressing issues related to public health. The failure to promptly diagnose, treat, or medicate diseases can bring about public health consequences touching every segment of the population. Drug resistant or more virulent strains of disease are a risk for everyone within the United States and would, beyond the obvious impact of making people sick, likely cause cost spikes across the system. These risks can be mitigated in part by simply bringing illegal immigrants within the fold of the public health system. Preventative and ambulatory care can properly and promptly diagnose illnesses. Keeping individuals within the formal market negates the need to track down possibly counterfeit medications that would fail to adequately address the disease. Such results are beneficial not only to the individual seeking care, but to the population as a whole. Studies prove that hyperdiseases can wipe out species Viegas 8 (Jennifer; [Journalist at Discovery Communications, Discovery Channel]; “How disease can wipe out an entire species”; 11/5/2008; http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27556747/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/how-diseasecan-wipe-out-entire-species/#.VaK7_vlViko) JKS Disease can wipe out an entire species, reveals a new study on rats native to Australia's Christmas Island that fell prey to "hyperdisease conditions" caused by a pathogen that led to the rodents' extinction. The study, published in the latest issue of the journal PLoS One, presents the first evidence for extinction of an animal entirely because of disease. The researchers say it's possible for any animal species, including humans, to die out in a similar fashion, although a complete eradication of Homo sapiens would be unlikely. "I can certainly imagine local population or even citywide 'extinction,' or population crashes due to introduced pathogens under a condition where you have a pathogen that can spread like the flu and has the pathogenicity of the 1918 flu or Ebola viruses," co-author Alex Greenwood, assistant professor of biological sciences at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., told Discovery News. The 1918 flu killed millions of people, while Ebola outbreaks have helped to push gorillas close to extinction. For the Christmas Island study, Greenwood and his colleagues collected DNA samples from the island's now-extinct native rats, Rattus macleari and R. nativitatis, from museum-housed remains dating to both before and after the extinction event, which occurred between 1899 and 1908. Co-author Ross MacPhee, a curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, N.Y., explained that Charles Andrews of the British Museum documented at the time that black rats were first brought to the island via the S.S. Hindustan in 1899. The ship-jumping black rats then carried a protozoan known as Trypanosoma lewisi. A related organism causes sleeping sickness in humans. "Fleas are the intermediate host for one of the developmental stages of Trypanosoma, and the only likely method (of disease spread) is infected fleas crossing from black rats to endemic rats," MacPhee told Discovery News. After the Hindustan's arrival, the native island rats were observed staggering around deathly ill on footpaths. Shortly thereafter, they were never seen again. The museum DNA samples showed that Christmas Island native rodents collected before the black rats invaded the island were not infected with the protozoan, but six out of 18 collected postcontact were infected. Eight great extinct species "Not every rat would have to be infected," Greenwood explained. "If you push a population down to an unsustainable number then it will collapse. In addition, if a substantial number of reproducing individuals became infected and ill, even if they survived the infection, their reproduction rate may be lowered and lead to a population crash." Given the rats' fate, scientists are concerned about Tasmanian devils, which have been dying in record numbers due to devil facial tumor disease, a contagious cancer for which the carnivorous marsupials appear to have no immunity. Such island species seem to be more vulnerable to extinction by disease. In a prior study, MacPhee determined that at least 80 percent of all species-level losses during the past 500 years have occurred on islands. "The general explanation for islander susceptibility would presumably be that island denizens live in a sort of bubble, protected by water barriers from diseases prevalent on mainlands or elsewhere," MacPhee explained. "But when the bubble is broken -- think measles epidemics in Iceland in the 19th century -- the mortality can be extreme." Karen Lips, associate professor of zoology at Southern Illinois University, told Discovery News that the new research was "well done and convincing, despite the limited number of samples available." She also pointed out that island-like conditions exist within mainland areas. "I work up on mountaintops, another kind of island with high endemism, which is greatly affected by emerging infectious disease," she said. Elk in North America, for example, have suffered worrisome population losses due to wasting diseases induced by prions. Various South Pacific fruit bats and amphibians are also under threat now due to infectious diseases. "What can be done?" asked MacPhee. "Probably nothing other than captive conservation," he added. "Most wildlife biologists are hoping that such diseases, although severe, will eventually accommodate and the species will pull through." Status quo deprivation of healthcare towards immigrants raises many ethical/moral concerns Faden 09 (Ruth Faden, 12/31/09 Phillip Franklin Wagley Professor of Biomedical Ethics At Johns Hopkins University, “Denying Care to Illegal Immigrants Raises Ethical Concerns”, Kaiser Health News, http://khn.org/news/123109faden/) //AS Even with these measures, however, it is likely that some of the unit’s former patients will die for lack of maintenance dialysis and that others will suffer the heartbreak of tragedy facing these patients and their families, and the tragic choice the Grady Memorial leadership felt it had to make, are hardly unique. A recent study estimates that about 5,500 undocumented immigrants with end stage separation from loved ones. But the renal disease currently live in the United States.1 No national data are available about how many of these people are able , but in another recent survey, only 50 percent of nephrologists responded that undocumented immigrants had access to to secure the lifeline of maintenance dialysis, and how many die for lack of it maintenance dialysis.2¶ Clinicians who understand that refusing to provide lifesustaining care goes against the moral foundations of their profession are constantly forced to confront the realities underlying these dry statistics. In some cases like Grady Memorial’s, institutional decisions are based on financial assessments of the burdens of providing uncompensated treatment to undocumented immigrants, and the impact these costs have on the capacity to provide care to other patients. Depending on the facts, such local decisions may be ethically justifiable, but the same cannot be said for the public policies against which these agonizing choices must be made. Americans who object to providing health care to those who are in this country illegally make the principled point that people who violate the immigration laws of this country have forfeited any moral claim to assistance and should not benefit from their illegal behavior. They also argue that providing those here illegally with access to regular health care will as a practical matter have the undesirable effect of increasing illegal immigration. ¶ The principled argument in favor of including illegal immigrants in health reform is that decent health coverage is a basic human right. A just nation should support that right for everyone, regardless of why or how a person is in the country. There are also practical reasons to support including undocumented immigrants in health reform. Ethics aside, there is no pragmatic way to deny emergency care to illegal immigrants. As the dialysis story illustrates, in many cases, it is difficult if not impossible to make coherent distinctions between emergency and regular care that make financial and medical sense.¶ While the practical arguments on both sides are important, this is one debate that can and should be settled on principled grounds. The problem of illegal immigration should be solved by immigration policy, not health policy. People who are in this country illegally have broken our laws, but the magnitude of their crime does not justify depriving them of the basic right to health care coverage while they are in our midst. The most extraordinary thing about health reform is that it finally enshrines the principle that America is committed to universal access to health care. It will take time, but eventually, as with other American declarations of rights, universal will come to mean universal. The House’s proposal for illegal immigrants is a good first step. Solvency Following Mexico’s proven model of healthcare solves best as they have almost as many undocumented immigrants as the U.S Wolbert 11( Samuel Wolbert, J.D candidate university of Pittsburgh Law, winter 2011, “Universal Healthcare and access for undocumented immigrants”, Pittsburgh Journal of Environmental and Public Health Law 5 Pitt. J. Envtl. Pub. Health L. 61)//AS A number of pragmatic options exist, several of which would satisfy both sides of the healthcare debate. One such plan is found by looking across the southern border of the United States at the Mexican healthcare system. By studying the Mexican system, we may be provided with a diverse and unique solution to the current public debate. This note does not purport to represent [*74] the Mexican social welfare policies as the definitive approach; rather, the analysis relies upon pragmatic observations drawn from examining Mexico's attempts to cope with many of the same domestic issues present in the U.S. healthcare system.¶ Mexico's healthcare policy provides a unique case study for a variety of reasons. First, Mexico faces welfare and poverty issues that are much more pervasive than in any domestic region within the United States. Also, like the United States, Mexico is a bourgeoning home for immigrants. Mexico annually receives a large number of undocumented immigrantsfrom surrounding countries. While this number does not exceed the immigration levels in the Thus, Mexico's solutions to its healthcare problems could provide a unique and practical perspective to the United State's dilemma.¶ Supplying healthcare to a developing country of over 105 million, such as Mexico, involves a complex system ranging from small, private insurance plans to a vast universal health insurance program that mixes public, private, and employer funding. n71 Mexico's private health insurance system is not as prevalent as its counterpart in the United States, it is nonetheless substantial for a country of its size, population, and resources. n70 United States: only about three million wealthy and middle class Mexicans are able to afford private care. However, those that can afford private healthcare do receive ample care at relatively cheap rates. n72Mexico also has a public system where about 50 million salaried Mexicans, along with their employers and government, pay into a progressive insurance scheme based on wage. n73Finally, and most importantly, is the universal healthcare approximately 40 million uninsured Mexicans began receiving access to full health coverage through Mexico's universal healthcare system, the Seguro Popular de Salud (Social Health Insurance Program). n74 The crux [*75] of the plan is to provide Mexicans with social health protection covering the most basic treatments, including 266 different types of general procedures and 312 medications. These basic treatments are provided to reduce catastrophic health expenditures, which can increase exponentially when standard preventative measures are ignored. n75 In exchange for access to these basic treatments, most families pay a premium based upon their income and then make preventative healthcare visits at clinics. The poorest 20% of the population pay nothing. Though the program is still in the nascent system in Mexico.¶ In 2003, n76 n77 stages of implementation, early results have shown that catastrophic healthcare expenditures have declined for poor families and the general population . n78 Equally as promising, these special programs have helped reduce malaria by sixty percent, tuberculosis mortality rates by thirty percent, and are on track to reduce child mortality by up to two-thirds by 2015. n79¶ as a whole The only way to solve ethical questions is to grant undocumented immigrants unquestioned healthcare assistance Hanrahan 13(Donna Hanrahan, 1/17/13, “The ethics of advocacy for undocumented patients”, Ethics Illustrated A project of Bioethics International, http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2013/01/17/the-ethics-of-advocacy-forundocumented-patients/) //AS Uncertain how to proceed in the face of these financial constraints, clinicians may improvise remedies—a strategy that allows our society to avoid confronting the clinical and organizational implications of public policy gaps. While one of the consequences of the 2012 election may be comprehensive immigration reform that gives undocumented immigration reform on its own does not ensure access to health care. Attention to the health care needs of this low-income population, and to the concerns of health care professionals, cannot wait on consensus around immigration. immigrants a path to citizenship, There is no simple solution—no quick fix—that will work across organizations (in particular, hospitals with emergency departments) in states with different concentrations of undocumented immigrants, varying public and private resources for safety-net health care, and differing approaches to law and policy concerning the rights of immigrants. However, every hospital can help its clinicians by addressing access to health care for undocumented immigrants as an ethical issue. Here, we offer some recommendations for doing this in a structured, fair, and transparent way. We also describe the problems that may result when clinicians are forced to grapple with this issue on their own .¶ Studies show that undocumented immigrants seek medical care less often than the general population. This is because they are relatively young, they often have jobs that don’t allow time to visit a doctor or health care facility, and they may fear deportation when they venture outside their known communities. When they do seek care, they have long been eligible for emergency medical treatment, as mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and funded by Department of Health and Human Services allocations . They are also eligible for comprehensive primary care offered by eight thousand nonprofit community health facilities across the United States and funded by the Health Resource and Service Agency. But what happens when they have a serious illness or chronic medical condition (which will become more likely as the population ages) that does not readily fit into “emergency” or “primary” care? Undocumented patients who initially seek emergency treatment may later need cancer therapies, dialysis for end-stage renal disease, or even joint replacement for severe arthritis. Clinicians (including physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, physician assistants, and social and emergency Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals workers) who work in emergency departments in safety-net hospitals generally strive to provide good care to and advocate for these patients, who may not speak English, have . But exactly how to be an effective advocate and provide sufficient care in situations where an undocumented patient’s medical needs exceed his or her financial resources presents ethical challenges to these frontline clinicians. Under these conditions, clinicians may perceive a range of informal practices to be expedient or compulsory so that patients can be treated under EMTALA provisions few resources, and are sometimes wary of providing identifying information *2AC Extensions 2AC Extension #1 – Can’t Access Socioeconomic status of undocumented immigrants plays a major factor in their lack of healthcare assistance Baustamente 10 (Arturo Baustamente, “Variations in Healthcare Access and Utilization Among Mexican Immigrants: The Role of Documentation Status, 10/24/10)//AS Our findings quantify the adverse effects of undocumented status on healthcare access and utilization among Mexican immigrant adults. According to our , approximately 88% of the disparities between undocumented and documented immigrants from Mexico can be traced to socioeconomic and demographic characteristics such as sex, marital status, education, poverty status, health insurance coverage, time in the US and English proficiency.¶ We find that if all undocumented immigrants from Mexico had the same characteristics of the documented population, they would enjoy a 27% higher probability of having a doctor visit and a 35% increased probability of having a usual source of care. analyses Consequently, if undocumented immigrants from Mexico resembled documented immigrants in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, differences in healthcare differences between documented and undocumented immigrants from Mexico with respect to utilization of ED visits, number of doctor visits, delay in drugs receipt and delays for other healthcare services are not statistically significant. These results suggest that the adverse effect of legal status on healthcare access and access and utilization would narrow significantly.¶ We find that utilization is heterogeneous across healthcare services. English proficiency while more widespread among documented immigrants was not always a predictor of healthcare More limited healthcare access and utilization among undocumented immigrants is likely to aggravate undiagnosed health problems compared to documented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants arriving to the ED with health conditions that progressed unchecked may require costly treatments that could have been avoided if they were encouraged to use less invasive forms of healthcare without restrictions [42]. Undocumented immigrant status discourages doctor visits and having a usual source of care that could reduce the utilization of the ED among this population [43, 44]. utilization in all measures. Healthcare providers should be aware that lack of English proficiency is not necessarily a predictor of undocumented status.¶ Hispanic immigrants inability to use healthcare, enables them to use dangerous and unsafe contingencies for care Rhodes 14 (Scott Rhodes, PH.D. professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest, “The impact of local immigration enforcement policies on the health of immigrant Hispanics/Latinos in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health 105.2) //AS Among immigrant Hispanics/ Latinos, the fear of deportation, a lack of required forms of documentation, interaction with law enforcement personnel, and racial profiling are factors also associated with re-duced utilization of health services and worse health. Such fears lead to incomplete sequences of care and promote the use of nonstandard and unsafe contingencies for care, and contribute to public health hazards, as immigrants delay preventive care or treatment. These fears further affect long-term health outcomes as immigrant Hispanics/Latinos alter their physical activity, food purchasing behaviors, and food con-sumption because of concerns about being in public.29They may withhold information from health care providers19 and experience high levels of stress, leading to compromised mental health. Undocumented immigrants face significant barriers to health care Wallace et al. 13 (Steven Wallace [PhD, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor], Jacqueline Torres [MA, MPH, graduate student researcher at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research], Tabashir Nobari [MPH, graduate student researcher at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research], Nadereh Pourat [PhD, professor of health policy and management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health]; Undocumented and Uninsured: Barriers to Affordable Care for Immigrant Populations; August 2013; eScholarship University of California)//AJ Maintaining the relatively good health status of undocumented immigrants requires adequate access to health care. Nationally, studies have found that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower access to health care and use fewer health care services than their U.S.- born and other immigrant counterparts. In California, nonelderly undocumented adults were more than twice as likely to report having no usual source of care as U.S.-born and naturalized citizens of similar ages and genders. Similarly, undocumented immigrants were almost twice as likely to report making no past-year doctor visits as U.S.-born residents. Despite having no usual source of care and reporting significantly fewer doctor visits than their U.S.born and naturalized citizen counterparts, undocumented immigrants were the least likely to have used an emergency department in the past year (Exhibit 3). When undocumented immigrants do visit the doctor, they often face high out-ofpocket costs since over half do not have health insurance coverage. Among Californians who reported having medical bills, 42 percent of undocumented immigrants said they were unable to pay for basic necessities because of these bills, a significantly higher proportion than the 27 percent of U.S.-born citizens who reported similar problems (data not shown). Obamacare won’t include undocumented immigrants Millman and Eilperen 14 (Jason Millman [Reporter for The Washington Post], Juliet Eilperen [Reporter for The Washington Post]; Obama’s order won’t extend Obamacare to undocumented immigrants; November 19, 2014; The Washington Post; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/19/obamas-order-wont-extendobamacare-to-undocumented-immigrants)//AJ President Obama's impending executive action on immigration apparently won't bestow health care benefits on millions of undocumented immigrants, according to an individual familiar with the decision. That means the millions who will be protected from deportation won't be eligible to purchase subsidized coverage from the public health insurance marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act. The decision will disappoint advocacy groups, but it doesn't come as a total surprise. The Obama administration passed on a similar opportunity two years ago to extend health-care eligibility to so-called "dreamers," illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children. In September, the Obama administration said it cut off ACA marketplace coverage to about 115,000 immigrants who failed to provide proof of their citizenship or immigration status. And many Hispanics, who have the highest uninsured rates of any group, are hesitant to sign up for Obamacare coverage for fear of an undocumented relative being deported as a result. Extending government health care to undocumented immigrants has been a lightning rod in the Obamacare debate since it was drafted in Congress. Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) infamous "You lie" moment was in direct response to President Obama's assertion that his health-care plan wouldn't insure illegal immigrants. The truth is that the government already funds some care for undocumented immigrants and has been for years before the ACA. It's through a program that's known as "emergency Medicaid," which pays hospitals to provide emergency and maternity care to immigrants who'd 1) otherwise be Medicaid eligible if they weren't in the country illegally or 2) are legally present in this country but haven't been here for at least five years. As my colleague Sandhya Somashekhar reported last year, the federal government paid out $1.3 billion for this program in 2011, and states paid out hundreds of millions more from their own budgets. That program will grow in the states that have expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA. Previous estimates from the Congressional Budget Office found that between 7 million and 8 million undocumented immigrants will remain uninsured under the ACA. They still have limited options for insurance: They can buy coverage through an employer if it's offered, they can purchase directly from an insurer (but not receive federal subsidies), or receive care from Federally Qualified Health Centers. Some states do extend benefits to undocumented immigrants, but they still face greater barriers to care. However much Obama's executive order may change the lives of these immigrants overnight, their health care will remain the same for most — as if the ACA never happened. The perception that undocumented immigrants are dangerous criminals is extremely incorrect and not a reason to reject healthcare Wolbert 11(Samuel Wolbert, J.D candidate university of Pittsburgh Law, winter 2011, “Universal Healthcare and access for undocumented immigrants”, Pittsburgh Journal of Environmental and Public Health Law 5 Pitt. J. Envtl. Pub. Health L. 61)//AS After 9/11 and the discovery that five out of the nineteen hijackers were in the United States illegally, n5 the general public demanded a concentrated effort to fix immigration. Today, as the job market continues to stagnate and the American economy remains crippled by a recession, the discourse surrounding immigration has become an even more salient and germane concern for the American people. Throughout it all, the American public at large has turned a skeptical eye towards immigrants, particularly those immigrants here illegally.¶ The current public perception of undocumented immigrants is fueled by fear and mistrust. The image of the undocumented immigrant has been that of person whom we should chastise and exclude. n6 Also, the language used in the immigration discourse mirrors language used in domestic criminal policy; terms such as "illegals" and "illegal aliens" reinforce the image of immigrants as nothing more than common criminals. n7 The potency of this image is exacerbated by the threat of violence spilling over the American border. Now, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are seen as gang-related and extremely dangerous. n8¶ From a political perspective, giving healthcare to undocumented immigrants is not viewed as a benevolent hand-up to hard-working immigrants as much as it is seen as a poor allocation of funds to undeserving criminals. However, this perception is erroneous and should not be used as a justification for denying any healthcare services.¶ New studies are emerging which disprove the myth that undocumented immigrants create more crime. n9 These studies show that, even though [*64] immigration continues to increase, cities with the highest immigration population have actually seen a substantial drop in homicide, robbery, and violent crime rates. n10 For instance, San Diego, California has the lowest homicide rate out of every major urban area in the United States, n11 despite being directly across the Mexican border. Other major cities in the Southwest, such as Phoenix, El Paso, and San Antonio, also, according to FBI data, continue to have declining crime rates. n12 Overall, researchers are in agreement that there is "no support for the argument that immigrants are committing more crime and . . . driving up the crime rate."¶ Current measures prevent undocumented citizens from accessing proper prenatal care Fabi 14 (Rachel; [HR Assistant at Alumni Affairs & Development at Cornell University]; “Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Access to Prenatal Care”; 9/29/2014; http://www.undocumentedpatients.org/issuebrief/undocumented-immigrants-in-the-unitedstates-access-to-prenatal-care/) JKS Access to prenatal care for women who are undocumented immigrants varies widely across the United States due to differences in state policies and differing state-level interpretations of federal policies that fund health services for pregnant women. This issue brief provides an overview of this access problem and the consequences of policy-related uncertainty or variation for undocumented patients, their families, and the health care safety-net. Why is access to prenatal care for undocumented immigrants important? There is long-established medical consensus that prenatal care is fundamental to reproductive and infant health; however, undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. are significantly less likely to have “adequate” prenatal care, compared to other immigrants and to U.S. born citizens. [1–4] The reasons for this gap include lack of means to pay for prenatal care, lack of access to sources of prenatal care, and mistrust of the health care system. [5] Other barriers to health care that undocumented immigrants face include difficulties navigating the health care system; linguistic, literacy, and other challenges in communicating about health care needs; inability to take time off from work; misinformation about the immigration-related consequences of using health care services; and perceived and actual risks of encountering immigration authorities or local law enforcement in the course of seeking health care. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which prevents hospitals from turning away uninsured patients in need of emergency treatment, encompasses labor and delivery, and most “emergency” health care services used by undocumented immigrants are related to childbirth. [6–8] State-level Emergency Medicaid programs provide some reimbursement to hospitals for treatment provided under EMTALA. In some states, undocumented immigrants may account for as much as 99% of Emergency Medicaid expenditures; approximately 80% of these costs are related to childbirth or to complications of pregnancy and labor. [8] Because access under EMTALA is restricted to emergent conditions, it is not a mechanism for access to routine prenatal care that could prevent or monitor pregnancyrelated complications. Lack of access to prenatal care increases the risk of premature birth and low birth-weight, and may be a factor in a range of poor health outcomes experienced by undocumented pregnant women and their babies, including higher rates of labor and delivery complications such as precipitous labor, excessive bleeding, breech presentation, cord prolapse, and fetal distress. [9, 10] These risks and outcomes have consequences for the viability and health of newborns, infant and child development, and the health of mothers, and for costs associated with treating medical conditions that could have be prevented or managed before birth. Undocumented citizens aren’t able to have full access to health care in the squo Gusmano 12 (Michael K.; [research scholar for the Hastings Center]; “Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Use of Health Care”; 3/27/2012; http://www.undocumentedpatients.org/issuebrief/health-care-use/) JKS How does the use of health care services among undocumented immigrants compare with U.S. citizens and legal residents? As noted, comparisons of health care spending consistently find that total per capita spending on undocumented immigrants is lower than spending on legal immigrants and citizens. A 2010 study based on data from last decade concluded that spending on health care for all immigrants is lower than for U.S. born citizens, and that “immigrants are not contributing disproportionately to high health care costs in public programs such as Medicaid.”3 This study found that national health expenditures for immigrant adults were 55% lower than for U.S. born adults. A 2006 study that looked specifically at undocumented immigrants found that health expenditures were 39% lower for undocumented men and 54% lower for undocumented women when compared to U.S. born men and women.4 In Los Angeles County, where the undocumented population represents 12% of the total population, undocumented immigrants consume only 6% of medical expenditures.5 Use of health care services is lower among undocumented adults and their children – regardless of the immigration status of those children – than it is among adult U.S. citizens and their children. Undocumented adults and their children are less likely than U.S. citizens to use emergency department care, visit a physician or nurse on an outpatient basis, or use mental health or dental services.6 A 2007 survey of undocumented Latinos reported that they are less likely than U.S. born citizens to have a usual source of care (58% vs. 79%) or to have their blood pressure (67% vs. 87%) and cholesterol (56% vs. 83%) checked annually.7 When undocumented immigrants do use health care services, they are more likely than U.S. citizens to pay out of pocket for this care.8 2AC Extension #2 – Fear Undocumented immigrants don’t get medical care for fear of being caught Tam 14 – Online Editorial Production Assistant at the PBS NewsHour (Ruth; What’s holding undocumented immigrants back from seeking health care?; May 5, 2014; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/whats-holding-undocumented-immigrants-back)//AJ NEWSHOUR: How do undocumented immigrants in California use health care? NADEREH POURAT: We compared the undocumented population in California to native-born and naturalized populations. What we found is that, no matter whether you look at children or adults, or whether you’re looking at types of services, there was not a single instance where the undocumented population exceeded other categories in health care utilization. In most cases, their level of use was significantly lower. And we found that uninsured undocumented (populations) use fewer services than other uninsured populations. Even undocumented immigrants who were in insured surprisingly don’t use services more or as much as insured documented groups. You’re looking at a systematic lower level of use. And when you see they’re using lower levels of care, you have to ask yourself, ‘Why is that? Why would that be?’ We speculate that lower levels of utilization have to do with other unmeasured barriers. There are other issues going on that keep undocumented immigrants from using health care. NEWSHOUR: Can you talk about those unmeasured barriers? What is holding undocumented immigrants back? NADEREH POURAT: One likely issue is the fear or worry that you walk into the door of the emergency room, and you might have to provide some documentation. Emergency room staff tries to figure out whether or not you have insurance and they try to see if you qualify for any of the public forms of coverage out there. Eventually you might have to say something about your documentation status. That could keep people away. We did focus groups with young populations, and they say you learn early on to avoid going to the doctor. Your first instinct is to avoid (doctors) as long as possible. While the lower level utilization might seem like a good thing, if undocumented immigrants undergo any major health problems, they’re often not discovered until (those problems are) more severe and more costly, and the patient could have a worse prognosis. Latino immigrants reject any forms of healthcare because it is closely associated with government authority Rhodes 14 (Scott Rhodes, PH.D. professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest, “The impact of local immigration enforcement policies on the health of immigrant Hispanics/Latinos in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health 105.2) //AS The Patient Protection and Affordable Care ¶ Act bars undocumented or recent legal immi grants from receiving¶ financial assistance for ¶ health insurance; thus, many will continue to ¶ remain uninsured and dependent on public health services and free clinics for a significant portion of their care. Because these services are associated with government authority, there is ¶ the potential that increasing immigration en forcement policies will deter noncitizens from ¶ seeking needed care, not only to their detri ment but also to the detriment of public health. ¶ Currently there is little research examining ¶ the impact of recent immigration enforcement ¶ policies on the access to and utilization of ¶ health care, and there has been a call to better ¶ understand the public health impact of current ¶ immigration policies and their enforcement.¶ 29 ¶ Through mixed methods, we explored the ¶ effect of local immigration enforcement policies ¶ on access to and utilization of health services ¶ among immigrant Hispanics/Latinos in North ¶ Carolina. We analyzed vital records data to ¶ determine whether there were differences in ¶ utilization of prenatal services by Hispanic/ ¶ Latina mothers pre- and postimplementation ¶ of section 287(g), and we conducted focus ¶ groups and in-depth interviews with Hispanics/ ¶ Latinos living in counties that had implemented ¶ section 287(g) and in ¶ “¶ sanctuary¶ ” ¶ counties, ¶ counties in which leaders, including politicians ¶ and clergy, have spoken out against the program. Undocumented immigrants are fearful of receiving medical services Berk and Schur 01 (Mark [Director of the Project HOPE Center for Health Affairs in Bethesda, Maryland], Claudia [Deputy Director of the Project HOPE Center for Health Affairs in Bethesda, Maryland]; The Effect of Fear on Access to Care Among Undocumented Latino Immigrants; July 2001; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011389105821#page1)//AJ Across all four sites, 39% of undocumented Latino adults reported that they had been afraid of not receiving medical services because of their undocumented status (see Table I). Neither age, sex, nor years in the United States were significant predictors of being afraid about immigration status. The number of persons expressing fear about obtaining care did vary by site, ranging from 34% in Los Angeles and 35% in Houston to 44% in Fresno and 45% in El Paso, with persons in the larger cities expressing less concern. Of particular interest to policymakers, persons who reported fear that they would not receive medical services were substantially more likely than those not expressing fear to report being unable to get the care they needed. As shown in Table II, over 14% of persons who had expressed fear said they were unable to get medical care or surgical care at some time during the last year, compared to only about 3% of persons who had not expressed fear. Fear was associated with a more than fourfold increase in the probability of reporting unmet need for prescription drugs among undocumented Latinos, with 9.6% of those expressing fear reporting an inability to get a prescription filled compared with only 2.2% of those who had not expressed concern. Over 20% of those who said they were afraid were unable to get dental care and more than 13% could not get eyeglasses (compared to 8 and 3.5%, respectively, of those without fear). And, overall, one-third of undocumented Latinos who expressed fear were unable to obtain at least one of the four services, compared to 11% who had not reported being afraid. Estimates on the association between fear and ability to obtain medical/surgical care are presented for each site in Table III. We find that persons expressing fear are about three times as likely to have trouble getting care in Fresno as persons who were not fearful. This ratio increases to five times as likely in El Paso and six times as likely in Houston. In Los Angeles there is no statistically significant relationship; it appears that very few persons were unable to get care regardless of documentation status. Differences between the undocumented and documented populations are also large in Fresno, Houston, and El Paso when prescription drugs, dental care, and eyeglasses are examined (data not shown). Status Quo immigrants stay away from public healthcare in fear of deportation, only the plan eliminates this fear by removing surveillance of immigrants Moran 10 (Benedict Moran, Huffington post, 3/18/10, “Undocumented immigrants scared to seek free healthcare”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benedict-moran/undocumentedimmigrants-s_b_376032.html) //AS "When we do this type of work," he explained, "if they find out that they need further follow-up, they won't go!" He paused, "They're just too scared."¶ Though the extent is difficult to quantify, City health officials say that a large number of undocumented immigrants fear going to health centers and instead rely on an illegal network of doctors and traditional faith healers.¶ The free blood testing at Corona Square, sponsored by the Ecuadorian Consulate, was an effort to inform these unauthorized immigrants that their privacy was protected at City hospitals. The success of such events, though, is limited.¶ "New York City is probably the best possible place in the country to be undocumented, maybe in the world, because there are a lot of health care services that are available free of charge and that don't ask "The flip side to this is that many undocumented groups are very fearful of seeking that kind of care for fear of being reported to the authorities," he said.¶ Undocumented immigrants, like other New Yorkers without insurance, can access three types of health services offered by the City. The Department of Health runs clinics that provide tuberculosis care, vaccinations, and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Community health centers, which are funded by a mix of federal funds, Medicaid, and out of pocket payments, offer primary care. Then there are hospital emergency rooms.¶ At all of these locations, federal privacy laws prohibit immigration officials from accessing health records of patients. But despite these protections, those without papers often stay away.¶ questions," said Dr. Peter Muennig, an associate professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.¶ 2AC Extension #3 – Economy Strong healthcare system key to the economy-accounts for 1/6th of entire US economy Johnson 09 (Linda Johnson, 6/19/15, “How Healthcare affects the economy”, Herald Media, http://www.heraldextra.com/business/health-med-fit/how-health-care-affects-theeconomy/article_b22549e0-67a5-5989-8753-aa9f3214f55c.html) //AS President Barack Obama has said problems with the current health care system are a big cause of our economic troubles. He's even called the system, with its spiraling costs and inconsistencies in the amount and quality of care people get, a "ticking time bomb" for the federal budget.¶ Just how serious is the problem? How big a role does health care play in the nation's economy?¶ Here are some questions and answers about the economic impact of health care.¶ Q: How big a part of the economy is health care?¶ A: It accounts for about one-sixth of the entire economy -- more than any other industry. ¶ Spending on health care totals about $2.5 trillion, 17.5 percent of our gross domestic product -- a measure of the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. That's up from 13.8 percent of GDP in 2000 and 5.2 percent in 1960, when health spending totaled just $27.5 billion -- barely 1 percent of today's level, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy group.¶ What's included in that spending?¶ It covers money paid to health care providers -- hospitals, outpatient centers, Veterans Affairs and other clinics, doctor and dentist practices, physical therapists, nursing homes, home health services and on-site care at places such as schools and work sites.¶ Also included are retail sales of prescription and nonprescription drugs, premiums paid to health insurers, and revenues of makers of medical devices, surgical equipment and durable medical equipment such as eyeglasses, hearing aids and wheelchairs.¶ It also counts out-of-pocket payments by consumers for health insurance premiums, deductibles and co-payments, along with costs not covered by insurance and "medical sundries" like heating pads. Economic Recession causes undocumented immigrants to be cut off from healthcare services Wood 09 (Daniel Wood, Christian Science Monitor, “In Hard times, Illegal immigrants lose healthcare 3/24/09, LexisNexis Academic) //AS Jose Cedillo, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, says he has nowhere to turn.¶ A day laborer since 1986, Mr. Cedillo has received notice from a Los Angeles County hospital that he must start paying out of pocket for the treatment he will need. "I have no choice because I have no insurance and can't work while I'm taking these treatments," he says, sitting in the tiny apartment he shares with his wife, a janitor.¶ The recession - and a big state deficit Â-- is leading some California counties to cut back on nonemergency health services to illegal immigrants. In others, cutbacks in services for the uninsured are hitting illegal immigrants especially hard.¶ The problem is socking California because it is home to the lion's share of US immigrants, both legal and illegal. The latter are often eligible for healthcare provided to the poor. But health departments across the country are facing budget pressures that are leading to slashed services - and that could reignite the debate over providing medical care to illegal immigrants.¶ "There simply isn't enough revenue to support the network of services which heretofore has been expected," says Robert Pestronk, executive director of National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO).¶ In many states, budget cuts mean reduced funding for the uninsured, many of whom are immigransts and low-income families. In Arizona, a $13 million cut from the state budget eliminated funds partly used to reimburse hospitals for caring for the uninsured.¶ About 64 percent of illegal immigrants nationwide Â-- 7.2 million Â-- are uninsured, according to the Washington-based, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).¶ "The states and local governments tend to bear the brunt of illegal immigration," says Steve Camarota, statistician and demographer for CIS. Now, with revenues falling well short of predictions, services to undocumented immigrants are getting the ax in an effort to preserve other programs, from infrastructure to schools to the environment.¶ The cutbacks could potentially refire the debate over providing social services such as healthcare for illegal immigrants. In 2007, several state legislatures introduced bills that sought to limit social service benefits including healthcare to illegal immigrants. An LA Times/Bloomberg survey in December 2007 found that one in three Americans wanted to deny social services, including public schooling and emergency-room healthcare, to illegal immigrants.¶ In California, two counties are pulling back on health services for illegal immigrants.¶ Healthcare reforms are incomplete without the inclusion of undocumented immigrants Wolbert 11(Samuel Wolbert, J.D candidate university of Pittsburgh Law, winter 2011, “Universal Healthcare and access for undocumented immigrants”, Pittsburgh Journal of Environmental and Public Health Law 5 Pitt. J. Envtl. Pub. Health L. 61)//AS Nothing can rouse fury in even the most apathetic voter or stir the vitriol of American political discourse like the healthcare debate. From the run-up to the 2008 Presidential Election--when then-Senator Barack Obama made the creation of a revamped healthcare system the crux of his platform--through the present, the President's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA") has been under siege. Obstreperous members of Congress on both sides of the debate levied traditional lines of criticism, concerning themselves with the law's perceived socialist Still other critics believe the healthcare plan will grant undocumented immigrants unmerited access to the benefits of a public healthcare system. Collectively, the narrative surrounding the healthcare debate has been so [*62] overly contentious and hostile as to obviate any remaining comity within the political discourse surrounding the problem. n3 But, behind all this white noise and livid rhetoric there still remains the central issue: without an adequate proposal that addresses the undocumented immigrant 'problem,' President Obama's healthcare plan is incomplete.¶ Generally, hospitals would not turn anyone away from medical coverage in emergency situations, regardless of immigration status. Under the new healthcare plan, taxpayers still pay for coverage of those uninsured, undocumented immigrants seeking healthcare access for emergencies, just as they have done in the past. By not creating provisions for undocumented immigrants, the new plan effectively ignores one of the biggest problems that crippled our prior healthcare system. Thus, any healthcare plan that does not adequately cover undocumented immigrants would effectively minimize the cost-saving benefit of a program that purports to be universal.¶ This note will first address the flawed logic behind denying undocumented immigrants access to healthcare and, subsequently, it will address the reasons for healthcare inclusion. Next, the note will analyze the prior leaning n1 or the associated financial burden. n2 healthcare system vis-a-vis available care for undocumented immigrants and how it is comparable to the new plan. Finally, the note will suggest pragmatic solutions to this controversial issue by examining Mexico's universal healthcare system and also addressing a compromising 'middle ground' to the problem that calls for distributing healthcare to only undocumented children. 2AC Extension #4 – Disease Expanding health care services to undocumented immigrants is key to prevent disease Glen 13 – Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (Patrick Glen; Health Care and the Illegal Immigrant; Spring 2013; http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1788&context=facpub; Vol 23 Health Matrix; 197-236)//AJ Providing some form of health insurance to illegal immigrants should not only lower the economic burden on the US healthcare system, it may also contribute to public health generally. By directing medical care and services at the initial stages of an illness or disease, not only can money be saved by warding off the potentially more complicated and costly procedures required when diseases and illnesses are left untreated, but the population in general would be protected from the spread of disease, thus ensuring its overall health and well-being. Lawrence Gostin argues that “[t]he intentional decision not to cover certain disadvantaged populations, such as illegal immigrants, has significant public health implications, particularly in the area of communicable diseases,” including “[u]ndiagnosed and untreated infectious and sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV, syphilis, and tuberculosis (especially multidrug-resistant strains), [that] pose a major risk to the population.”163 The preceding section noted that illegal immigrants have lower frequencies of doctor’s visits, a lower frequency of utilizing healthcare services, and a disproportionate reliance on emergency medical services.164 These patterns can be partly, if not entirely, explained by the lack of insurance, public or private. This lack of coverage raises concerns about both the long-term health of illegal immigrants who are not receiving necessary treatment at the outset of illness as well as the health of the public at large, who could be exposed to infectious and contagious diseases that might have been addressed by a simple visit to the doctor.165 Lack of healthcare for immigrants leads to uncontrollable disease, the plan is a necessary mechanism to solve disease Betzler 13 (Song Betzler, J.D., M.P.H., Legal Fellow at the Network for Public Health Law — Mid-States Region at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, “Undocumented Immigrants and Healthcare”, The Network for Public Health Care, https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2013/07/01/196/undocumented_immigra nts_and_health_care) //AS Inadequate access to health care and treatment can lead to the spread of disease and stymie disease control efforts. In November of 2012, immigration authorities detained a Nepalese man who had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, or XDRTB. This is the first XDR-TB case that Immigration and Customs Enforcement encountered, but health officials aren’t confident it will be the last.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report the TB rate among foreign-born persons in the U.S. in 2012 was 11.5 times higher than among U.S.-born persons. States with large immigrant populations, such as California, Texas, Florida and New York, represented almost half of all TB cases reported in 2012.¶ Proposed immigration reform focuses on providing this population a path to citizenship by granting a registered provisional status. In general, this status allows undocumented immigrants to legally work in the U.S. but denies them public benefits. Undocumented immigrants are currently excluded from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For example, they aren’t covered under the individual mandate provision, entitled to any government subsidies, and are banned from purchasing insurance through insurance exchanges. Undocumented immigrants remain ineligible for Medicaid, making them prone to rely on safety-net providers (providers that offer health services to uninsured or other vulnerable patients). Under the current immigration reform bill these ACA provisions will continue to apply. Provisions that exclude undocumented immigrants from the U.S. health care system have implications that impact public health.¶ There is no guarantee that undocumented immigrants have been inoculated for the same diseases the U.S. seeks to control within its Immigration law requires those seeking to immigrate, or change their status to permanent resident, provide proof of vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, but this does not apply to undocumented immigrants. The failure to address immigrant health care means there are few options available to adequately and quickly address preventable disease and illness. Because this population tends to live in the shadows of society, tracking and preventing disease in immigrant communities poses numerous difficulties. Undocumented immigrants may avoid agencies that require self-identification, and fear visiting a health clinic will draw the attention of immigration officials. There is greater risk of exposure to contagious disease when access to health care is limited. As drug-resistant diseases become more prevalent around the world, the U.S. can protect itself by providing undocumented immigrants with access to health care. As immigration reform is being considered, Congress has a borders. second opportunity (the first was during the debate on the ACA) to have a robust debate on the public health benefits of insuring undocumented immigrants and enabling them Providing such benefits will widen the pool of insured persons and offer the potential to decrease the spread of disease and per capita cost. There is also significant potential to cut costs by lowering the use of emergency care. And most importantly, immigration health reform can prevent disease and illness in undocumented immigrants, thereby protecting the health of the entire U.S. population. to obtain better access to health care. Immigrant children carry many devastating diseases which require healthcare to mitigate Poon 14 (Linda Poon, 7/22/14, “The immigrant Kids have health issues-But not the ones you would think”, NPR news, http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/07/22/332598798/the-immigrant-kids-havehealth-issues-but-not-the-ones-youd-think) //AS Close to 60,000 children have crossed illegally into the U.S. since last October. They've sparked a crisis. But is it a humanitarian crisis or a public health one? The children carry "swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus, and tuberculosis," and can spread the diseases to the U.S., wrote Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., a retired obstetrician-gynecologist, in a July 7 letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.¶ Gingrey's concerns have been widely circulated as part of a public campaign by folks who share his view that the kids should be sent back. And some of the points he's raised have been widely rebuffed. The current Ebola outbreak has been confined to Africa, as have past Transmission involves bugs and dogs. But some health issues in this contentious debate require closer examination. There have, for example, been a handful of reported cases of TB among the children. And concerns that the children may not have been vaccinated — or may harbor scabies and lice — aren't as absurd as the Ebola claims.¶ A TB epidemic is perhaps one of the biggest concerns, since the U.S. doesn't vaccinate against the disease. The fear of a fatal respiratory disease that attacks the lungs and can spread through the air is understandable. But it's worth keeping in mind that in 2012, the average outbreaks. And neither dengue nor the "kissing bug" disease known as Chagas, which was brought up by others, spread from human to human. coverage for TB vaccine in Central America was 93 percent, the World Health Organization reports. Impact EXT – Disease Extinction. Fox, Command Surgeon – Joint Readiness Training Council, 1998 [William, Phantom Warriors, Parameters, Winter, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97winter/fox.htm] HIV is a pandemic killer without a cure, and viruses such as Ebola-Zaire are merely a plane ride away from the population centers of the developed world. Viruses like Ebola, which are endemic to Africa, have the potential to inflict morbidity and mortality on a scale not seen in the world since the Black Plague epidemics of medieval Europe, which killed a quarter of Europe's population in the 13th and 14th centuries.[16] These diseases are not merely African problems; they present real threats to [hu]mankind. They should be taken every bit as seriously as the concern for deliberate use of w eapons of m ass d estruction. The impact is extinction The Scotsman in ‘95(“The mega death”, 9-11, L/N) Bullets and bombs may be the weapons of the present, but plagues, viruses and killer microbes are the arsenal of the future. Together with the sarin gas which it released on the Tokyo underground in April, the Japanese Ohm cult had stockpiled a lethal bacterium which it chose not to unleash. Crippling continents by using killer infectious diseases is no far- fetched idea of scifi novels. But the scientists' inability to distinguish between naturally emerging and synthetic disease outbreaks means whole areas could be laid waste before anyone realised what was happening, warns Laurie Garrett, author of a ground-breaking book on the burgeoning of infectious disease. All this on top of the fact that new diseases are emerging naturally at an alarming rate - representing a real threat to the survival of the human species - says The Coming Plague. Meticulously researched over the past decade, Garrett's book charts the history of our age-old battle against the microbes, and concludes that we are beginning to cede the advantage to the disease-carriers. The optimism born out of defeating smallpox in the Sixties was dangerously premature. Everything from overuse of antibiotics to increased promiscuity have helped smooth the path for the microbes ever since. "The survival of the human species is not a pre- ordained evolutionary programme," warns Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg in The Coming Plague. When Garrett's book was released in the United States, it caused such widespread alarm that Vice President Al Gore set up a special task force to review American preparedness to tackle newly-emerging epidemics. In July, the evaluation concluded that the microbial threat was not just a domestic problem, but a national security question. It is no longer just governments which had the capability to engage in biological warfare. Extinction. South China Morning Post, 1996 [1/4/1996. Kavita Daswani, “Leading the way to a cure for AIDS,” Lexis] Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said. Miscellaneous AT: K Education debate over ICE state and local police entanglement challenges institutional racism Hing 09’ (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631) This Article contends that the evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which immigration laws operate have institutionalized bias against Latino immigrants—Mexicans in particular—and Asian immigrants. This has occurred through laws that initially manifested racist intent and/or impact, amendments that perpetuated that racism, and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations reinforcing the racism. Racism has been institutionalized in our immigration laws and enforcement policies. Kwame Ture (a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) coined the phrase “institutional racism” in the 1960s. He recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Institutional racism has come to describe societal patterns that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. In the United States, institutional racism resulted from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic structure still stands to this day. By understanding the fundamental principles of institutionalized racism we begin to see the application of the concept beyond the conventional black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating against certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices. Structures and social arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a way as to support or acquiesce in acts of racism. Institutional racism can be subtle and less visible, but is no less destructive than individual acts of racism. Charles Lawrence’s discussion of unconscious racism also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much racism lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb attitudes and stereotypes that influence behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. “Unconscious prejudice . . . is not subject to selfcorrection within the political process.”70 The forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration laws.71 As these laws are enforced, they are accepted as common practice, in spite of their racial effects. We may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their harshness or their violations of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism because we are not cognizant of the dominant racial framework. Understanding the evolution of U.S. immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better awareness of the institutional racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws and enforcement policies. The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the stage for the Mexicans and the Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to enforcement through employer sanctions enacted in 1986. AT: Politics Obama empirically doesn’t push the plan Bowers ’12 (Becky, “No racial profiling bill for President Barack Obama to sign”, November 12th, 2012, http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/promises/obameter/promise/303/ban-racial-profiling-by-federal-law-enforcement-ag//JC) A bill to ban racial profiling never made it to President Barack Obama"s desk. The White House didn't speak up in favor of the most recent versions in the House and Senate, according to Rights Working Group, which advocates for policies to prohibit racial profiling at the local, state and federal level. "His White House has not actually taken an active role," said Margaret Huang, executive director of Rights Working Group. The legislation, known as the End of Racial Profiling Act of 2011, didn't make it to a committee vote, though it did gain sponsors in both chambers, a move forward from our update in 2010. Huang said the administration said it would wait to weigh in until the legislation hit the House or Senate floor. The second question, whether the administration provided federal funding to state and local police departments if they adopted policies that prohibited the practice, is "complicated," Huang said. What's more clear is that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice investigated local agencies for discriminating on the basis of race or national origin, such as the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona led by Joe Arpaio. But Huang didn't hear of funding being jeopardized on the basis of such investigations, much less the opposite — support for agencies who performed well. "So, it's a mixed record,” she said. The White House didn't provide additional evidence. Obama promised to sign legislation that will ban the practice of racial profiling. Such a bill never the White House didn't take an active role to get it there. Meanwhile, we don't see evidence of additional federal funding for agencies that adopted policies to prohibit the practice. We rate this Promise Broken. made it to his desk, and a key advocacy group says Immigration Reform would have massive public support Nesterak ’14- Max earned a B.A. in English Literature and German Studies from Swarthmore College in 2013, where he served as the Co-Editor in Chief of The Daily Gazette. Max is a Fulbright Scholar (2013-2014) pursuing independent research and graduate level study in Berlin, Germany, (Max N., “Immigration: The Disconnect Between Perception and Policy,”http://thepsychreport.com/current-events/immigration-the-disconnect-between-perception-and-policy/) VD Two-thirds of Americans believe the country’s current immigration policy needs at least major revisions. What that reform should look like varies, but not as much one might think. A solid majority of Americans believe immigrants help strengthen society. 73% of Americans believe that there should be a way for current undocumented workers to remain in the country legally. 44% believe that should include a path to citizenship. (Pew Research Center, 2013) US public has massive support for immigration reform Ekins ’13- research fellow at the Cato Institute. Her research focuses primarily on American politics, public opinion, political psychology, and social movements, with an emphasis in survey and quantitative methods, and she was the polling director for this study, (Emily E., “Support for Immigration Reform Correlated with Perception of Immigrants’ Economic Impact,” http://reason.com/assets/db/13648288657856.pdf) VD This report details Americans’ perceptions of immigration’s economic impact and their support for reform, based on findings from the latest national Reason-Rupe poll, which interviewed 1002 adults on landline and mobile phones February 21-25, 2013. A majority supports legal residency and path to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants currently residing in the United States. However, Americans are less supportive of making it easier for future immigrants to enter the country legally. Support for reform is correlated with perception of immigrants’ economic impact, education, and youth.Fully 70 percent of Americans think unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States should be allowed to stay. Moreover, a majority (55 percent) believes unauthorized immigrants should be eventually allowed to apply for citizenship if they meet certain requirements. There is less enthusiastic support for raising visa caps for high-skilled (40 percent) and low-skilled workers (40 percent). Nevertheless, few want to decrease legal immigration into the country. Interestingly, both high-skilled and low-skilled visas enjoy similar levels of support. Significant partisan differences emerge regarding views of immigration’s impact on the economy and support for lega residency and path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. However, partisan differences are attenuated when controlling for differences in Interestingly, there is little partisan disagreement when it comes to easing the path for new high- and lowskilled workers seeking visas. economic assumptions, such as immigrants effect on the economy and jobs. Topicality T - Surveillance Immigration surveillance is conducted through electronic and physical means by local police Camayd-Freixas 2013 - Ph.D., Spanish Interpreter for Federal Courts, and Professor of Spanish & Director of Translation & Interpretation Program at Florida International University (Erik, “US Immigration Reform and Its Global Impact: Lessons from the Postville Raid”)//AN The imposition of a “national security” agenda at the neighborhood level, via local police surveillance and denunciations by social militants, has always been the trademark of totalitarian regimes. Now this old recipe has been enhanced by a network of databases, telecommunications, and electronic methods of surveillance, detection, and enforcement, linking national, state, and community intelligence, to enable the systematic persecution of a pro¬filed population. Through the combination of ICE ’s DRO, FOT, 287(g), and Secure Communities programs, racially profiled Latinos are routinely ambushed on their way to church, to pick their kids up from school, traveling by car, train, or bus, going to and from work, or when their homes are invaded. They are arrested without a warrant and detained indefinitely with-out a hearing.00 Over 20 million people, including not only undocumented immigrants, but also their US-citizen and legal resident families, now live in fear of violent arrest, incarceration, and deportation under the brazen dic-tates of a technocratic police state. It is the constant fear that every time they say goodbye to their loved ones could be the last. T- ‘Its’ State immigration enforcement occurs only through the ICE Fahey et al. 2015 Writers for the Harvard Law Review (Bridge et al., “Harvard Law Review: Volume 128, Number 6 - April 2015”)//AN 2. The Actors Enforcing Immigration Laws. — The federal government enforces federal immigration laws, and today states and cities do too. State and local police have the authority to enforce immigration laws by two broadly defined sources. Section (a) describes federal delegation, and section (b) describes enforcement by state authority. (a) Enforcement by Federal Delegation, — Immigration enforcement is the prerogative of the federal government, but Congress has defined circumstances under which the federal government may delegate immigration-enforcement authority to state and local police. The biggest federal delegation program, the 287(g) program, allows the Attorney General to grant immigration enforcement authority to state and local police departments that sign Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).411 These MOUs allow state and local police to enforce civil immigration laws" so long as they participate in ICE training, agree to ICE supervision, and abide by certain ICE rules. The Secure Communities Program (SCP) is another increasingly important federal delegation program/-’ Under SCP, ICE can issue “detainers”4' to state and local police authorizing them to keep certain people incarcerated while ICE decides whether to detain them itself. State and local jails do not have to use this authority," but they may, if ICE asks them to, incarcerate people who have not been and will not be charged with a crime. State authorities share information under ICE programs Garcia and Manuel 2012 Legislative Attorneys and Writers for the Congressional Research Service (Michael and Kate, “Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law”, http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P6609.pdf)//AN A separate program, Secure Communities, is also used to identify criminal aliens in local law enforcement custody. This program—which was first implemented in 14 jurisdictions in 2008 and is scheduled for implementation nationwide in 2013— relies upon the sharing of information regarding persons arrested by state and local law enforcement to identify aliens who may be removable.34 Specifically, the fingerprints of persons arrested by state and local officers are sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s ( FBI ’s) Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which then sends them to ICE’s Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). This system automatically notifies ICE personnel whenever the fingerprints of persons arrested by state and local officers match those of a person previously encountered and fingerprinted by immigration officials.35 ICE personnel then review other databases to determine whether the person is here illegally or otherwise removable, and may issue detainers for any aliens who appear removable.36] The ICE trains and has federal oversight over state and local law enforcement authorities Garcia and Manuel 2012 Legislative Attorneys and Writers for the Congressional Research Service (Michael and Kate, “Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law”, http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P6609.pdf)//AN In 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency within the Department of Homeland Security which administers the 287(g) program, renegotiated agreements with participating jurisdictions in an effort to bolster federal oversight, training, and communication within the 287(g) program, and to prioritize the arrest and detention of aliens involved in serious criminal activity.30 As of August 31, 2012, agreements pursuant to INA Section 287(g) were in place with 64 law enforcement agencies within 24 states.31 T- Substantial Substantial local surveillance activities now - target specific groups RWG 13 (RWG is the Rights Working Group which is a coalition of more than 300 community-based grassroots groups and policy organizations committed to promoting the civil liberties and human rights of all people in the United States, “THE MINORITY REPORTS How the Intersection of Criminal Justice, Immigration and Surveillance Undermines Freedoms in California,” Published in 2013, Date Accessed: 7/17/15, http://blog.endisolation.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/RWG_MinorityReports_2013.pdf, SZ) Perhaps the most terrifying effect of surveillance is the racial, religious, and political profiling inherent in suspicious activity reporting, intelligence-led policing, and an all-encompassing counterterrorism framework. Since 9/11, the FBI and other federal agencies have conducted intense and intrusive surveillance of Muslim communities, Arab Americans, South Asians, and Middle Eastern people, and FBI agents are permitted to enter mosques and churches without identifying themselves. Although Suspicious Activity Reports are supposed to be based on behavior and not skin color, the guidelines are extremely vague and invite subjective usage easily influenced by individual bias. Standards issued to state and local police include the following as suspicious activities: taking pictures or videos of facilities or infrastructure; taking notes or drawing maps or structures of a facility; and monitoring the activities of people, facilities, processes or systems. These behaviors are completely legal and clearly widespread : many people and tourists are likely to take pictures, videos, and other renderings of government buildings and other elements of infrastructure for aesthetic or other innocent reasons. Because police could not possibly question or report every individual taking part in these activities, they are likely to fall back on racial bias in choosing whom to target . The vague standards regarding suspicious behavior also permit police and federal agents to target political dissidents and people engaging in free speech and assembly. ICE Neg AT: Human Rights alt causes Agency to ensure legal compliance with HR obligations is key to restore credibility Shattuck ’08- CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University (John S., “Restoring U.S. Credibility on Human Rights,” Vol. 35 No. 4, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.h VD U.S. Commission on Human Rights. A permanent institution could be created to monitor the U.S government’s compliance with its legal obligations on human rights. I urge you to endorse legislation pending in Congress that would establish a United States Commission on Human Rights with oversight authori and subpoena power. The legislation would require the executive branch to provide regular repo to the commission on its implementation of international human rights treaties such as the Torture Convention and the Geneva Conventions. Counter-Terrorism Assistance Key to restore US credibility Shattuck ’08- CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University (John S., “Restoring U.S. Credibility on Human Rights,” Vol. 35 No. 4, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.h VD Counterterrorism Assistance. The United States could provide assistance to other countries for counterterrorism operations that comply with basic standards on human rights. “Fighting terror has become a convenient excuse for repressive regimes around the world to engage in further repression, often leading to more terrorism in an increasing cycle of violence. To break this cycle this country could provide assistance and training to foreign military and law enforcement personnel in methods of fighting terrorism within the rule of law. Promotion of Democracy and HR assistant is key to restore US credibility Shattuck ’08- CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University (John S., “Restoring U.S. Credibility on Human Rights,” Vol. 35 No. 4, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.h VD Democracy and Human Rights Assistance. The United States should find appropriate ways to support those seeking promote the rule of law, democracy, and human rights within their own countries. Democracy and huma rights activists are the shock troops in the struggle against terrorism. But democracy and human rights can never be delivered from the barrel of a gun. Assistance to those working to build their own democratic societies must be carefully planned, sustained over time, and based on a thorough understand-i of the unique circumstances and profound differences among cultures, religions, and countries. The new administration should wor within a multilateral framework to assist those struggling around the world to bring democracy and human rights to their own societies. Evoking the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect is key to restore US credibility Shattuck ’08- CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University (John S., “Restoring U.S. Credibility on Human Rights,” Vol. 35 No. 4, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.h VD Responsibility to Protect. The United States should join with other countries, alliances, and international organizations to pre-vent or stop crimes against humanity and genocide. Mr. President, you could invo the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006, to work with other leader to develop effective multilateral methods of preventing human rights catastrophes such as Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur. Diplomatic and economic tools should be employed first to head off impending genocides, bu multilateral military intervention must remain available under international law if other means have been ex-hausted.¶ By recommitting the United States to a foreign policy conducted within a framework of human rights and the rule of law, Presi-dent Obama, you can restore America’s moral leadership in the world, and, by doing s strengthen U.S. national security. US HR promotion will have no effect on other countries Walt ’13- Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University (Stephen W., “China grades America’s human rights conduct,” April 2013, http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/23/china-grades-americas-human-rights-conduct/) VD One of the cool things about being as powerful and fortunate as the United States is that you get to preach other countries about how they ought to behave. In that spirit, the U.S. State Department puts out a human rights report every year, and basically wags its finger at countries that don’t measure up. Of cou the report tends to go easy on close allies, but it’s still a useful document. Among other things, it provides data that scholars interested in human rights can use to test their ideas about the causes of violations and the policies that might alleviate them.¶ ¶ But as you might expect, the world isn’t just sitting around and passively accepting report cards from Washington anymore. Case in point: China h just released its own human rights report on the United States, and it makes for rather interesting reading. It’s hardly an objective assessment of life in America, of course, but much of the information contained within it is factually accurate. The incidence of gun violence and crime in the U.S. is far above the level of other industrial democracies, and having t world’s highest incarceration rate is not exactly consistent with being the "Land of the Free ." China’s point is that the United States is being pretty hypocritical in singling out other countries, and maybe we ought to remove log in our own eye before we start telling everyone else what to do. Add to this the recent bipartisan report confirming that Bush-era officials authorized th widespread use of torture and the fact that none of them has ever been indicted or prosecuted, and American hypocrisy on this score looks even more damning.¶ ¶ The Chinese report may not be objective, and the fact that U.S. leaders authorized torture does not mean Washington hasn’t done plenty of morally admirable things too. But this gap between America’s professed ideals and its actual behavior matter Not just in moral terms, but in terms of power and global influence too. Smaller and weaker states are more like to tolerate American primacy if they think the United States is a generally good society and led by individuals who are not just ruthlessly self-interested. T will be more willing to tolerate the asymmetry of power in America’s favor if they think that power is used for the greater good. The more that others view the United States as hypocritical, self-absorbed, and indifferent to others, the more likely they are to ignore U.S. advice and to secretly welcome those moments when the U.S. gets taken down a peg or two. The 9/11 attacks produced an unusual outpouring of sympathy for the United States ("nous sommes toutes Americains" headlined Le Monde), and we’ve seen a similar reaction in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. But such expressions of solidarity ten be fleeting and especially when U.S. behavior gives opponents an easy way to heighten dissatisfaction with America’s global role. What’s going on here is struggle for legitimacy in the eyes of the wider world, and it would be foolish to believe that we will win that struggle just because we’re the "good guys." T may be how we see ourselves, but Americans are only 5 percent of the world’s population, and plenty of other people around the world have a rather differ view. No US HR credibility- seen as hypocritical Carasik ’14- clinical professor of law and the director of the international human rights clinic at the Western New England University School of Law (Lauren C., “Human rights for thee but not for me,” http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/the-us-lacks-moralauthorityonhumanrights.html) VD Last month U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled the State Department’s comprehensive annual assessment of human rights around the globe. It painted a grim picture of pervasive violations. Notably absent from the report, however, was any discussion of Washington’s own record on human rights. The report elicited sharp rebukes from some of the countries single out for criticism. Many of them questioned the United States’ legitimacy as self-appointed global champion of human rights. China issued its own report, 154 pages long, excoriating the U.S. record on human rights and presenting a list of Washington’s violations. Egypt’s Foreign Ministry called the report “unbalanced and nonobjective” and censured the U.S. for appointing itself the world’s watchdog Ecuador, Russia and Iran also criticized the report.By signaling that the world cares about human rights violations, the repo provides a useful tool for advocates. While the omission of any internal critique is unsurprising, that stance ultimately undermines the State Department’s goals of promoting human rights abroad. Abuses unfolding around the world demand and deserve condemnation. But it is difficult for the U. to don the unimpeachable mantle, behave hypocritically and still maintain credibility. cred high now Rights for undocumented immigrants improving drastically-municipal ID program prov Medina ’15- a multimedia journalist and documentary film-maker, (Daniel M., “Undocumented immigrants in New York get ID cards to open bank accounts,” http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/jan/12/undocumented-immigrants-id-cards-new-york) VD Lupe is a 35-year-old mother of three who immigrated to New York in 2003 from the eastern Mexican state of Veracruz. On Monday, she says, “The system will acknowledge for the first time that I exist.”¶ The reason: New York City will unveil a new municipal ID program that could bring big changes for the city’s large undocumented population. Though all residents will be eligible to apply for the new ID, called IDNYC, undocumented New Yorkers are expected to benefit most.¶ There are an estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants in New York City, an underserved and, at times, exploited population that lives in the shadows of the city’s gleaming skyscrapers.¶ In addition to a free one-year membership the city’s leading cultural institutions, the IDNYC card will provide undocumented immigrants with the ability to access state buildings and open bank accounts with a number of participating financial institutions. Those participat banks and credit unions will also be announced as early as Monday, according to city officials.¶ An ID card could be life changing for Lupe. Sh and her husband, both undocumented, have lived in Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge neighborhood for more than a decade without the financial security of even a b account. ¶ Banks, which require an ID for proof of residency, have turned away Lupe’s Mexican passport as insufficient proof that she is a city resident. Sh says the isolation, in addition to the insecurity of living without an identity in a city that she and her family call home, has been trying.¶ For now, Lupe say the city’s ID will provide her an immediate lifeline: “The ID will list my home address for those who question my status as a resident in th city.”¶ “I’m basically invisible in this city without proper identification,” said Lupe, who refused to provide her surname due to her immigration status. “M husband and I work hard every day, we have children and the security that something as simple as an ID card will give us cannot be overstated.”¶ When h ran for office, Mayor Bill De Blasio promised an overhaul to the city’s immigration policies as part of his “Tale of Two Cities” campaign. The ID clearly represents a first step, says Betsy Plum, director of special projects at the New York Immigrant Coalition, a city-based advocacy group.¶ “Something a simple as a form of identification could be a quality-of-life improvement for these New Yorkers,” said Plum. “For example, your employer unlawfully fires you and you want to contest it in court, you can’t even get into a public building without an ID. There are real tangible benefits here.”¶ One of those tangible benefits is legal protection from law enforcement in the case of an arrest, says Muzzaffar Chishti, an expert on US immigration policy who heads the office for the Migration Polic Institute, a Washington-based independent, non-partisan, nonprofit think tank, at New York University’s School of Law.¶ “If you’re arrested by police, police want to know who you are. The card makes it easier for the police to release you ,” said Chishti. No HR abuse in Immigration policy Veuger ’14- resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the editor of AEI Economic Perspectives. His research areas are political econ and public finance, (Stan V., “Good policy, good politics,” https://www.aei.org/publication/good-policy-good-politics/) VD After years of playing defense, apologizing for while doubling down on his lies about the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama has chosen to go on offense. Not against the junior varsity terrorists of the Islamic State group in any sort of new, more meaningful way, but on the domestic front, by finally taking action to shield large numbers of illegal immigrants from deportation. Later today, in a prime-time address, the president is expected to grant millions of undocumented aliens, seemingly mostly those with close family ties to U.S. citizens (often their children), reprieve from deportation and some sort of permissio to work legally. These actions appear to be wise ones, both on political and on substantive grounds. What the president is doing, in effect, is going announce that he will from not enforcing federal immigration law (much like his predecessors) to announcing that he is not enforcing federal immigration law, and detailing mo of the specifics of this non-enforcement. In other words, he’s gone from not deporting 11 million people to not deporting 5 million or 3 million people. For number of reasons this is, along practically all dimensions, good and helpful public policy.¶ First and foremost, brings a sense of safety to the lives of the immigrants in question. They will no longer face the ris small as it may currently be, of not being able to go home to their children. And hundreds of thousands, if n millions, of U.S. citizens will be able rest assured that their government will not one day decide t tear their families apart. The newly quasi-legal immigrants will also be able to make even more o contribution to the American economy than they are currently, with their new-found work authorizations and ability to apply for jobs that require more of a legal status than they currently have. This should allow them to perform work they are better suited for, without too much of a harmful impact on native workers; they have been here for a while, after all. Some native workers and employers will gain a bit, and some native workers will lose a bit – politicians hiring illegal immigrants to work on their lawns while running for office, for example – but the overall imp should be positive. And this positive impact will be felt by the nation’s treasury as well. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree about the exact composition of the group of immigrants to be regularized, but family ties are about as good a criterion as any. Case inherency Plan is non-inherent- Efforts to end Racial Profiling now Cardin 13 (Senator Benjamin Cardin from Maryland, “THE END RACIAL PROFILING ACT INTRODUCED IN BOTH THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE,” Introduced in Senate on 5/23/13, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.naacp.org/action-alerts/entry/the-end-racial-profiling-act- introduced-in-both-the-u.s.-house-of-represent, SZ) The End Racial Profiling Act has now been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Cardin (MD) (S. 1038) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI) (H.R. 2851). The End Racial Profiling Act comprehensively addresses the insidious practice of racial profiling by law enforcement on five levels: first, it clearly defines the racially discriminatory practice of racial profiling by law enforcement at all levels; second, it creates a federal prohibition against racial profiling; thirdly, it mandates data collection so we can fully assess the true extent of the problem; fourth, it provides funding for the retraining of law enforcement officials on how to discontinue and prevent the use of racial profiling; and fifth, it holds law enforcement agencies that continue to use racial profiling accountable. We need to urge Members of both the House and Senate to co-sponsor and help move the bill through to passage as soon as possible. As painfully demonstrated over the past months, racial profiling is a serious problem in the United States, and can lead to deadly consequences. It is difficult for our faith in the American judicial system not to be challenged when we cannot walk down the street, drive down an interstate, go through an airport, or even enter into our own homes without being stopped merely because of the color of our skin. Training law enforcement officers how to more efficiently carry out the essential policing without avoid using this counter-productive procedure will not only help our nation’s criminal justice system at all levels, but it will trickle down to other groups as well, such as neighborhood watch organizations and citizens’ community groups, which often model themselves after their local police and which have taken on additional responsibilities in light of the budget cuts being faced by almost every locality and jurisdiction. Programs currently exist to decrease gang violence- Proves the plan is not key OJJDP No Date (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Gang Violence Reduction Program,” No Date, Date Accessed: 7/9/15, https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/spt/programs/71, SZ) The Gang Violence Reduction Program targeted mainly older members (ages 17 to 24) of two of the Chicago area’s most violent Hispanic gangs, the Latin Kings and the Two Six. Specifically, the Little Village program targeted more than 200 of the “shooters” (also called influential persons or leaders) of the two gangs. A steering committee was established to support the project . This group was composed of representatives from local churches, two Boys & Girls Clubs, a local community organization, a business group, other social agencies, the local alderman, and local citizens. The priority goal of the project was to reduce the extremely high level of gang violence among youth who were already involved in the two gangs; drug-related activity was not specifically targeted. The main goal was to be accomplished by a combination of outreach work, an Intervention Team, case management, youth services, and suppression. Outreach youth workers aimed to prevent and control gang conflicts in specific situations and to persuade gang youth to leave the gang as soon as possible. Virtually all of these youth workers were former members of the two target gangs. An Intervention Team (mainly the outreach youth workers, police, and probation officers) met biweekly and exchanged information on violence that was occurring (or about to occur) in the community. It provided intensive services to gang members, including crisis intervention, brief family and individual counseling and referrals for services, and surveillance and suppression activities. Altogether, a good balance of services was provided. Project police were hired to target the two gangs and their most violent members. They used standard policing tactics employed elsewhere in the city by Chicago police in controlling gang violence. The outreach youth workers sometimes collaborated with the project tactical officers in the exchange of information that was vital to the police suppression role, and project police officers often encouraged gang youth to accept services. The suppression contacts reduced the youth’s interest in and attachment to the gang. Services such as job placement reduced target youth’s time spent with other gang members. The process evaluation of the program revealed that it was well-implemented, achieving an “excellent” rating on 8 of the 18 program-implementation elements: interagency and street (intervention) team coordinators; criminal justice participation; lead agency project management and commitment to the model; social and crisis intervention and outreach work; suppression; targeting, especially of gang members; balance of services; and intensity of services. The outcome evaluation examined the effects of the Little Village project on the approximately 200 targeted, hard-core gang youths during the period in which they were served by the program. Self-reports of criminal involvement showed that the program reduced serious violent and property crimes, and sharp declines were also seen in the frequencies of various types of offenses. The program was more effective with older, high-rate, violent gang offenders than with younger, less violent offenders. Active gang involvement was also reduced among project youths, but mostly among older members, and this change was associated with less criminal activity. Most youth in both targeted gangs improved their educational and employment status during the program period. Employment was associated with a general reduction in youths’ criminal activity, especially drug selling Gang violence decreasing- prefer recent statistics Brenoff 15 (Ann Brenoff is a Huffington Post Senior Writer/Columnist, “Behind LA's Dramatic Decline In Gang Violence,” 2/24/15, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/gang-violence- decline_n_6656840.html, SZ) From 1988 to 1998 -- known to some as the “decade of death” -- close to a thousand people per year were killed in Los Angeles. Gangs didn’t run all the neighborhoods, but the ones they did, they terrorized. Drugs moved openly on street corners, drive-by shootings occurred with dispiriting frequency, and wearing the wrong color T-shirt on the wrong street could be interpreted as a death wish. It all seems improbable now. There are still terrible parts of the city, where brutality and blight reign, but to say that LA is a city unchanged is to ignore the statistics. From 2008 to 2012, violent crime across the nation went down about 16 percent, according to a recent cover story on the subject for Pacific Standard magazine. But in Los Angeles that drop was notably more precipitous in gang areas, the magazine notes: 30 percent in Compton, 50 percent in Bell Gardens and 50 percent in El Monte. Gang-related homicides in Los Angeles have gone down 66.7 percent over the past eight years, and gang-related crimes have seen a 55.3 percent dip since 2005. So, what accounts for this drastic decline? The only thing that everyone -- from police representatives to community organizers to Sam Quinones, the author of the Pacific Standard piece -- can agree on is that there’s no single answer. But if you consider the six theories below, and how they interact and build on each other, you can begin to see why city officials say Los Angeles hasn’t been this safe since the Eisenhower administration. Local police enforcement solves Gang violence Weinberger 15 (Jodi Weinberger is a reporter for the Portland Tribune, “Gang violence declines in 2014,” 1/22/15, Date Accessed: 7/9/15, http://www.pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/248105-116263-gang-violence- declinesin-2014, SZ) Gang violence in Gresham decreased last year following targeted efforts by the police department and city staff. Police Chief Craig Junginger reported this week that only one homicide was gang related in 2014, a sharp decrease from 2013 when five of the seven homicides were linked to gangs. “I think we’re making inroads,” Junginger said. “We’re on the right track and we’ll continue our current strategies and add more in the upcoming year.” With grant funding, the police department was able to hire two gang outreach workers in 2014 which allowed the department to increase visibility in many neighborhoods. Police take a multipronged approach to decreasing gang violence with much of it being referring families and children to social services as a gang deterrent. Prevention work starts in the middle schools, Junginger said, when students are most susceptible to joining gangs. Other strategies include keeping a close watch on vacant or foreclosed homes for gang activity. “They have been able to board up properties and keep gangs out,” Junginger said. Undercover cops in plain clothes often patrol the MAX train stations as well where much of the violence happens as rival gang members may cross paths. Following an incident, Gresham works collaboratively with Portland on “cool down strategies” which includes saturating the area where the incident took place with law enforcement to lessen the chance of retaliation. A new partnership program with the Multnomah County District’s Attorney — Prosecution and Law Enforcement Unified Strategies — will use data to target specific drivers of crime in Rockwood, Junginger said. “It’s based on a theory that a lot of times crime can be boiled down to a handful of individuals,” said Joe Walsh, Gresham’s gang prevention adviser. AT: overstretch Turn- the Plan prevents Police from being able to enforce law effectively MacDonald 04 (Heather MacDonald is an American political commentator and journalist, “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave,” Published in The City Journal Winter 2004, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.city- journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html, SZ) Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law. The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These “sanctuary policies” generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities. Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. “We can’t even talk about it,” says a frustrated LAPD captain. “People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.” Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: “I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals].” Neither captain would speak for attribution. But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of a much broader disease: the nation’s near-total loss of control over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The nonstop increase of immigration is reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and, ultimately, the very idea of national borders. It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has become that to ask police officials about the illegal-alien crime problem feels like a gross faux pas, not done in polite company. And a police official asked to violate this powerful taboo will give a strangled response—or, as in the case of a New York deputy commissioner, break off communication altogether. Meanwhile, millions of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in plain view, utterly secure in their de facto immunity from the immigration law. AT: organized crime No security challenges – No connection between terrorism and organized crime – Proves no impact Williams 14 (Phil Williams is a published author, has a PhD, and teaches and researches Security studies, foreign policy analysis, transnational organized crime, terrorism, “Organized Crime and Terrorism,” LACC Working Paper No. 2/2014, Date Accessed: 7/13/15, https://lacc.fiu.edu/research/publications/working-paper-2- williams.pdf, SZ) The security challenges posed by terrorist-criminal cooperation and by terrorists engaged in drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping and other activities are relatively modest. Convergence and cooperation cannot be ignored, but do not represent the kind or level of threat sometimes claimed. Moreover, there is a downside for terrorists in both cooperation with traffickers and appropriation of trafficking methods. For terrorists, cooperation creates risks of betrayal by pragmatic criminals, especially those who have no affinity for the cause. Moreover, cooperating with criminals also increases the possibility of infiltration by law enforcement and intelligence agents. Similarly, trafficking and other criminal activities can undermine both the status and legitimacy of a terrorist organization, as well as cause internal arguments and even divisions over the allocation of increased resources. Governments can also develop counternarratives that tarnish the appeal of high-minded terrorists by emphasizing their linkage to common criminals and common criminality. In the final analysis, therefore, not only can the threat be contained, but it might also provide opportunities that can be exploited by the United States and its allies. Their authors are exaggerating – No real threat of organized crime Williams 14 (Phil Williams is a published author, has a PhD, and teaches and researches Security studies, foreign policy analysis, transnational organized crime, terrorism, “Organized Crime and Terrorism,” LACC Working Paper No. 2/2014, Date Accessed: 7/13/15, https://lacc.fiu.edu/research/publications/working-paper-2-williams.pdf, SZ) The notion of a nexus between criminal and terrorist organizations surfaced during the 1990s. The term narco-terrorism, however, was coined even earlier than this. Ironically, it initially referred to the Medellin drug trafficking organization in Colombia using terrorist tactics to coerce the government into abandoning its policy of extraditing drug traffickers to the United States; subsequently, its meaning was reversed and it was predominantly used to describe terrorist organizations using narcotics trafficking as a funding mechanism. After September 11, in particular, it was frequently used to refer to the FARC and the Taliban using income from the drug business to fund their insurgent activities. Meanwhile, the broader notion of a criminal-terrorist nexus that emerged during the 1990s, inspired by events in the Balkans, focused less on the appropriation of criminal activities by terrorists or terrorist activities by criminals, and more on direct cooperation between criminal and terrorist organizations—a cooperation that soon became enshrined in the concept of a criminalterrorist nexus. The Madrid bombings in 2003, in which the attacks and their preparation were financed with the proceeds of drug trafficking, are also portrayed as an example of a nexus in action. This argument challenges widespread allegations of an emerging crime terrorism or trafficking-terrorism nexus, as well as a broader analytic trend emphasizing threat convergence. It suggests that most claims about the nexus are based on little more than flimsy anecdotal evidence, from which unwarranted and exaggerated inferences are drawn . One or even a few examples of cooperation between criminals and terrorists do not make a nexus. And they certainly do not provide evidence of a “grand shift” whereby “international drug traffickers and international terrorists are in a hedonistic marriage of design . . . linked at the hip, and… extremely wealthy.”1 Yet such grandiose claims abound, fueled by worst-case thinking and unwarranted generalizations from the few to the many. Threat of Organized crime is exaggerated Andreas 14 (Peter Andreas is a Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Brown University, “Transnational Crime,” Written for CQ Researcher August 2014, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, http://photo.pds.org:5012/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2014082906, SZ) For the most part, transnational crime is a fuzzy new term for an old practice: smuggling. Although the speed, content, methods and organization of smuggling have varied greatly across time and place, the basic activity has not fundamentally changed. Even though the global reach of some smuggling groups has accelerated with the integration of the global economy, the image of an octopus-like network of crime syndicates that runs the underworld is fiction . Even the most sophisticated smuggling schemes tend to be defined more by fragmentation and loose, informal networks than by concentration and hierarchical organization. And no so-called drug cartel actually fits the definition of a cartel. We are often told that the volume of organized transnational criminal activity has surged in recent decades. Of course, we have no idea how true those statistical claims are — they tend to be assertions and guesstimates rather than reliable and verifiable empirical evidence. Still, cross-border organized crime would simply have to keep pace with the illicit economy to grow at an impressive rate. But that does not necessarily mean it has increased as an overall percentage of global economic transactions. Indeed, the liberalization of trade in recent decades has sharply reduced incentives to engage in smuggling practices designed to evade taxes and tariffs, historically the backbone of illicit commerce. And, Either organized crime has no effect on the economy - or it actually increases economic growth Canadian Department of Justice 15 – (1/7/15, “Economic and Organized Crime: Challenges for Criminal Justice”, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rp02_12dr02_12/p4.html#sec4_1), “LJH” Others argue that aggregate crime statistics are meaningless, given how widely the sub-components vary in nature and social consequence, and that certain types of crimes, judged in strictly economic terms, constitute a net benefit by generating new incomes to some citizens. (Indeed, some go further, arguing that much economic activity in the underground economy is actually good in so far as it challenges “bad” laws that retard economic development. ) [13] The reality is that both sides are right, for they are talking about two quite different things. Predatory crimes are crimes purely of redistribution of existing wealth . They do not generate new goods and services and therefore do not increase total income flows. Therefore, barring indirect consequences like the costs of increased security (which could be argued either way), their net effect on Gross National Product (GNP) is zero. By contrast, market-based crimes involve the production and distribution of new goods and services . Judged in strictly economic terms, they should have a positive impact on GNP. Indeed, it is now standard procedure in many countries to try to estimate the value of underground transactions in both legal and illegal goods and services, provided they are based on consensual exchanges, and to add that value to their existing national income data to get a better picture of just how “well” their economies are doing. Commercial crimes are more complex to judge. The essence of a commercial crime is to apply illegal methods to the production and distribution of legal goods and services that would otherwise be produced by someone else using legal methods. The supplier, for example, using illegal methods to reduce costs, does not gain at the expense of other suppliers or its own workers; it is a matter purely of redistribution. There is no net effect on the economy's total production of goods and services. The gains made by the supplier at the expense of customers by cutting quality or engaging in deceptive marketing, arguably the supply of goods and services conforming to what the customer thinks he or she is getting, are actually reduced. GNP, adjusted for the quality of goods, should fall in this case. On the other hand, it is remotely possible that, on occasion, the commission of a commercial offence helps expand the supply of goods and services. If, for example, the fraud takes the form of something like illegal disposal of hazardous wastes, with the result that costs to consumers are reduced at the expense of environmental degradation, depending on how the economic impact of the environmental damage is reckoned, the result could be an actual increase in GNP even though sensible environmental accounting would dispel any notion this represents a net gain in economic welfare. Similarly, with social crime, the net effect depends entirely on how the measurement is done. If national income is estimated in the normal way, by examining total value of market transactions, then any production of new goods and services unambiguously increases society's total GNP and, with it, supposedly, economic welfare. [14] This is all the more true because in this case, unlike that of market-based crime, the new goods and services, being legal, can be directly measured. But if national income is measured in a broader way to take account of potential depreciation of human and ecological capital, there are unintended costs which should be subtracted. It is impossible to say a priori what the net effect will be. In all cases, when assessing the overall economic effects of criminal acts, it is necessary to distinguish between the immediate impact of the act at the micro level, and the consequences of increased expenditure for policing, prosecution and correction at the macro level. If an economy is at full employment, arguably the diversion of resources into economically unproductive activity associated with crime control is a net loss. But if the economy has unemployed resources, increased expenditure on police, prosecution and imprisonment operates just like any other net injection of funds to produce a positive multiplier effect. Indeed, one of the reasons the US economy did not stumble badly in the post-Cold War period may be that increased expenditure for the prison-industrial complex more than offset reductions in what previously went to the military-industrial complex. Over the last decade, the military budget has fallen about US$50 billion, while the crime-control budget has risen by about $100 billion. Furthermore, that the US employs so many people in construction and maintenance of prisons, and jails such a large percentage of its economically active population, may itself account for the fact that the US unemployment rate is lower than that of other wealthy Western countries. The US isn’t key to the global economy Kenny 2015 (Charles; Why the Developing World Won't Catch the U.S. Economy's Cold; May 4; www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-04/why-the-developing-world-won-t-catchthe-u-s-economy-s-cold; kdf) Last week the U.S. Commerce Department announced that first-quarter GDP growth for 2015 was an anemic fears that a U.S. slowdown could lead to a global recession. But the cliché about America sneezing and the rest of the world catching the cold doesn’t hold like it used to. The U.S. isn’t as contagious as it was, and developing countries in particular are far more robust to economic shocks. That’s good news for everyone. It means less volatility in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which contributes to happier people, greater political stability, and stronger long-term growth—all of which should help lift the U.S. out of its own doldrums. A team of IMF researchers has looked at the long-term record of the world’s economies when it comes to growth and recession. They measured how long economies expanded without interruption, as well as the depth and length of 0.2 percent. This immediately sparked downturns. Over the past two decades, low and middle-income economies have spent more time in expansions, while downturns and recoveries have become shallower and shorter. This suggests countries have become more resilient to shocks. In the 1970s and '80s, the median developing economy took more than 10 years after a downturn to recover to the GDP per capita it had prior to that slump. By the early 2000s, that recovery time had dropped to two years. In the 1970s and '80s, countries of the developing world spent more than a third of their time in downturns, but by the 2000s they spent 80 percent of their time in expansions. The first decade of the 21st century was the first time that developing economies saw more expansion and shorter downturns than did advanced economies: Median growth in the developing world was at its highest since 1950 and volatility at its lowest. Developing countries still face a larger risk of deeper recession when terms of trade turn against them, capital flows dry up, or advanced economies enter recessions themselves. But the scale of that risk has diminished. That’s because low and middle-income economies have introduced policy reforms that increase resilience: flexible exchange rates, inflation targeting, and lower debt. Economies with inflation-targeting regimes see recovery periods less than a third as long as economies without targeting, for example. Larger reserves are associated with longer expansions. And median reserves in developing countries more than doubled as a percentage of GDP between the 1990s and 2010. Median external debt has dropped from 60 percent to 35 percent of GDP over that same period. Such policy changes account for two-thirds of the increased recession-resilience of developing countries since the turn of the century, suggest the IMF researchers—leaving external factors, such as positive terms of trade, accounting for just one-third. That’s good news for the developing world—not least because volatile growth is particularly bad for poorer people, who are most at risk of falling into malnutrition or being forced to take children out of school, which has long-term consequences for future earnings. That might help explain the relationship between growth volatility, slower reductions in poverty, and rising inequality. Sudden negative income shocks can also be a factor in sparking violence: When rains fail, the risk of civil war in Africa spikes, and when coffee prices in Colombia fall, municipalities cultivating more coffee see increased drug-related conflict. The African analysis suggests that a five percentage-point drop in income growth is associated with a 10 percent increase in the risk of civil conflict in the following year. Finally, because volatility increases the uncertainty attached to investments, it can also be a drag on overall long-term economic performance. Viktoria Hnatkovska and Norman Loayza of the World Bank estimated that moving from a comparatively stable to a relatively volatile growth trajectory is associated with a drop in average annual growth of as much as 2 percent of GDP. Lower volatility in the developing world and its associated long-term growth performance is also good news for the U.S. A strong global economy is still a positive force for growth in every country, including developed nations. And with the developing world accounting for about one-third of trade and GDP at market rates, as well as three-fifths of U.S. exports, its role in supporting American economic performance has never been greater. Those hoping for a recovery in U.S. output should be grateful for stronger economic immune systems in the rest of the world. No existential threat from terrorists Mueller and Stewart, 2/24/15 (John, Political scientist at Ohio State; Mark, engineer and risk analyst at the University of Newcastle in Australia; “Terrorism poses no existential threat to America. We must stop pretending otherwise”; http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/24/terrorism-poses-no-existentialthreat-to-america)//JPM One of the most unchallenged, zany assertions during the war on terror has been that terrorists present an existential threat to the United States, the modern state and civilization itself. This is important because the overwrought expression, if accepted as valid, could close off evaluation of security efforts. For example, no defense of civil liberties is likely to be terribly effective if people believe the threat from terrorism to be existential.¶ At long last, President Barack Obama and other top officials are beginning to back away from this absurd position. This much overdue development may not last, however. Extravagant alarmism about the pathological but self-destructive Islamic State (Isis) in areas of Syria and Iraq may cause us to backslide. ¶ The notion that international terrorism presents an existential threat was spawned by the traumatized in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York at the time, recalls that all “security experts” expected “dozens and dozens and multiyears of attacks like this” and, in her book The Dark Side, Jane Mayer observed that “the only certainty shared by virtually the entire American intelligence community” was that “a second wave of even more devastating terrorist attacks on America was imminent”. Duly terrified, US intelligence services were soon imaginatively calculating the number of trained al-Qaida operatives in the United States to be between 2,000 and 5,000.¶ Also compelling was the extrapolation that, because the 9/11 terrorists were successful with box-cutters, they might well be able to turn out nuclear weapons. Soon it was being authoritatively proclaimed that atomic terrorists could “destroy civilization as we know it” and that it was likely that a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States would transpire by 2014.¶ No atomic terrorists have yet appeared (alQaida’s entire budget in 2001 for research on all weapons of mass destruction totaled less than $4,000), and intelligence has been far better at counting al-Qaida operatives in the country than at finding them.¶ But the notion that terrorism presents an existential threat has played on. By 2008, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff declared it to be a “significant existential” one - carefully differentiating it, apparently, from all those insignificant existential threats Americans have faced in the past. The bizarre formulation survived into the Obama years. In October 2009, Bruce Riedel, an advisor to the new administration, publicly maintained the al-Qaida threat to the country to be existential.¶ In 2014, however, things began to change.¶ In a speech at Harvard in October, Vice President Joseph Biden offered the thought that “we face no existential threat – none – to our way of life or our ultimate security.” After a decent interval of three months, President Barack Obama reiterated this point at a press conference, and then expanded in an interview a few weeks later, adding that the US should not “provide a victory to these terrorist networks by over-inflating their importance and suggesting in some fashion that they are an existential threat to the United States or the world order.” Later, his national security advisor, Susan Rice, echoed the point in a formal speech.¶ It is astounding that these utterances – “blindingly obvious” as security specialist Bruce Schneier puts it – appear to mark the first time any officials in the United States have had the notion and the courage to say so in public AT: racial profiling DHS and ICE prohibit racial profiling – passage of the 2013 DHS Commitment to Nondiscriminatory law and Enforcement and Screening Activities proves Department of Homeland Security '15 (Department of Homeland Security ;March 19, 2015 ;Acquisition and Use of License Plate Reader Data from a Commercial Service DHS/ICE/PIA039; pg.8-pg.9; www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-lprmarch2015.pdf; 7-12-15; mbc) ICE, in coordination with the DHS Chief Privacy Officer and the DHS Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, has included in this PIA a discussion of civil liberties issues raised by the use of LPRs to more completely address public concerns regarding the use of this technology. The inclusion of an individual rights and liberties discussion in this PIA will improve transparency and assist the public understanding of ICE’s use of LPR technology. In addition to the above framework of privacy and civil liberties protections, existing DHS policies will foster the proper use of LPR data. DHS prohibits the consideration of race or ethnicity in investigation, screening, and law enforcement activities in all but the most exceptional instances. Accordingly, consistent with law and DHS policy, LPR data may not be collected, accessed, used, or retained to target or monitor an individual solely on the basis of actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or nationality. The following is the Department’s official policy7 on this issue: “Racial profiling” is the invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches, and other law enforcement, investigation, or screening activities. It is premised on the erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has explicitly adopted the Department of Justice’s “Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies,” issued in 7 Janet Napolitano, “The Department of Homeland Security’s Commitment to Nondiscriminatory Law Enforcement and Screening Activities” (Apr. 26, 2013). Privacy Impact Assessment ICE/LPR Page 8 June 2003. It is the policy of DHS to prohibit the consideration of race or ethnicity in our daily law enforcement and screening activities in all but the most exceptional instances, as defined in the DOJ Guidance. DHS personnel may use race or ethnicity only when a compelling governmental interest is present, and only in a way narrowly tailored to meet that compelling interest. Of course, race or ethnicity-based information that is specific to particular suspects or incidents, or ongoing criminal activities, schemes or enterprises, may be considered, as stated in the DOJ Guidance. Fear of racial profiling stems from the perception of police bias – Aff can’t solve Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.; poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=289004112008113090031125110096017099025007057 017006013098023078026017103009087090105005060043107058047118070066087085015 0061160190590070230931240060700740131001070110910320020721060830091150081010 04120019099067104004015001116082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc) Many Americans have had interactions with police officers and other law-enforcement agents, and the majority of these police-citizen encounters occur in the context of traffic stops.' Although mildly inconvenient, traffic stops are necessary not only for enforcing traffic rules and deterring traffic violations, but they are generally beneficial for broader public safety concerns. For many people, traffic stops are simply part of life. For many racial minorities, however, especially African-American and Latino men, 2 even a routine traffic stop takes on an entirely different meaning. Historically, the relationship between racial minorities and police has been strained, and many members of racial minority groups believe that law enforcement officers unfairly target them because of their race or ethnicity.3 It is widely known that many Americans, especially minorities, believe that police officers use race as a "proxy" for criminal involvement. There is strong evidence that racial minorities believe law enforcement officers engage in racial profiling. African-Americans have long argued that police officers scrutinize their behavior more closely, and many report that they are fearful of arrest even if they have done nothing illegal.4 The majority of African-Americans believe that racial profiling is wrong, yet is pervasive within their communities.5 The September I Ith tragedy and increased attention surrounding immigration from Mexico, however, have caused other minority groups such as Arab-Americans and Latinos to become increasingly concerned that law-enforcement officers also unfairly target them based on their race or ethnicity. 6 Stories of the humiliation and helplessness of families stranded in the rain with their belongings strewn alongside the highway are commonplace for many members of society.7 Undoubtedly, the pernicious practice of racial profiling, or at least the perception that this practice occurs, has caused many citizens to alter their routine to avoid the indignity of yet another police stop. Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that the perception that police unjustly target minorities is not merely an unsubstantiated feeling, but an uncomfortable reality. While all forms of police misconduct or corruption are disturbing, racial profiling occupies a unique place among such harmful practices because it presents several unique issues that make it difficult to address through standard police accountability measures. Society entrusts lawenforcement officers with a wide-breadth of discretion in order to perform their everyday duties.8 While the fast-paced nature of law enforcement necessitates discretion, if left unchecked, broad grants of discretion can lead police officers to abuse their position and engage in misconduct ranging from falsifying evidence, participating in violent excessive uses of force, and engaging in racial profiling. Many forms of police misconduct and corruption leave tangible evidence that allows law-enforcement agencies to implement remedial measures to alleviate the problem. 9 Racial profiling, however, is an elusive practice that can easily remain shrouded from view. Courts rarely recognize victim’s claims of being racially profiled – can’t solve Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.; poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=289004112008113090031125110096017099025007057 017006013098023078026017103009087090105005060043107058047118070066087085015 0061160190590070230931240060700740131001070110910320020721060830091150081010 04120019099067104004015001116082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc) Remedying an elusive practice such as racial profiling remains a challenging issue for the judiciary and reformers must rely on other avenues for a solution. For example, even where evidence demonstrates that minorities are disproportionately stopped and searched, courts rarely recognize the victim's claim or provide relief.21 Thus, it is clear that courts will not be the catalysts of change. This Article argues that while courts may be reluctant to provide judicial remedies, police departments themselves should not ignore the perceptions and should take measures to reduce any possible profiling and increase partnerships with communities. An indication that a police department may be engaging in racial profiling has a detrimental and far-reaching impact not only on the individuals who experience it first-hand, but also on other members of the targeted community. Ultimately, this pernicious practice threatens to undermine legitimacy in law enforcement and the criminal justice system for large segments of society, which impacts society as a whole. Part III concludes by suggesting proactive remedies institutions and policymakers should consider to alleviate the tensions between communities and police office with respect to racial profiling. Data collection efforts are imperative to educating the public and police agencies about racial profiling, but these efforts fall short as a long-term remedy. Therefore, in addition to data collection during traffic stops, this Article proposes several policy solutions that the federal government and state legislatures should implement to address racial profiling within local law enforcement agencies. Profiling is situational, not about race Cutler 15 (Michael Cutler is an Immigration and Naturalization Service Senior Special Agent for thirty years, “IMMIGRATION AND POLITICAL RACIAL 'PROFILING,’” 7/2/15, Date Accessed, 7/7/15, http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259319/immigration-and-political-racial-profilingmichael-cutler, SZ) What is ignored by many journalists is that law enforcement must use profiling in order to be proactive and effective. However, ethical law enforcement profiling involves far more than the race or simple outward appearances of suspicious people. Effective and fair profiling must include situational and behavioral factors as integral components of such an effort. When I was an INS agent conducting surveillance in Harlem as part of a team of NYPD and DEA agents in conjunction with a narcotics investigation, we would take notice if, for the sake of argument, we spotted a Caucasian young man behind the wheel of a new high-priced vehicle, such as a BMW, with out-of-state license plates driving slowly up a block near a known drug location. If he was looking around furtively, as though he was expecting to meet someone, we might well have stopped him and ask who he was looking for and check his license, etc. Certainly we were basing our stop of the vehicle on a “profile” that had many components. More often than not, such stops yielded invaluable information and often led to arrests and seizures of narcotics and weapons. However identifying voters by a single element -- whether it is race, religion or ethnicity -- constitutes a different sort of profiling and one that is as insidious and ugly as it gets. To talk about the “Latino vote” is to postulate that all Latinos will vote the same way and presupposes that all Latinos have the same values, orientations and concerns. This is racism and bigotry plain and simple. It is unfair, it is insulting and it is divisive. The notion of the supposedly monolithic “Latino voter” does great harm in a number of important ways. It creates the false impression that immigration is all about race. In point of fact, our immigration laws are, as they should be, utterly and completely blind as to race, religion and ethnicity. Our immigration laws have two primary goals: protect innocent lives and the jobs of American workers. Nothing could be more reasonable. Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182: (Inadmissible Aliens) enumerates various categories of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the U.S. You will notice that there is nothing in this section of law that makes any distinction about such superficial issues as race, religion or ethnicity. The list of excludible classes of aliens includes aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases, severe mental illness, are fugitives from justice, aliens who are convicted felons, spies, terrorists, war criminals, human rights violators, and others whose presence would undermine national security and/or public safety. This section of law also addresses the issue of protecting the jobs, wages, and working conditions of the American worker. Here is the relevant portion of this section of law: (5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants (A) Labor certification (i) In general Any alien who seeks to enter the U.S. for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that — (I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the U.S. and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and (II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed. What does race have to do with the enforcement of our immigration laws? Making this an issue about race is unfair, unreasonable and pits Americans against Americans, creating the impression that Americans who want our borders secured and immigration laws enforced hate anyone of Latino ethnicity. This is a vicious lie. This is the equivalent of saying that if you lock your doors at night you are a xenophobic and anti-social misanthrope. Absent of intentional forms of structural discrimination, police officer bias still maintains minorities’ perception of racism Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.; poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=289004112008113090031125110096017099025007057 017006013098023078026017103009087090105005060043107058047118070066087085015 0061160190590070230931240060700740131001070110910320020721060830091150081010 04120019099067104004015001116082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc) Furthermore, racial profiling remains elusive and difficult to remediate because, even in the absence of intentional forms of discrimination, individual officers may be motivated by their unconscious racial biases. Despite much progress on racial issues, racial discrimination is not a "relic of the past" but instead remains a contemporary feature of modem society.69 Today, overt displays of discrimination are rare, but racial prejudice "often goes unrecognized even by the individual who responds unconsciously to such motivation.,, 70 For example, several psychological studies testing implicit bias demonstrate that images of African-Americans evoke more fear than other groups and confirm that members of minority groups, particularly African-American males, are associated with aggressive behavior.7 " Whether or not there is definitive proof of discrimination, it is indisputable that many members of minority groups perceive that many police officers harbor and exercise racial animus when policing communities of color.72 This perception itself can be damaging to the credibility and legitimacy of a law-enforcement agency. practical impact for certain individuals or the police officers who work within those communities to keep residents safe. With or without the imprimatur of a court decision, it is indisputable that many members of minority groups perceive an injustice, and this perception is dangerous and harmful to both the community and law enforcement. Even the perception that certain groups are treated unfairly undermines the legitimacy of the law enforcement agency, and thus has a deleterious effect on crime control and prevention. Legal immigrants experience the psychological burden of being portrayed as illegal by the police force Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.; poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=289004112008113090031125110096017099025007057 017006013098023078026017103009087090105005060043107058047118070066087085015 0061160190590070230931240060700740131001070110910320020721060830091150081010 04120019099067104004015001116082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc) Racial profiling leads to the societal stigmatization of victims known as a "racial tax. 74 Both the individual and the targeted community as a whole suffer psychological and emotional harms of racial profiling. Casual observers may view multiple police stops as a mere inconvenience, but in reality this "mere inconvenience" is really a harsh form of social stigmatization. Those who become targets of racial profiling suffer the emotional and psychological burden of racial profiling, and some members of minority groups have reported psychological harms of humiliation and depression as a result of racial profiling.75 The "broad taint of suspected criminality" 76 that burdens the entire ethnic or racial group that has been profiled, has been referred to as a "racial tax. 77 Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School, burdens placed upon African-American, Arabic, Latino and Asian minorities for their membership within their specific race/ethnic group.78 The "tax" has a particularly acute impact upon those of Latino descent, since they are often forced to prove their citizenship in addition to suffering the injustice of racial profiling.79 Officers create an environment where Latinos are "cast as foreigners," and those of the working class in emerging Latino communities are questioned more often since they might bear a resemblance to the "stereotypical image of what illegal immigrants supposedly look like.",80 Because a large majority of Latinos live in the United States are citizens or legal immigrants, this means that legal and lawful residents unjustly bear the burden of these "citizenship encounters."'' , Each of these forms of racial taxation unduly burdens the targeted group, for no other reason than a person's membership to that group. 82 AT: Immigration Federalism AT: Science Diplomacy Visas are exploitative and exclusionary – don’t solve scientific diplomacy Rygiel ’10 [Kim. Asstistant Professor of Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Globalizing Citizenship, 2010. Pg 5-6. Available Online via the University of Wisconsin’s EBook Collection] As forms of human mobility grow (e.g., displacement, asylum, travel for work, study, family, and leisure), and as regulatory controls become more restrictive, “legalized,” regular, and regulated forms of migration produce irregular, and what has increasingly become “illegalized,” forms of movement across borders (De Genova 2002). The increased implementation of border controls on the part of governing authorities has enabled the greater segregation (and differential treatment) of “‘legitimate’ mobilities such as leisure and business, from ‘illegitimate’ mobilities such as terrorism and illegal immigration” (Amoore 2006, 336). This “illegalization” of migration is produced by greater securitization, particularly by wealthy postindustrial societies in the North. In the process, certain bodies are perceived as threatening, disruptive, and risky and, therefore, in need of being securitized, regulated, and controlled. At the same time, these bodies are rendered vulnerable and are perceived as an invaluable source of cheap and exploitable labour (Bacon, 2008; Bigo 2002 and 2007; Bigo and Guild 2005; Ceyhan and Tsoukala 2002; Coleman 2005; Epstein 2007; Pickering and Weber 2006). Since 2001, they have frequently taken the form of the immigrant, the refugee or asylum claimant, and the undocumented migrant; however, they are also exchangeable and racialized, such that people of colour and those from countries in the South, as well as people of Muslim, Arab, and/or Middle Eastern background, have come to be viewed as risky subjects (Thobani 2004). It is within this context, then, that citizenship has increasingly become a way of governing individuals and populations. Despite the criss-crossing and transgression of territorial state borders and the reconfiguration of the state as a result of globalization, citizenship as a form of governing has been strengthened through innovative strategies and technologies of power, becoming an increasingly effective way of controlling populations in a globalizing environment. The reason for this is that, under the logic and discourse of citizenship, a host of strategies have been implemented to further open borders and liberalize trade and the flow of capital in ways that simultaneously maintain the role of the state with regard to controlling population and enforcing security. This is why Barry Hindess (2003, 24) argues that we can best understand this seeming contradiction between the promotion of open borders for goods, on the one hand, and the simultaneous restriction on the mobility of people, on the other, “if we view them both as parts of the one regime of population control.” This has been especially evident since the events of 11 September 2001 [9-11], which have led to the increasing use of citizenship as a means of governing the tension between an increasingly deterritorialized political economy and a territorialized political system. This is the context within which the principle arguments are situated. Science Diplomacy Impact Defense Science diplomacy doesn’t spill over Hormats 3/12 - Served Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment (Robert, “Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft”) AAAS http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/science-diplomacy-and-twenty-firstcentury-statecraft (LT) SCIENCE diplomacy is a central component of America’s twenty-first century statecraft agenda. The United States must increasingly recognize the vital role science and technology can play in addressing major challenges, such as making our economy more competitive, tackling global health issues, and dealing with climate change. American leadership in global technological advances and scientific research, and the dynamism of our companies and universities in these areas, is a major source of our economic, foreign policy, and national security strength. Additionally, it is a hallmark of the success of the American system. While some seek to delegitimize scientific ideas, we believe the United States should celebrate science and see it—as was the case since the time of Benjamin Franklin—as an opportunity to advance the prosperity, health, and overall well-being of Americans and the global community. Innovation policy is part of our science diplomacy engagement. More than ever before, modern economies are rooted in science and technology. It is estimated that America’s knowledge-based industries represent 40 percent of our economic growth and 60 percent of our exports. Sustaining a vibrant knowledge-based economy, as well as a strong commitment to educational excellence and advanced research, provides an opportunity for our citizens to prosper and enjoy upward mobility. America attracts people from all over the world—scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs—who want the opportunity to participate in, and contribute to, our innovation economy. At the same time, our bilateral and multilateral dialogues support science, technology, and innovation abroad by promoting improved education; research and development funding; good governance and transparent regulatory policies; markets that are open and competitive; and policies that allow researchers and companies to succeed, and, if they fail, to have the opportunity to try again. We advocate for governments to embrace and enforce an intellectual property system that allows innovators to reap the benefits of their ideas and also rewards their risk taking. Abraham Lincoln himself held a patent on an invention, a device for preventing ships from being grounded on shoals. He said in his “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions” in 1859 that patents “added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things.” The practice of science is increasingly expanding from individuals to groups, from single disciplines to interdisciplinary, and from a national to an international scope. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that from 1985 to 2007, the number of scientific articles published by a single author decreased by 45 percent. During that same period, the number of scientific articles published with domestic co-authorship increased by 136 percent, and those with international co-authorship increased by 409 percent. The same trend holds for patents. Science collaboration is exciting because it takes advantage of expertise that exists around the country and around the globe. American researchers, innovators, and institutions, as well as their foreign counterparts, benefit through these international collaborations. Governments that restrict the flow of scientific expertise and data will find themselves isolated, cut off from the global networks that drive scientific and economic innovation. While the scientific partnerships that the United States builds with other nations, and international ties among universities and research labs, are a means to address shared challenges, they also contribute to broadening and strengthening our diplomatic relationships. Scientific partnerships are based on disciplines and values that transcend politics, languages, borders, and cultures. Processes that define the scientific community—such as merit review, critical thinking, diversity of thought, and transparency—are fundamental values from which the global community can reap benefits. History provides many examples of how scientific cooperation can bolster diplomatic ties and cultural exchange. American scientists collaborated with Russian and Chinese counterparts for decades, even as other aspects of our relationship proved more challenging. Similarly, the science and technology behind the agricultural “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and ‘70s was the product of American, Mexican, and Indian researchers working toward a common goal. Today, the United States has formal science and technology agreements with over fifty countries. We are committed to finding new ways to work with other countries in science and technology, to conduct mutually beneficial joint research activities, and to advance the interests of the U.S. science and technology community. Twenty-first century statecraft also requires that we build greater people-topeople relationships. Science and technology cooperation makes that possible. For example, through the Science Envoy program, announced by President Obama in 2009 in Cairo, Egypt, eminent U.S. scientists have met with counterparts throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to build relationships and identify opportunities for sustained cooperation. With over half of the world’s population under the age of thirty, we are developing new ways to inspire the next generation of science and technology leaders. Over the past five years, the Department of State’s International Fulbright Science & Technology Award has brought more than two hundred exceptional students from seventy-three different countries to the United States to pursue graduate studies. Through the Global Innovation through Science and Technology Initiative, the United States recently invited young innovators from North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to post YouTube videos describing solutions to problems they face at home. The top submissions will receive financial support, business mentorship, and networking opportunities. Science diplomacy’s impact is marginal – it doesn’t create real diplomacy Dickson 10 - director of SciDev.net (David, “Science in diplomacy: “On tap but not on top”, 6/28 http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/) There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective. There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals at the international level. Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science. These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world. The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of “public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick approach”, as a participant described it). Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader concept of “innovation diplomacy”, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries. There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the increasing number of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of science diplomacy should be about. Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the development of modern science. Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively, increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions. The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking. It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would have. Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAME in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey). The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region. But others cautioned that, however successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from other political contexts. Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another. Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. “Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives – and benefit from diplomatic agreements – but cannot provide the solutions to either. Science diplomacy fails – multiple reasons Dickson, 10 – Dave, Director of SciDev (“Science diplomacy: easier said than done,” SciDev, 6/24/10, http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/)Red But, as rapidly become clear in the opening session of the three-day meeting on science diplomacy being held at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, putting the principle of such diplomacy into action presents many practical problems , some of which SciDev.Net aired last week (see Science diplomacy must be more ambitious). As several participants pointed out, this is particularly the case at a time when science budgets are under pressure, and scientists are being asked to justify their support from the public purse in terms of the practical contributions they make to national – rather than international – well-being. The dilemma was highlighted by the very first speaker at the meeting, Peter Fletcher, chair of panel that seeks to co-ordinate the international activities of Britain’s research councils. Fletcher outlined the many ways in which science can be effectively used as a diplomatic tool. He pointed out, for example, that scientific cooperation offered countries such as Britain an opportunity to establish good relations with the Muslim world in just the same way that it had helped them build bridges with China in the 1990s. “Science is a way of building relationships, sometimes even before politicians have agreed to talk.” Fletcher said. “Researchers are used to working across national boundaries. They understand people who are thinking about the same things as they are, and are used to working together in ways in which other people are not.” But he also pointed out that, with the UK having just announced a 25% reduction in its science budget, governments were increasingly requiring scientists to demonstrate the value of their work for those who paid for it. “How much are we prepared to commit to solving global challenges for mutual benefit [in this context]?” he asked. Other challenges were highlighted by Vaughan Turekian, director of the Center for Science Diplomacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington DC Turekian pointed out that part of the attraction of using science for diplomatic purposes was its apolitical nature. In addition, the United States, for example, was well placed to exploit the fact that its science was held in much higher regard around the world that many of its other activities. He quoted a recent visit to Syria by a US scientific delegation that had met with President Assad – an ophthalmologist – as an example of how science diplomacy could help promote political engagement in situations where official relations were limited. “Science cooperation has provided a wonderful way to have a barriers that prevent science diplomacy from operating effectively, such as asymmetries in scientific capabilities, economic or security concerns over providing access to certain types of key technologies, and a general lack of funding. In the discussion that followed, it became clear that these barriers are likely to become an important focus of attention over the next two days. Several participants, for example, pointed to the obstacles to international scientific exchange presented by the increasing restrictions on entrance visas being placed by countries such as the United States. “It becomes so difficult for someone to get into the US that once they are there, they cannot afford to go home, even for a short visit, because they have no idea whether they will be able to get back in,” was one typical comment. dialogue on issues of mutual interest,” Turekian said. But he also pointed to some of the Science diplomacy fails David Dickson, SciDev.net, June 2, 2009. http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/science-diplomacy-the-case-for-caution/ One of the frustrations of meetings at which scientists gather to discuss policy-related issues is the speed with which the requirements for evidence-based discussion they would expect in a professional context can go out of the window. Such has been the issue over the past two days in the meeting jointly organised in London by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Royal Society on the topic “New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy“. There has been much lively discussion on the value of international collaboration in achieving scientific goals, on the need for researchers to work together on the scientific aspects of global challenges such as climate change and food security, and on the importance of science capacity building in developing countries in order to make this possible. But there remained little evidence at the end of the meeting on how useful it was to lump all these activities together under the umbrella term of “science diplomacy”. More significantly, although numerous claims were made during the conference about the broader social and political value of scientific collaboration – for example, in establishing a framework for collaboration in other areas, and in particular reducing tensions between rival countries – little was produced to demonstrate whether this hypothesis is true. If it is not, then some of the arguments made on behalf of “science diplomacy”, and in particular its value as a mechanism for exercising “soft power” in foreign policy, do not stand up to close scrutiny. Diplomacy can’t spillover Daniel Brumberg, May 6, 2006. http://hir.harvard.edu/development-and-modernization/hegemony-or-leadership Indeed, I agree with many of his points. US President George Bush’s administration has alienated much of the world by its rejection of international treaties, advocacy of regime change, implicit rejection of national sovereignty, failure to push for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, much of the "hatred" toward the United States has more to do with US policies than US values. No amount of shrewd public diplomacy can overcome the basic policy clashes that separate Europe and Washington almost as decisively as they divide Washington and the Third World. That said, Ambassador Zarif has simplified some of the and what many see as a self-serving and hypocritical approach to non-proliferation. I also agree that inevitable challenges that the world’s remaining superpower must encounter. Moreover, he ignores the daunting challenge that Iranian leaders still face in squaring their espousal of international norms and institutions with many of Iran’s foreign policies. Unfortunately, some of these policies reflect the enduring influence of a hard-line clerical establishment that repudiates many of the very global norms that Ambassador Zarif advocates. AT: State Experimentalism Good State experimentation doesn’t help immigration Cunningham-Parmeter 11 Associate Professor of Law, Willamette University. J.D., Stanford University. opyright (c) 2011 U.C. Hastings College of the Law Hastings Law Journal July, 2011 Hastings Law Journal 62 Hastings L.J. 1673 LENGTH: 29161 words Article: Forced Federalism: States as Laboratories of Immigration Reform Ever since Justice Louis Brandeis characterized states as laboratories of democracy, judges and scholars have championed the ability of states to offer a diverse array of solutions to complex national problems. Today, proponents of enhanced immigration restrictions apply the same rationale to state immigration laws. This Article challenges the assertion that states can serve as valuable laboratories of immigration reform. States that enact their own immigration laws do not internalize costs or yield replicable results - two conditions needed for viable experimentation. When states internalize costs, other jurisdictions can effectively evaluate outcomes. Replication occurs when states take diverse approaches to common problems. Unfortunately, current state immigration laws do not meet these criteria because states operate in a system of "forced federalism": a division of power between the two levels of government in which subnational jurisdictions attempt to force the federal government to accept state-defined immigration enforcement schemes. But as states thrust their chosen levels of immigration control on the federal government, their potential to innovate on immigration matters is quite restricted. Essentially, forced federalism limits states to a narrow set of enforcement decisions based on federally defined norms - far from the type of diverse testing associated with true innovation and replication. Today's state immigration experiments also fail to internalize costs another condition of successful subnational tests. Restrictionist states that encourage unauthorized immigrants to resettle in other jurisdictions export the economic damage they claim illegal immigration causes. In addition to economic spillovers, laboratory states export social costs to the nation by fundamentally altering the concept of a shared national identity. For example, when immigrants flee restrictionist states in order to avoid racial profiling or harassment, the national commitment to values such as egalitarianism and nondiscrimination is weakened. These harms are not confined to restrictionist states alone but are felt by the nation as a whole. Not all subjects are ripe for local experimentation and not all tests produce valid results. Despite the appealing image of states as laboratories, today's immigration experiments will not advance the nation's ongoing search for sounder immigration policies. Federal control over immigration is super resilient – Arizona ruling Vincent J Cannato Fall 2012; associate professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and the author of American Passage: The History of Ellis Island. “Our Evolving Immigration Policy” National Affairs Issue 13 Fall 2012 http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/our-evolving-immigration-policy For all the debate that surrounds America's immigration policy, just who is responsible for enforcing that policy has rarely been in dispute in recent decades — until Arizona adopted the statute S.B. 1070. Arguing that the federal government had proved incapable of stopping the illegal immigration wreaking havoc in the state, Arizona lawmakers took matters into their own hands, enacting legislation that used state penalties and state police to try to give meaningful force to federal laws already on the books. Washington, for its part, resisted, claiming that Arizona's approach intruded on federal prerogatives. The federal-state power struggle ultimately landed before the Supreme Court, which, amid a swirl of politicized commentary on both sides of the matter, issued its ruling in June. "The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens....The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled ," opined Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court's majority in Arizona v. United States. In a 5-3 decision (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself), the Court struck down most of the Arizona law and limited the permissible range of state activity in the realm of immigration enforcement. To allow each of the 50 states to enact its own immigration-control laws — even if those laws did not conflict with, but instead complemented, federal law — would, in the Court's view, violate the doctrine that "the States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance." In the eyes of the Court's majority, the regulation of immigration has been so thoroughly dominated by the federal government as to leave virtually no room for action by the states. Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed, writing in his dissent that such a ruling "deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there." The majority's opinion, he contended, is supported by "neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress." The plan doesn’t create legal clarity to encourage state action – Court ruling wouldn’t solve federal reassertion of power, either Tamar Jacoby 4-22-2012; a fellow of the New America Foundation, is president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of small business owners working for better immigration law. “States Should Experiment on Immigration Policy” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/22/how-states-should-approach-immigration/states-should-experiment-onimmigration-policy?gwh=48DC6026D5DF65A992E332FAEEE2FFBB&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion If only it were clear what is within the states’ power on immigration and what isn’t. That would make things a lot easier for everyone. The problem is we don’t know . Throughout American history, the pendulum of states’ rights and federal power has swung back and forth, and not just on immigration. Today, we’re in the middle of a federalist revolution of historic proportions, with states across the country taking immigration lawmaking into their own hands – and getting a yellow if not green light from the U.S. Supreme Court. This summer, the court will issue its second immigration opinion in two years, and I predict that again it will be at least a yellow light. So what are states to do? Virtually all the state immigration laws enacted in the last decade have been enforcement measures. That’s understandable; lawmakers and voters want to get control of illegal immigration. States are just incompetent at immigration – only federal policy solves Adam Cohen 5-7-2012; teaches at Yale Law School. “Why States Shouldn’t Control Immigration: Whatever the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's controversial law, it should be a wake-up call about why American immigration policy must be established on a national — not state — level” http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/07/why-states-shouldnt-control-immigration/ Advocates for illegal immigrants are, naturally, worried — they fear harsh new laws and crackdowns in state after state. But even people who take a harder line on immigration should not be particularly pleased if this is how things go. There is a good reason that we look to the federal government — and not the states — to take the lead on immigration law. Only Congress can address the issue in all its complexity, taking on the many concerns on all sides. (MORE: Do Elected Officials Have to Speak English?) The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which never passed, showed what Congress could do. That bill would have created a clear path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. It also had real get-tough provisions, including increased enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border and a national database for employers to check the immigration status of job applicants. States cannot do anything this ambitious . They may be able to hound individual immigrants into leaving the country or drive the ones who remain to live their lives in the shadows. But states cannot give people a path to citizenship or create a national database. They cannot fix a national system that almost everyone agrees is badly broken. The main reason that Arizona, Alabama and other states have begun acting aggressively on immigration is that Washington has failed for years to address the problem. Even if the Supreme Court says that states have the legal right to enact immigration laws like that does not mean that it makes any sense for the nation’s immigration policy to be established at the state level. Whatever the outcome of the challenge to Arizona’s law, it should Arizona’s, be a wake-up call to Congress that the American people are tired of waiting for immigration reform. Federal control is inevitable and good Tamar Jacoby 2-24-2012; Tamar Jacoby, a fellow at the New America Foundation, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of small business owners in favor of immigration reform. “What if justices let states make immigration policy?” http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/opinion/jacoby-immigration-supreme-court/ Those who want Washington to make immigration policy have a hundred years of history and a raft of persuasive arguments on their side. The Constitution reserves some powers for Congress: naturalization and, by extension, determining who and how many immigrants we admit. Federal law carves out other areas, including most worksite enforcement. And sheer practicality argues for one national policy on the border. AT: Space Impact Tons of state experimentation on immigration in the squo Elias ‘13 [Assc Prof Law Iowa. “The New Immigration Federalism” 2013 http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/6-Elias.pdf//jv] During the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions, comprehensive immigration¶ reform was once again a topic of vibrant debate and speculation in Congress, in¶ the media, and in the legal academy. On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed¶ S. 744, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration¶ Modernization Act.”¶ 3¶ Speculation abounded—and indeed continues to¶ abound—as to what action, if any, the House of Representatives might take.¶ But, as federal lawmakers and commentators argued the relative merits of¶ different proposed solutions to cut visa backlogs, attract immigrants with skills¶ in science and technology, and address the challenges posed by approximately¶ 11.2 million undocumented migrants,¶ 4¶ some of the most important¶ stakeholders—the governments of the fifty states—were unusually silent. This¶ was particularly noteworthy, because until the summer of 2012, those very state¶ governments were often at the forefront of efforts to influence the reform of¶ immigration law and policy; in 2010, for example, 346 separate bills pertaining to immigration and alienage were passed by state legislatures.¶ 5¶ The catalyst for¶ the change in states’ immigration-related rulemaking was the United States¶ Supreme Court’s June 25, 2012 decision in¶ Arizona v. United States¶ ,¶ 6¶ which¶ reasserted the federal government’s primacy in the immigration arena and¶ clarified the boundaries of federal, state, and local rulemaking pertaining to¶ immigration enforcement and immigration-related criminal sanctions.¶ In the wake of the¶ Arizona¶ ruling, a number of states suspended¶ immigration enforcement operations and ceased to promulgate anti-¶ unauthorizedimmigrant laws. At the same time, immigration law scholars and¶ commentators—some of whom had prev¶ iously argued that it would be¶ “conceptually unstable” to accord the federal government exclusive power over¶ immigration enforcement, while allowing states and localities to “choose¶ different methods of integrating immigrants”¶ 7¶ —suggested that the Court’s¶ reaffirmation of federal primacy in the sphere of immigration enforcement¶ signaled the demise of “immigration federalism,”¶ 8¶ or at the very least a return to¶ state inaction in both immigration and alienage rulemaking.¶ 9¶ I disagree.¶ Arizona¶ v. United States¶ may mark a watershed in U.S. immigration law and policy, but¶ it does not mark the end of state and local engagement in immigration¶ regulation. Instead, it portends a “new” direction for “immigration federalism.”¶ The¶ Arizona¶ Court’s reinvigoration of the doctrine of broad federal power in the¶ immigration arena does not foreclose all state action pertaining to immigrants¶ and immigration. Rather, the post-¶ Arizona¶ legal landscape provides ample¶ opportunity for different varieties of state and local engagement with noncitizen¶ residents—some of which will be novel and some of which will involve the¶ further development or redirection of preexisting laws and policies. This “new¶ immigration federalism” is and will be grounded in immigrantinclusionary ¶ rulemaking, which has the potential to complement (as well as occasionally¶ contradict) federal efforts at comprehensive immigration reform.¶ Early analyses of post-¶ Arizona¶ state lawmaking support this understanding¶ of the new framework of immigration federalism. After a lull during 2012,¶ which coincided with the Court’s consideration of¶ Arizona¶ , state rulemaking¶ pertaining to immigrants rebounded in the first six months of 2013. By the end¶ of June of 2013, forty-three states and the District of Columbia had passed a¶ total of 377 laws and resolutions related to immigration; an 83% increase from¶ the first half of 2012.¶ 10¶ Notably, just one state, Georgia, passed immigrant-¶ exclusionary legislation in early 2013; the other forty-two states enacted¶ immigrant-inclusionary measures.¶ 11¶ Legislation intended to expand access to¶ driver’s licenses for all immigrants was introduced in at least nineteen states, as¶ well as in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.¶ 12¶ Bills designed to provide¶ access to instate tuition rates for students, regardless of their immigration¶ status, so-called “State DREAM Acts,” were introduced in at least sixteen¶ states, and proposals for greater access to scholarships and/or financial aid for¶ immigrant students were considered in several states.¶ 13¶ At the same time, five¶ state legislatures debated new measures to provide greater workplace¶ protections to immigrant domestic workers.¶ 14¶ These recent developments¶ portend the future direction of immigration federalism in the United States. Your evidence says that NASA needs to fund and prioritize asteroid readiness – the status quo solves that King ‘14 [Ledyard. USA Today Staff. “NASA budget would ramp up asteroid mission” 3/4/14 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/04/nasa-budget-asteroidmission/6021269/ //jv] NASA's proposed budget for fiscal 2015 would ramp up funding to fly astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 as part of a steppingstone approach to Mars, a mission some lawmakers want to replace with a return trip to the moon.¶ The $133 million for the mission, which would deflect a small asteroid into near-Earth orbit so astronauts could practice landing on it and study its characteristics, is part of the space agency's proposed $17.46 billion budget released by the administration Tuesday.¶ Fiscal 2015 begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30, 2015.¶ The budget also includes funding to continue NASA's other top priorities: a deep-space Space Launch System rocket and the Orion multi-purpose vehicle it will carry to Mars, the James Webb Space Telescope due for launch in 2018, and the Commercial Crew Program that helps fund private efforts to send astronauts from the U.S. to the International Space Station.¶ The budget is about $185 million below the fiscal 2014 level but roughly $600 million more than NASA received in fiscal 2013, when sequestration cut discretionary spending across the board. ¶ NASA could have access to another $900 million as well — its share of a $56 billion Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative that would be separate from the regular budget. Sufficient detection and deflection efforts now – but increased US asteroid leadership guts those CSM ‘10 (May 14, “ Who is responsible for averting an asteroid strike? ” http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0514/who-is-responsible-for-averting-anasteroid-strike) Asteroid hunters have good news – and a challenge – for the rest of us. After an extensive search for asteroids a kilometer or more across, engineer Steve Chesley says that "we can now say with confidence that no asteroids large enough to cause such a global calamity [as killing off the dinosaurs] are headed our way." But if one of them – or even a smaller, city-destroying rock – were detected on a collision course, would the world community be prepared to handle it? A conference of legal experts that discussed this question at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln last month answered it with a resounding "No." Scientists and engineers who have studied the problem of deflecting a dangerous asteroid believe the technical issues are difficult but solvable. The challenge now is figuring out the legal issues of who takes action on behalf of humankind and of what their responsibilities and liabilities will be. Asteroid hunters believe they can give us plenty of warning. There is "a fair chance that the next Earth impactor will actually be identified with many decades and perhaps centuries of warning time," explains Mr. Chesley of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., in the March/April issue of the Planetary Report. That's plenty of time to develop a spacecraft whose gravitational attraction might nudge an asteroid aside – or a rocket or some application of nuclear explosives to do the job. However, if a single country – or small group of nations – tries to take the initiative on its own, the international reaction could stall any action at all. "The international political reactions to the US shooting down one of its own satellites a year ago to prevent presumably dangerous and toxic rocket fuel from reaching Earth only foreshadows what would happen if the US would detonate nukes claiming to destroy an incoming asteroid," said Frans von der Dunk, a University of Nebraska space law expert, at the Nebraska conference, according to Space News. Overlooking the hype about nuclear weapons, which engineers consider an unlikely, extreme measure, Professor von der Dunk has pointed out the main issue. Averting a regional or global asteroid threat may involve unforeseen collateral damage – such as splintered chunks making their way to Earth or worse. Therefore, the world community has to have a say in how that threat is handled. Right now, to use von der Dunk's word, that community is "underorganized" to meet this challenge. No extinction impact BENNETT 10 (James, Eminent Scholar at George Mason University and holds the William P. Snavely Chair of Political Economy and Public Policy in the Department of Economics and is Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy. He received his Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University in 1970 and has specialized in research related to public policy issues, the economics of government and bureaucracy, labor unions, and health charities. The Doomsday Lobby: Hype and Panic from Sputniks, Martians, and Marauding Meteors, p. 157-158 It should be noted that the Alvarez et al. hypothesis was not universally accepted. As Peter M. Sheehan and Dale A. Russell wrote in their paper “Faunal Change Following the Cretaceous–Tertiary Impact: Using Paleontological Data to Assess the Hazards of Impacts,” published in Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids (1994), edited by Tom Gehrels, “ many paleontologists resist accepting a cause and effect relationship” between the iridum evidence, the Chicxulub crater, and the mass extinction of 65 million years ago.15 For instance, Dennis V. Kent of the Lamont– Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, writing in Science, disputed that a high concentration of iridium is necessarily “associated with an extraordinary extraterrestrial event” and that, moreover, “a large asteroid… is not likely to have had the dire consequences to life on the earth that they propose.”16 Briefly, Kent argues that the Alvarez team mistakenly chose the 1883 Krakatoa eruption as the standard from it extrapolated the effects of stratospheric material upon sunlight. Yet Krakatoa was too small a volcanic eruption from which to draw any such conclusions; better, says Kent, is the Toba caldera in Sumatra, remnant of an enormous eruption 75,000 years ago. (A caldera is the imprint left upon the earth from a volcanic eruption.) The volume of the Toba caldera is closer to the effect that an asteroid impact might have. Yet the sunlight “attenuation factor [for Toba] is not nearly as large as the one postulated by Alvarez et al. for the asteroid impact.” Indeed, the Toba eruption is not associated with any mass extinctions, leading Kent to believe that “the cause of the massive extinctions is not closely related to a drastic reduction in sunlight alone.”17 Reporting in Science, Richard A. Kerr wrote that “Many geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, and statisticians… find the geological evidence merely suggestive or even nonexistent and the supposed underlying mechanisms improbable at best.” Even the iridium anomalies have been challenged: Bruce Corliss of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute argues that the major extinctions associated with the K–T event were not immediate and catastrophic 400 times as great as that of Krakatoa – considerably but “gradual and apparently linked to progressive climate change.”18 Others argue that a massive volcanic event predating the Alvarezian killer asteroid created an overwhelming greenhouse effect and set the dinosaurs up for the knockout punch. A considerable number of scientists believe that gradually changing sea levels were the primary cause of the K–T Extinction. If either of these hypotheses is true – and a substantial number of geologists hold these positionns — then the “killer asteroid” is getting credit that it does not deserve. Even if the K–T Extinction was the work of a rock from space, the Alvarez team credits a “probable interval of 100 million years between collisions with 10km-diameter objects.”19 The next rendezvous with annihilation won’t be overdue for about 40 million years. We have time. 2NC Space Impacts If the status quo doesn’t solve, then neither does the aff – NASA’s NEO program is a dumpster fire AFP ‘14 [The Agence France Presse. “NASA asteroid defense program falls short: audit” 9/15/14 http://phys.org/news/2014-09-nasa-asteroid-defense-falls-short.html//jv] The US space agency's program to detect and protect the Earth from incoming asteroids is poorly managed and far behind schedule, said a government audit report on Monday.¶ Just one million of the program's $40 million annual budget is spent on strategies to deflect an incoming asteroid or evacuate areas in danger of impact, said the report by NASA inspector General Paul Martin.¶ NASA was tasked by Congress in 2005 to establish a program for tracking near-Earth objects (NEO) greater than 140 meters in diameter (460 feet), to decide on their threat and to catalogue 90 percent of these objects by 2020.¶ "While the program has discovered, categorized, and plotted the orbits of more than 11,000 NEOs since 1998, NASA estimates that it has identified only 10 percent of all asteroids 140 meters and larger and will not meet the 2020 deadline," said the audit.¶ Furthermore, it described NASA's NEO Program as organized under "a single program executive who manages a loosely structured, non-integrated conglomerate of research activities with little coordination, insufficient program oversight, and no established milestones to track progress."¶ The report noted that most NEOs are harmless and disintegrate before they reach the surface of the Earth.¶ However, some survive, it said, pointing to the 18-meter (57-foot) meteor that exploded above the city of Chelyabinsk, Russia in 2013 "with the force of 30 atomic bombs, blowing out windows, destroying buildings, and injuring more than 1,000 people."¶ Other problems with NASA management of the program included an asteroid redirect mission that was not managed by the NEO program, and "inadequate controls to ensure proper accounting of agency-funded grants and task orders."¶ The "lack of planning and resources has prevented the NEO Program from developing additional agreements that could help achieve program goals," it added.¶ "For example, establishing formal partnerships with the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and international agencies could give the NEO Program access to additional Earth-based telescopes and thereby increase its ability to detect, track, and characterize a greater number of NEOs."¶ The report said NASA spends just seven percent of its $40 million budget on "studying mitigation strategies to defend the Earth from the effects of NEO impacts," including civil defense strategies, emergency evacuations or "attempting to destroy or deflect the trajectory of an Earth-bound NEO." The status quo should be enough to solve your internal link, because it’s all about data and collaboration – we’re doing all of that stuff now Economist ‘10 (“Data, data everywhere,” Feb 24, http://www.economist.com/node/15557443) the Sloan Digital Sky Survey started work in 2000, its telescope in New Mexico collected more data in its first few weeks than had been amassed in the entire history of astronomy. Now, a decade later, its archive contains a whopping 140 terabytes of information. A successor, the Large Synoptic WHEN due to come on stream in Chile in 2016, will acquire that quantity of data every five days. Such astronomical amounts of information can be found closer to Earth too. Wal-Mart, a retail giant, handles more than 1m customer Survey Telescope, transactions every hour, feeding databases estimated at more than 2.5 petabytes—the equivalent of 167 times the books in America’s Library of Congress (see article for an explanation of how data are quantified). Facebook, a social-networking website, is home to 40 billion photos. And decoding the human genome involves analysing 3 billion base pairs—which took ten years the first time it was done, in 2003, but can now be achieved in one week. All these examples tell the same story: that the world contains an unimaginably vast amount of digital information which is getting ever vaster ever more rapidly. This makes it possible to do many things that previously could not be done: spot business trends, prevent diseases, combat crime and so on. Managed well, the data can be used to unlock new sources of economic value, provide fresh insights into science and Despite the abundance of tools to capture, process and share all this information—sensors, computers, mobile phones and the like—it already exceeds the available storage space (see chart 1). Moreover, ensuring data security and protecting privacy is becoming harder as the information multiplies and is shared ever more widely around the world. Alex Szalay, an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University, notes that the proliferation of data is making them increasingly inaccessible. “How to make sense of all these data? People should be worried about how we train the next generation, not just of scientists, but people in government and industry,” he says. “We are at a hold governments to account. But they are also creating a host of new problems. different period because of so much information,” says James Cortada of IBM, who has written a couple of dozen books on the history of information in society. Joe Hellerstein, a computer scientist at the University of California in Berkeley, calls it “the industrial revolution of data”. The effect is being felt everywhere, from business to science, from government to the arts. Scientists and computer engineers have coined a new term for the phenomenon: “big data”. Epistemologically speaking, information is made up of a collection of data and knowledge is made up of different strands of information. But this special report uses “data” and “information” interchangeably because, as it will argue, the two are increasingly difficult to tell apart. Given enough raw data, today’s algorithms and powerful computers can reveal new insights that would previously have remained hidden. The business of information management—helping organisations to make sense of their proliferating data—is growing by leaps and bounds. In recent years Oracle, IBM, Microsoft and SAP between them have spent more than $15 billion on buying software firms specialising in data management and analytics. This industry is estimated to be worth more than $100 billion and growing at almost 10% a year, roughly twice as fast as the software business as a whole. Chief information officers (CIOs) have become somewhat more prominent in the executive suite, and a new kind of professional has emerged, the data scientist, who combines the skills of software programmer, statistician and storyteller/artist to extract the nuggets of gold hidden under mountains of data. Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist, predicts that the job of statistician will become the Data, he explains, are widely available; what is scarce is the ability to extract wisdom from them. More of everything There are many reasons for the information explosion. The most obvious one is technology. As the capabilities of “sexiest” around. digital devices soar and prices plummet, sensors and gadgets are digitising lots of information that was previously unavailable. And many more people have access to far more powerful tools. For example, there are 4.6 billion mobile-phone subscriptions worldwide (though many people have more than one, so the world’s 6.8 billion people are not quite as well supplied as these figures suggest), and 1 billion-2 billion people use the internet. Moreover, there are now many more people who interact with information. Between 1990 and 2005 more than 1 billion people worldwide entered the middle class. As they get richer they become more literate, which fuels information growth, notes Mr Cortada. The results are showing up in politics, economics and the law as well. “Revolutions in science have often been preceded by revolutions in measurement,” says Sinan Aral, a business professor at New York University. Just as the microscope transformed biology by exposing germs, and the electron microscope changed physics, all these data are turning the social sciences upside down, he explains. Researchers are now able to understand human behaviour at the population level rather than the individual level. The amount of digital information increases tenfold every five years. Moore’s law, which the computer industry now takes for granted, says that the processing power and storage capacity of computer chips double or their prices halve roughly every 18 months. The software programs are getting better too. Edward Felten, a computer scientist at Princeton University, reckons that the improvements in the algorithms driving computer applications have played as important a part as Moore’s law for decades. A vast amount of that information is shared. By 2013 the amount of traffic flowing over the internet annually will reach 667 exabytes, according to Cisco, a maker of communications gear. And the quantity of data continues to grow faster than the ability of the network to carry it all. People have long groused that they were swamped by information. Back in 1917 the manager of a Connecticut manufacturing firm complained about the effects of the telephone: “Time is lost, confusion results and money is spent.” Yet what is happening now goes way beyond incremental growth. The quantitative change has begun to make a qualitative difference. This shift from information scarcity to surfeit has broad effects. “What we are seeing is the ability to have economies form around the data—and that to me is the big change at a societal and even macroeconomic level,” says Craig Mundie, head of research and strategy at Microsoft. Data are becoming the new raw material of business: an economic input almost on a par with capital and labour. “Every day I wake up and ask, ‘how can I flow data better, manage data better, analyse data better?” says Rollin Ford, the CIO of Wal-Mart. Sophisticated quantitative analysis is being applied to many aspects of life, not just missile trajectories or financial hedging strategies, as in the past. For example, Farecast, a part of Microsoft’s search engine Bing, can advise customers whether to buy an airline ticket now or wait for the price to come down by examining 225 billion flight and price records. The same idea is being extended to hotel rooms, cars and similar items. Personal-finance websites and banks are aggregating their customer data to show up macroeconomic trends, which may develop into ancillary businesses in their own right. Number-crunchers have even uncovered match-fixing in Japanese sumo wrestling. Dross into gold “Data exhaust”—the trail of clicks that internet users leave behind from which value can be extracted—is becoming a mainstay of the internet economy. One example is Google’s search engine, which is partly guided by the number of clicks on an item to help determine its relevance to a search query. If the eighth listing for a search term is the one most people go to, the algorithm puts it higher up. As the world is becoming increasingly digital, aggregating and analysing data is likely to bring huge benefits in other fields as well. For example, Mr Mundie of Microsoft and Eric Schmidt, the boss of Google, sit on a presidential task force to reform American health care. “Early on in this process Eric and I both said: ‘Look, if you really want to transform health care, you basically build a sort of health-care economy around the data that relate to people’,” Mr Mundie explains. “You would not just think of data as the ‘exhaust’ of providing health services, but rather they become a central asset in trying to figure out how you would improve every aspect of health care. It’s a bit of an inversion.” To be sure, digital records should make life easier for doctors, bring down costs for providers and patients and improve the quality of care. But in aggregate the data can also be mined to spot unwanted drug interactions, identify the most effective treatments and predict the onset of disease before symptoms emerge. Computers already attempt to do these things, but need to be explicitly programmed for them. In a world of big data the correlations surface almost by themselves. Sometimes those data reveal more than was intended. For example, the city of Oakland, California, releases information on where and when arrests were made, which is put out on a private website, Oakland Crimespotting. At one point a few clicks revealed that police swept the whole of a busy street for prostitution every evening except on Wednesdays, a tactic they probably meant to keep to themselves. But big data can have far more serious consequences than that. During the recent financial crisis it became clear that banks and rating agencies had been relying on models which, although they required a vast amount of information to be fed in, failed to reflect financial risk in the real world. This was the first crisis to be sparked by big data— and there will be more. Tons of international asteroid coop now NRC 10 [National Research Council, Committee to Review NEO Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies and Space Studies Board Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, “Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies” Retrieved from Google Books] Recognizing that impacts from near-Earth objects represent a hazard to humanity, the United States, the European Union. Japan, and other countries cooperatively organized to identify, track, and study NEOs in an effort termed "Spaceguard." From this organization, a nonprofit group named the Spaceguard Foundation was created to coordinate NEO detection and studies: it is currently located at the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Centre for Earth Observation (ESRIN) in Frascati. Italy. The United States input to this collective effort comprises three aspects: telescopic search efforts to find NEOs, the Minor Planet Center (MPC) at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the NASA NEO Program Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Existing, retired, and proposed telescopic systems for the U.S. NEO searches are detailed below. Other telescopic survey, detection, and characterization efforts are conducted worldwide and work synergistically with U.S. telescopic searches (e.g.. Asiago-DLR Asteroid Survey, jointly operated by the University of Padua and the German Aerospace Center [DLR|. Campo Imperatore Near-Earth Object Survey at Rome Observatory; and the Bisei Spaceguard Center of the Japanese Spaceguard Association). To date, the U.S. search effort has been the major contributor to the number of known NEOs. The functions of the two U.S. data- and information-gathering offices, the MPC and the NEO Program Office, are complementary. A European data- and information-gathering office, the Near-Earth Objects Dynamic Site (NEODyS) is maintained at the University of Pisa in Italy, with a mirror site at the University of Valladolid in Spain. These three services are described below. The squo solves your coop and travel internal links – but increased US leadership on the matter just causes confusion and data overload Economist ‘10 (“Data, data everywhere,” Feb 24, http://www.economist.com/node/15557443) as the torrent of information increases, it is not surprising that people feel There is an immense risk of cognitive overload Is this everybody's future? Probably not. But overwhelmed. " ," explains Carl Pabo, a molecular biologist who studies cognition. The mind can handle seven pieces of information in its short-term memory and can generally deal with only four concepts or relationships at once. If there is more information to process, or it is especially complex, people become confused. Moreover, knowledge has become so specialised that it is impossible for any individual to grasp the whole picture. A true understanding of climate change, for instance, requires a knowledge of meteorology, chemistry, economics and law, among many other things. And whereas doctors a century ago were expected to keep up with the entire field of medicine, now they would need to be familiar with about 10,000 diseases, 3,000 drugs and more than 1,000 lab tests. A study in 2004 suggested that in epidemiology alone it would take 21 hours of work a day just to stay current. And as more people around the world become more educated, the flow of knowledge will increase even further. The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers in China alone has increased 14-fold since 1990 (see information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients," wrote Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention." But just as it is machines that are generating most of the data deluge, so they can also be put to work to deal with it. That highlights the role of "information intermediaries". People rarely deal with raw data but consume them in processed form, once they have been aggregated or winnowed by computers. Indeed, many of the technologies described in this report, from business analytics to chart 3, next page). "What Herbert Simon, an economist, in 1971. " recursive machine-learning to visualisation software, exist to make data more digestible for humans. Some applications have already become so widespread that they are taken for granted. For example, banks use credit scores, based on data about past financial transactions, to judge an applicant's ability to repay a loan. That makes the process less subjective than the say-so of a bank manager. Likewise, landing a plane requires a lot of mental effort, so the process has been largely automated, and both pilots and passengers feel safer. And in health care the trend is towards "evidence-based medicine", where not only doctors but computers too get involved in diagnosis and treatment. The dangers of algorithms will be doing more of the thinking for people. But that carries risks. The technology is far less reliable than people realise. For every success with big data there are many failures. The inability of banks to understand their risks in the lead-up to the financial complacency In the age of big data, crisis is one example. The deficient system used to identify potential terrorists is another. On Christmas Day last year a Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to ignite a hidden bomb as his plane was landing in Detroit. It turned out his father had informed American officials that he posed a threat. His name was entered into a big database of around 550,000 people who potentially posed a security risk. But the database is notoriously flawed. It contains many duplicates, and names are regularly lost during back-ups. The officials had followed all the right procedures, but the system still did not prevent the suspect from boarding the plane. One big worry is what happens if the technology stops working altogether. This is not a far-fetched idea. In January 2000 the torrent of data pouring into America's National Security Agency (NSA) brought the system to a crashing halt. The agency was "brain-dead" for three-and-a-half days, General Michael Hayden, then its director, said publicly in 2002. "We were dark. Our ability to process information was gone." If an intelligence agency can be hit in this way, the chances are that most other users are at even greater risk. Part of the solution will be to pour more resources into improving the performance of existing technologies, not just pursue more innovations. The computer industry went through a similar period of reassessment in 2001-02 when Microsoft and others announced that they were concentrating on making their products much more secure rather than adding Another concern is energy consumption. Processing huge amounts of data takes a lot of power. "In two to three years we will saturate the electric cables running into the building," says Alex Szalay at Johns Hopkins University. "The next challenge is how to do the same things as today, but with ten to 100 times less power." It is a worry that affects many organisations. The NSA in 2006 came close to exceeding its power supply, which would have blown out its new features. electrical infrastructure. Both Google and Microsoft have had to put some of their huge data centres next to hydroelectric plants to ensure access to enough energy at a Some people are even questioning whether the scramble for ever more information is a good idea. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, identifies "information hazards" which result from disseminating information that is likely to cause harm, such as publishing the blueprint for a nuclear bomb or broadcasting news of a race riot that could provoke further violence. "It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," he writes. "It is an open question whether more knowledge is safer." reasonable price. Yet similar concerns have been raised through the ages, and mostly proved overblown. The tech’s not good enough to deflect Barbee and Nuth ‘9 (*Aerospace Engineer and Planetary Defense Scientist, Emergent Space Technologies, Inc AND **Senior Scientist for Primitive Bodies, Solar System Exploration Division, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (10/31/2009, Brent and Joseph, “Asteroid Impact Threats: Advancements in Asteroid Science to Enable Rapid and Effective Deflection Missions”, Journal of Cosmology, Vol 2, pgs. 386-410, http://journalofcosmology.com/Extinction109.html) We begin with the premise that Earth is to be protected from the incoming asteroid and therefore we do not seek to move the Earth from the collision point. That would of course be both undesirable and unachievable for myriad reasons. Therefore we seek to act upon the asteroid. Annihilating the asteroid, either by vaporizing it or pulverizing it into a fine grain dust cloud is nowhere near achievable with current or foreseeable technology. Breaking an asteroid into fragments in a controlled fashion is possible in theory, but studies have shown that the required technology is not yet within our reach (Barbee et al., 2007). Fragmenting an incoming asteroid in an uncontrolled fashion is highly undesirable because there is no way to guarantee that all the fragments will be small enough to burn up harmlessly in our atmosphere should they go on to hit the Earth, or that all fragments of sufficient size to do ground damage would miss the Earth subsequent to the fragmentation of the asteroid (Sanchez et al., 2008). Rotation of the asteroid makes deflection impossible Walker Et. Al 05 [Roger, European Space Agency Advanced Concepts Team, European Space Agency, “Concepts For Near- Earth Asteroid Deflection Using Spacecraft With Advanced Nuclear and Solar Electric Propulsion Systems,” 2005, SM, Accessed: 7/11/11, http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PRO/ACT-RPR-PRO-2005-ConceptsForNear.pdf] For any deflection technique to be used, clearly its response time capability must be within the given warning time of an impact. If the warning time is only a few months to a year, then the only possible option would be a mass evacuation of the impact zone. The use of nuclear weapons would be unsuitable, since the dispersion of fragments from the disrupted body would not be sufficient and the hazard would be simply spread over a much wider area of the Earth’s surface. For longer warning times of a few years, space-based intercept/impulsive methods are possible but their effectiveness would strongly depend upon the asteroid mass. With only a few revolutions before impact, the required delta-V to be imparted to the body (order 10-20 cm/s) is at least an order of magnitude higher than with warning times of a decade or more 5 . Rendezvous/propulsive methods would not be feasible in this scenario due to the time required for rendezvous and thrusting in addition to the coast time for a miss. Typical warning times for asteroid impact are expected to be on the order of 10-50 years 6 with current optical survey capabilities. Over these timescales, both intercept/impulsive methods and rendezvous/propulsive methods become feasible (assuming that the rendezvous delta-V is not too high). There are a number of significant challenges associated with the propulsive deflection method. Most asteroids rotate about their principal moment of inertia, but some asteroids have been observed to be tumbling about all three axes, e.g. the slow, excited rotation state of NEA Toutatis 7 . In the latter scenario, it may be very difficult to stabilise and control its attitude motion so that propulsive thrusting for the deflection can occur. Additionally, if the asteroid angular momentum is too large (e.g. it is a fast rotator and/or dense), a high delta-V on-board the spacecraft will be required to re-orient the spin axis by the desired amount prior to deflection thrusting, thus reducing the deflection effectiveness. With irregular (but measurable) rotation states and gravity fields due to inhomogeneous internal mass distributions, a safe landing on the surface of an asteroid may also be difficult operationally, though not impossible 8 We can only deflect the small ones – no shot of stopping anything big enough to cause extinction Shapiro et al ‘10 (Irwin, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Chair FAITH VILAS, MMT Observatory at Mt. Hopkins, Arizona, Vice Chair MICHAEL A’HEARN, University of Maryland, College Park, Vice Chair ANDREW F. CHENG, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory FRANK CULBERTSON, JR., Orbital Sciences Corporation DAVID C. JEWITT, University of California, Los Angeles STEPHEN MACKWELL, Lunar and Planetary Institute H. JAY MELOSH, Purdue University JOSEPH H. ROTHENBERG, Universal Space Network, Committee to Review NearEarth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies Space Studies Board Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~planets/sstewart/reprints/other/4_NEOReportDefending%20Pl anet%20Earth%20Prepub%202010.pdf) “Slow push” or “slow pull” methods. For these options the orbit of the target object would be changed so that it avoided collision with Earth. The most effective way to change the orbit, given a constraint on the energy that would be available, is to change the velocity of the object, either in or opposite to the direction in which it is moving (direct deflection—moving the object “sideways”—is much less efficient). These options take considerable time to be effective, of the order of decades, and even then would be useful only for objects whose diameters are no larger than 100 meters or so. Even if we could, political hurdles mean we wouldn’t get our stuff together in time Chapman ‘5 (Clark R., Southwest Research Institute, B.S. in Astronomy, Harvard University, 1967 M.S. in Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1968 Ph.D. in Planetary Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972, “The asteroid impact hazard and interdisciplinary issues”) The most salient fact about integration of asteroid impact disaster planning into the broader responsibilities of public disaster management agencies is that there has been none. Despite publication of a few papers on the topic (e.g. Garshnek et al. 2000), I am aware of no consideration at all of the impact hazard by United States or international agencies responsible for managing a broad spectrum of other disasters. Theoretically, one might expect that an "all-hazards" approach would suffice for the impact hazard, because of some of the similarities. But I expect that there are sufficient differences between this particular never-before-witnessed kind of disaster and others that a specific focus on the unusual or unique features of the impact hazard is also essential. Indeed, even as NASA tries to formalize procedures for communications within that agency if the cognizant official is notified by astronomers of an impact prediction, it remains uncertain who the NASA Administrator should notify within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (a part of the U.S. Dept. for Homeland Security) or whether anyone is prepared to receive such information and would know what to do with it. Although Britain has established an NEO Information Centre (http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk), I am unaware that the British government, any other national agency, or the United Nations has even a rudimentary plan for responding to announcement of an impending impact. The only significant steps that have been taken have been by astronomers: (a) formulation of an impact prediction evaluation process by the Working Group on Near Earth Objects of the International Astronomical Union (a member of ICSU), (b) the development and promulgation of the Torino Scale (Binzel 2000) for articulating the significance of an impact prediction to the public through the news media, and (c) the maintenance of several web sites where up-to-date information is available on NEAs (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/, http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?, and http://spaceguard.rm.iasf.cnr.it/; background information is maintained at http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk and http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/index.html, among other sites. But for an end-to-end disaster management plan to be effective, astronomers constitute only the first link in a lengthy, so-far-undefined chain of communications and responsibilities. Doesn’t cause extinction Kluger ‘9 [Jeffrey Kluger, senior writer for Time Magazine, winner of the Overseas Press Club’s Award for best reporting on environmental issues, and former professor of science and journalism at NYU; “Maybe an Asteroid Didn’t Kill the Dinosaurs;” published 4/27/2009; http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1894225,00.html; ] When a scientific principle is common knowledge even in grammar school, you know it has long since crossed the line from theory to established fact. That's the case with dinosaur extinction. Some 65 million years ago — as we've all come to know — an asteroid struck the earth, sending up a cloud that blocked the sun and cooled the planet. That, in turn, wiped out the dinosaurs and made way for the rise of mammals. The suddenness with which so many species vanished after that time always suggested a single cataclysmic event, and the 1978 discovery of a 112-mile, 65-million-year-old crater off the Yucatán Peninsula near the town of Chicxulub seemed to seal the deal. Now, however, a study in the Journal of the Geological Society throws all that into question. The asteroid impact and dinosaur extinction, say the authors, may not have been simultaneous, instead occurring 300,000 years apart. That's an eyeblink in geologic time, but it's a relevant eyeblink all the same — one that occurred at just the right moment in ancient history to send the extinction theory entirely awry. (See pictures of meteors striking the earth.) The controversial paper was written by geoscientists Gerta Keller of Princeton University and Thierry Addate of the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland. Both researchers knew that challenging the impact doctrine would not be easy. The asteroid charged with killing the dinosaurs, after all, left more than the Chicxulub crater as its calling card. At the same 65-million-year depth, the geologic record reveals that a thin layer of iridium was deposited pretty much everywhere in the world. Iridium is an element that's rare on Earth but common in asteroids, and a fine global dusting of the stuff is precisely what you'd expect to find if an asteroid struck the ground, vaporized on impact and eventually rained its remains back down. Below that iridium layer, the fossil record shows that a riot of species was thriving; above it, 65% of them went suddenly missing. (Read about China's dinosaur fossils.) But Keller and Addate worried that we were misreading both the geologic and fossil records. They conducted surveys at numerous sites in Mexico, including a spot called El Peñón, near the impact crater. They were especially interested in a 30-ft. layer of sediment just above the iridium layer. That sediment, they calculate, was laid down at a rate of about 0.8 in. to 1.2 in. per thousand years, meaning that all 30 feet took 300,000 years to settle into place. Analyzing the fossils at this small site, they counted 52 distinct species just below the iridium layer. Then they counted the species above it. The result: the same 52. It wasn't until they sampled 30 feet higher — and 300,000 years later — that they saw the die-offs. "The mass extinction level can be seen above this interval," Keller says. "Not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact." Keller's and Addate's species samplings are not, of course, conclusive, and plenty of other surveys since 1978 do tie the extinctions closely to the asteroid. But since the new digs were so close to ground zero, the immediate species loss ought to be have been — if anything — greater there than anywhere else in the world. Instead, the animals seemed to escape unharmed. Other paleontologists, however, believe that the very proximity of El Peñón to the impact site makes the results even less reliable. Earthquakes and tsunamis that resulted from the collision could have wrought havoc on the sedimentary record, causing discrete strata to swirl together and completely scrambling time lines. Keller disagrees, pointing out that the slow accretion of sediment that she and Addate recorded is completely inconsistent with a sudden event like a tsunami. (See pictures of animals in space.) "The sandstone complex was not deposited over hours or days," she says. "Deposition occurred over a very long time period." So if the Chicxulub asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs, what did? Paleontologists have advanced all manner of other theories over the years, including the appearance of land bridges that allowed different species to migrate to different continents, bringing with them diseases to which native species hadn't developed immunity. Keller and Addate do not see any reason to stray so far from the prevailing model. Some kind of atmospheric haze might indeed have blocked the sun, making the planet too cold for the dinosaurs — it just didn't have to have come from an asteroid. Rather, they say, the source might have been massive volcanoes, like the ones that blew in the Deccan Traps in what is now India at just the right point in history. For the dinosaurs that perished 65 million years ago, extinction was extinction and the precise cause was immaterial. But for the bipedal mammals who were allowed to rise once the big lizards were finally gone, it is a matter of enduring fascination. Turn: Uncooperative Federalism Uncooperative federalism spills to immigration specifically Hu 12 Copyright (c) 2012 Regents of the University of California UC Davis Law Review December, 2012 UC Davis Law Review 46 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 535 LENGTH: 38814 words ARTICLE: Reverse-Commandeering NAME: Margaret Hu* isiting Assistant Professor, Duke Law School. The federal government's encroachment upon the states' historic police power through the domestication of immigration policy weakens the federal government's argument that it is defending its exclusive power to control immigration under the Supremacy Clause. Conversely, the cooperative nature of immigration enforcement activities between the federal and state governments weakens a state government's argument that this domestication is a form of commandeering or a Tenth Amendment violation of state sovereignty. n117 Nevertheless, this contested boundary is becoming the target of increasing controversy, as witnessed by recent legal challenges. Multiple state and local jurisdictions are increasingly rejecting federal proposals for further cooperation in federal immigration enforcement efforts. n118 As this movement of "uncooperative federalism" n119 grows into a new wave of immigration [*566] federalism, it is likely that state and local governments will raise anti-commandeering principles under the Tenth Amendment as a method to challenge this encroachment by the federal government into states' historic police powers. State noncooperation creates superior immigration federalism Elias, 13 – Associate Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law (Stella, “The New Immigration Federalism” OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 74:5) A broad definition of “immigration federalism” is therefore needed to encompass involvement by multiple tiers of government—at the federal, state, and local levels—in the promulgation of laws and regulations implicating immigration and alienage that may pertain to either immigrant exclusion or immigrant inclusion. (Re)defining “immigration federalism” as “the engagement by national, state, and local states’ and localities’ potential to engage both in anti-unauthorized- immigrant rulemaking and in the promulgation of laws designed to foster immigrant inclusion. As this Article will demonstrate, such a broad definition is necessary to governmental actors in immigration regulation,” recognizes accurately capture the new direction of immigration federalism in the aftermath of Arizona and Whiting, wherein immigrantexclusionary rulemaking is broadly constrained, whilst immigrant-inclusionary lawmaking is not. This broad definition of “immigration federalism” also implicitly acknowledges that allowing the immigration debate to play out at multiple levels may provide an opportunity for a variety of different legislative and regulatory outcomes.27 Immigration rulemaking, the enforcement of those rules, and dissent from those rules now implicate an increasingly complicated patchwork of federal–state, state–local, and in some instances even federal– local or federal–state–local relationships. As I discuss infra, in recent years, despite well-established doctrine mandating federal primacy, states have acted either under the supervision of the federal government, concurrently with the federal government, in competition with the federal government, or in dissent from the federal government to both exclude immigrants and to include them.28 Moreover, the engagement by state and local governmental actors in immigration regulation does not necessarily involve state and local authorities acting in uniform ways to cooperate and coordinate their actions with those of the federal government.29 The “new immigration federalism,” in the post- Arizona legal landscape, may thus involve differentiated dissenting or uncooperative rulemaking by states and localities,30 whether with respect to immigrant-exclusionary measures such as laws directing local police officers to question individuals about their immigration status or immigrantinclusionary measures such as the sanctuary city movement or state DREAM Act legislation.31 In sum, a broad and inclusive definition of immigration federalism is now warranted to characterize the current nature and future direction of state, local, and federal engagement with immigration regulation. I turn, therefore, in the next Part of this Article, to the parameters of this new immigration federalism, as articulated in the United States Supreme Court’s recent immigration preemption cases. Turn: States Bad Congress won’t be able to step in – states will ruin everything Emily Chiang 2003; Associate – Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, “Think Locally, Act Globally? Dormant Federal Common Law Preemption of State and Local Activities Affecting Foreign Affairs,” 53 Syracuse L. Rev. 923, Lexis Pro-preemption scholars frequently contend that requiring Congress to act affirmatively to preempt state and local activities it finds threatening to the nation ignores the political realities of how Congress functions and the potential damage such activities may create before Congress acts to forestall them. 171 Not only does sheer institutional inertia act to limit the likelihood that Congress will act, but the political popularity of many of the state activities, such as the Massachusetts Burma law or the South Africa divestment statutes, also ensures that even statutes damaging to the nation's foreign policy have a high chance of survival . 172 One might well contend that the failure of Congress to preempt politically popular statutes is not a failure at all, but rather democracy at work, with representatives properly taking the political preferences of their constituents into account when casting their votes. The United States does not, however, operate as a pure democracy, but rather as a democratic republic that differentiates between state legislatures and the national legislature for [*959] a reason. One should perhaps put a finer point on the pro-preemption argument just described and make it more nuanced: the problem is not when members of Congress vote not to preempt a state statute they actually favor (whether because their constituents favor it and it is the right thing to do politically or because they personally favor the statute) but rather when members of Congress vote not to preempt a statute they oppose on national interest grounds because they fear the political consequences of doing so. Perhaps one can differentiate between the two instances by asking whether Congress would ever pass a similar federal statute; if it would not because of the international relations consequences, but the state statute is permitted to pass preemption anyway, one might properly deem that its passing is a failure of our republican system to act as an adequate filter for state actions when the national interest is involved. Collapses foreign policy credibility Emily Chiang 2003; Associate – Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, “Think Locally, Act Globally? Dormant Federal Common Law Preemption of State and Local Activities Affecting Foreign Affairs,” 53 Syracuse L. Rev. 923, Lexis The problem with these anti-preemption contentions is twofold. First, one consideration typically given short shrift is the possibility that state and local actions may interfere with federal foreign policy when silence itself is a part of that policy. 178 Some commentators have suggested that Congress has various political incentives not to overrule politically popular state and local actions such as the Massachusetts Burma Law; these political incentives may also have a foreign policy facet. For example, when Congress agrees with the substantive ends of a statute, but nevertheless should overrule it for international political reasons, because it has angered valuable trading partners perhaps, overruling the statute may send the offending nation the wrong signal or imply substantive disagreement with the statute it [*961] would prefer not to. As the Court in Sabbatino noted, "often the State Department will wish to refrain from taking an official position, particularly at a moment that would be dictated by the development of private litigation but might be inopportune diplomatically. Adverse domestic consequences might flow from an official stand which could be assuaged, if at all, only be revealing matters best kept secret." 179 Setting the default rule at preemption, unless Congress gives the states a green light, avoids this problem by freeing Congress to decide when and on what issues it wishes to speak. 180 Causes net under-pre-emption – Congress won’t have the guts to step in CHIANG ’03 (Emily; Associate – Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, “Think Locally, Act Globally? Dormant Federal Common Law Preemption of State and Local Activities Affecting Foreign Affairs,” 53 Syracuse L. Rev. 923, l/n) Most of the anti-preemption commentary also fails to take into account the frictions of legislating in Congress. 182 Given the impediments to passing even popular legislation, it is likely that Congress will often fail to preempt or overrule even those statutes that do catch its attention and that it feels should be overruled. The likely result given the political realities of Congressional action is underpreemption, where the ideal level of preemption is what would exist in a world of frictionless legislation. In a world of frictionless legislation, the default rule would not matter because Congress could and would simply preempt or overrule all state and local activity it [*962] found troubling. The problem of where to set the default arises only because legislation is not frictionless; given the anti-preemption consensus that the last word on foreign affairs, so to speak, belongs to the political branches, 183 it seems that the default rule should attempt to obtain the optimal level of preemption that would hold in a world of frictionless legislation, i.e. come closest to what Congress would prefer to do but cannot given the contingencies of legislating. Turn: Causes Racism State power increases discrimination against undocumented immigrants Varsanyi et al. 2012 Associate Professor of Political Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (Monica, “Immigration Federalism: Which Policy Prevails?”, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-federalism-which-policy-prevails)//AN Immigration federalism, defined as the role of the states and localities in making and implementing immigration law and policy , has become an increasingly relevant issue. Contemporary scholarship explores two emerging dynamics: (1) the devolution of immigration authority to subnational jurisdictions, authorized in 1996 by IIRIRA and the 1996 welfare reform law formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), and (2) the recent explosion of grassroots immigration policies and enforcement practices. Legal scholars are divided between those arguing for and against the constitutionality and desirability of immigration federalism. Peter Spiro, an early proponent of immigration federalism, argued for "steam valve federalism" in immigration policymaking, and also supported state-level immigration policy activism. Under steam valve federalism, the pressure on the federal government to pass a potentially undesirable national-level policy is lowered by allowing localities to determine their own enforcement approach. Some scholars suggest that immigration policymaking at subnational levels will not necessarily be hostile to immigrants, while others view the devolution of immigration policing authority as a crucial force multiplier in the war on terror, because only roughly 2,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were assigned to interior enforcement as of 2009. Other scholars are principally concerned that devolution and grassroots immigration policy activism together have opened the door to discrimination against noncitizens . They view the devolution of federal authority as an erosion of the traditional barrier, imposed by the 14th Amendment, against state and local discrimination on the basis of national origin. Under immigration federalism , immigrants are much more at the mercy of the discriminatory powers of the local state. State officers lack fundamental training in immigration law—that risk racial profiling and alienation of communities Chavez 13 Juris Doctor Northwestern University School of Law (Eduardo Reyes, “IMMIGRATION FEDERALISM: THE CASE OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BY NONFEDERAL AGENCIES”, http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/HJP/article/viewFile/967/729)//AN By enforcing immigration laws, state and local governments jeopardize overstepping and violating constitutional rights of non-citizens. In addition, their enforcement also breeds alienation between the community and the local authorities. In a country where local community collaboration is essential to combat local crime, alienation from the local police can result in an increased percentage of crime rates. Not only that, since immigration is a very complex field, state and local officers sometimes do not receive enough training to truly understand immigration laws, especially criminal and civil laws. In many cases, this lack of understanding these laws has resulted in violation of civil rights and racial profiling. In a time when money is not as available as it used to be, state and local agencies should use their resources wisely and only engage in law enforcement that falls under the local jurisdiction. Even though in some case enforcing immigration laws can serve as a security measure, those laws are federal laws and should therefore be enforced by the federal government. Instead, the local officers should focus in building bridges among cultures and strengthening their connection with the entire community. Even though the United States Constitution does not specify who is entitled to enforce immigration law, the federal government has established itself as the exclusive enforcer through congressional legislation and recognition by Supreme Court rulings. State and local governments may voluntarily come into written agreements with the federal government to enforce criminal and, to some extent, civil provisions of the U.S. immigration law but they are still restricted to federal preemption. Therefore, states and localities should not engage in immigration enforcement since the likelihood of overstepping their legal boundaries may occur due to the lack of expertise and the risk of violating civil rights and civil liberties of racial minorities. Federal immigration enforcement is critical—anything else risks police violence and racism Varsanyi et al. 2012 Associate Professor of Political Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (Monica, “Immigration Federalism: Which Policy Prevails?”, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-federalism-which-policy-prevails)//AN Devolution of governmental authority creates variation in local policy regimes that is often celebrated as a way to better reflect the needs and preferences of local residents, or as a way to experiment with new and different ways of carrying out public services. Those who argue for devolution of immigration enforcement authority stress these qualities, suggesting that devolution reduces pressure on the central government in a hotly contested policy area. Such variation is certainly apparent in our surveys, and has various implications for local governments and immigrants. Immigration enforcement, however, cannot be grouped with policy domains such as education or employment training. Immigration enforcement can be described as "intermestic" policy, standing at the juncture of foreign and domestic policy. The implications of enforcement are significant for both individuals and communities, raising fundamental issues about who belongs. Enforcement decisions can also have international ramifications. This is a complex area of law , and the standards are not even entirely clear to legal scholars, who remain sharply divided over whether local police can legitimately enforce civil immigration violations. Nor does immigration federalism fit the usual model of "cooperative federalism," because it bypasses the traditional role of the state government in policy implementation in favor of local governments, where coordination among neighboring jurisdictions is lacking. Municipal police departments and sheriffs often act in isolation , without considering policies in nearby areas, as they decide whether and how to participate in enforcement. The decisions localities make are influenced by local political dynamics, and there is no effort to achieve consensus among law enforcement leaders. The implications of the trend toward more formal local engagement in immigration enforcement are significant. Approximately 4 percent of the U.S. population lacks legal status. Enforcement efforts that target unauthorized immigrants can also draw U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents into intrusive contacts with the police. The enforcement effort may be perceived as racist or haphazard because there is discretion at the individual level and because police departments may operate in overlapping jurisdictions. A 2007 Pew Hispanic Center report noted that over half of all Latinos in the United States fear that they, or someone close to them, may be deported. The MJP means that no local government can allay that fear , and the federal government cannot ensure that enforcement will protect the civil rights and liberties of American citizens and legal residents. The federal government has remained largely silent regarding alleged abuses by local law enforcement when it has partnered to deport residents, though certainly the Justice Department has closely monitored developments in Maricopa County and the Department of Homeland Security ended 287(g) authorities there. It has at times responded aggressively to local policies of non-enforcement, as the New Haven case illustrates. The devolution of immigration enforcement, combined with the absence of a created a "no-policy policy" where enforcement programs and practices vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The federal government has extended its reach, even as it has reduced its oversight. consistent federal policy, has States CP States solve for immigration federalism better than the Courts or Congress Ramakrishan 2013(Karthick; Associate Professor University of California, Riverside, "The importance of the Political in Immigration Fedralism", poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?, &EXT=pdf&TYPE=2, January 13)//ADS Importantly, elected officials and restriction advocates have paired these demographic claims with a complaint that the federal government has forsaken its constitutional and statutory responsibility to control unwanted immigration. In signing Arizona’s E- Janet Napolitano (now Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security) declared : “ Immigration is a federal responsibility, but I signed [the law] because it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs.” 11 Unable to wait any Verify law, then-Governor longer for the federal government to seal the border and vigorously enforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act,12 states and localities had to legislate to protect their residents and solve their impending demographic crisis. Undoubtedly, this conventional wisdom is appealing. However, it is, at best, an incomplete account of the rise of subnational immigration regulation; In prior empirical work, we cast doubt on the factual premise undergirding much of the new immigration federalism, showing that state and local immigration laws are not, as commonly assumed, policy responses tailored to immigration induced demographic problems .13 That is, the primary justifications at worst, it is purposefully misleading. undergirding most scholarly, political, and judicial explanations for this recent spate of state and local immigration regulations have little empirical support. Instead, restrictionist state and local laws are largely the product of political partisanship, with Republicanheavy areas especially ripe for political action. Foucault Links Devolution of authority from the Migration State to the local level becomes another justification for controlling immigrant bodies—their practice just shifts the burden of populace regulation to the local—that results in insecurity Coleman 2012 PhD in the Department of Geography at UCLA in 2005, Associate Professor, Department of Geography at Ohio State University (Matthew, “The “Local” Migration State: The Site-Specific Devolution of Immigration Enforcement in the U.S. South”, Law & Policy, Volume 34: 159–190)//AN Three basic sets of conclusions about the migration state, following Hollifield, can be gleaned from the two case studies above. First, nonfederal immigration enforcement—in this case in the form of 287(g) authority and Secure Communities—is heavily mediated by local practices and policies. Indeed, the studies above show that because nonfederal immigration enforcement, even if federally sanctioned, varies enormously depending on where it takes place, the mere fact that a nonfederal law enforcement agency is enrolled in a partnership with federal authorities to police immigration tells us neither about how the power over immigration is being enacted nor to what effect. In the two adjacent cases in Raleigh-Durham, for example, ostensibly similar immigration enforcement powers have been shaped remarkably differently by political, legal, policing, and biographical contexts. The relevant factors are, on the one hand, Durham City's long-standing and widely supported community policing and no-cooperation policies, Durham Police Department's use of immigration partnerships with ICE to supplement specifically antigang enforcement, and Durham Police Chief Lopez's leadership on steering 287(g) authority away from nonriminal naturalization investigations within the larger noncooperation context by virtue of his personal belief in, and advocacy for, community policing. In Wake County, on the other hand, 287(g) and Secure Communities plays out very differently as a result of the sheriff's “Cracker Jack” or “spitting on sidewalks” approach to 287(g)/Secure Communities policing, the Raleigh-based NCSA's aggressive stance on “illegal alien invaders,” federal elected officials' support for the program in the county, and the county's role as an experimental site for devolutionary immigration enforcement. In the latter case, 287(g)/Secure Communities has resulted in thousands of deportations; in the former case, local immigration enforcement is a relatively focused antigang investigations tool and has produced two orders of magnitude fewer by virtue of the devolution of immigration enforcement to nonfederal authorities , as well as the ways in which nonfederal contexts shape this process, we can conclude that the migration state comprises a complex landscape of spatially uneven enforcement practices. What this theoretically points to is that the migration state be tackled explicitly in terms of how deportations. In sum, localized conditions of possibility mediate, at least theoretically, standardized federal initiatives. In other words, the “local” migration state is an aggregation of site-specific practices that, even if in part provided for by macrolevel initiatives, constitute detention and deportation regimes in the plural. Second, the Wake County example—as well as the counter example in Durham—shows how immigrant mobility is increasingly a central concern of the migration state. Indeed, Wake County's implementation of 287(g)/Secure Communities, indicative of broader enforcement practices shared by its NCSA partners, suggests that the local surveillance of immigrant “automobility” (Urry 2004) specifically is an all-important way in which noncitizens are brought into contact with nonfederal authorities and eventually transferred to federal custody for deportation. In the central North Carolina case, the focus on immigrant automobility is in significant measure due to the broadly discretionary aspects of traffic enforcement as well as the practices in low-income and Latino neighborhoods; it also reflects the way in which state legislators have explicitly linked traffic enforcement to questions about citizenship and naturalization. More generally, the problem of immigration policing via routine traffic enforcement points to an important second aspect of the “local” migration state, in addition to its sitesaturation of traffic enforcement specificity: its attachment of serious civil immigration penalties (i.e., deportation), to nonserious “criminal” activity (i.e., minor infractions and/or misdemeanors), by virtue of the civil deputization of primarily criminal law enforcement officers. Third, and lastly, the Wake County example shows that non-287(g) and/or non–Secure Communities agencies may be as important, if not more so, than formally deputized or otherwise formally cooperative law enforcement agencies when it comes to measuring the impact of local immigration enforcement practices in specific sites. As noted above, this is because nonenrolled agencies may engage in policing practices, which they may reasonably expect to result in an immigration check in the case that a 287(g) or Secure Communities agreement is in effect at a shared detention site. This problem is best called a “hub and spokes” enlargement of official 287(g) and Secure Communities sites by virtue of local detention practices. What the hub and spokes problem suggests is that the “local” migration state, in addition to its spatial unevenness, as well as punitive melding of civil and criminal enforcement, comprises increasingly informal, off-the-radar policing practices. In other words, the devolution of federal immigration responsibilities to identifiable nonfederal proxies may also have heralded the dissolution of immigration enforcement across countless law enforcement agencies with no immediately identifiable linkages with either federal or deputized immigration agencies. enforcement and how. In effect this obscures who is doing immigration The hub and spokes dilemma is more than a conceptual or theoretical issue; it is also immediately relevant to reforms to 287(g) and Secure Communities undertaken in late 2009, based ultimately on the Durham City model, which advise a focus on “criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or danger to the community” rather than on lesser offenders. The impetus for this change was a January 2009 congressional report, which found that the 287(g) program lacked overall policy objectives, encouraged non-uniform applications, and had unclear and uneven federal supervision (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009; in the North Carolina context, see also Gill and Nguyen 2010; Weissman and Headen 2009). Task force 287(g)s were the focus of the reform effort, on the presumption that the power of warrantless arrest built into these agreements could encourage mass street sweeps for minor infractions or for immigration violations alone. For example, newly included language in task force 287(g) agreements stresses that the power to detain “solely based on an immigration violation . . . will be delegated only on a case-by-case basis” and on the prior authority of an ICE , changes to the jail model operations are slight; although the explicit “criminal alien” language above applies also to the jail models, the latter are, in practice, left to work as they did prior to 2009. Crucially, the attention to the task force model neglects how, in practice, the jail model programs are just as likely to encourage large-scale “round ups”—only in this case by non-enrolled law enforcement agencies engaged in mass enforcement campaigns around minor infractions with the understanding that immigration documents will be checked later at a shared detention facility. I want to conclude with a caveat about the problem of site-specificity as developed above. My debt to feminist geographers working specifically on “studying up” the state, as noted at the outset of the article, has in this project entailed a decentralization and destabilization of the state, which is too often regarded as an all-powerful and stable constellation of knowledges and practices. Rather than a “global” form of power (i.e., seamless and encompassing in a socio-spatial sense), my deployment of “studying up” vis-à-vis 287(g) and Secure Communities has been with the aim of investigating the migration state's regulation of immigrant bodies unevenly and “in formation” across a multiplicity of locations . In other words, the devolutionary trend in immigration enforcement, which accounts for both 287(g) and Secure Communities, is not simply a problem of “downloading” a federal enforcement toolbox that then gets enacted at the local scale by nonfederal proxies in a relatively uniform manner. Collier and Ong (2005) develop interesting language for theorizing this problem, which they refer to as the “actual global” of power relationships conventionally imagined in terms of a global-local continuity: rather than a “mobile” and official who will prioritize the removal of “gang members, smugglers and traffickers and when reasonable suspicion exists to believe the alien is or was involved in criminal activity.” In comparison “immutable” strategy, in which a global initiative is transported in whole to the local, what they suggest is approaching power as a strategy that is situated in the sense of a geographically contingent generativity . As they argue, “a global variable does not produce similar effects everywhere, and its function may be limited by direct conflicts with other variables in specific sub-modules of a program. Its operation and significance, thus, are defined as much by these exclusions or conflicts in particular modules as by the variable's global character” (ibid., 13). An alternative citation would be Foucault's (1980) work on power as a “strategic elaboration,” meaning that the regimes of truth and institutional practices that constitute power relations are elaborated in often geographically and historically precise and open-ended ways. However, in the case of immigration enforcement practices authored by programs like 287(g) and Secure Communities, the problem of site-specificity strikes me as unuseful if it means that we cannot talk about the more general properties programs like 287(g) and Secure Communities exhibit. In other words, if the concept of site-specificity is a good way of approaching what happens when nonfederal police are given the power to police immigration, I nonetheless think it important to be able to articulate the suprasite implications of these programs. What, then, can be said in the aggregate about 287(g) and Secure Communities? Perhaps the most important generalizable aspect of these programs, despite their practiced specificities, is how they shift immigration policing into immigrant populations' everyday spaces. But not just any space. For example, neither of the programs puts a premium on worksite enforcement. This is a new development in terms of interior policing. While large worksite operations like the raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. meatpacking facility in Postville, Iowa, in May 2008 have generated significant headlines, in general worksite enforcement now does not contribute significantly to the aggregate detention and deportation numbers examined above. This is particularly so in comparison to the ramping up of worksite raids during the 1990s—a tactic abandoned in 1999 in response to mounting criticism in Congress about the rising costs, as well as economic disruptiveness, of worksite enforcement. In light of this general deemphasis on worksite policing, the finding from central North Carolina that 287(g) and Secure Communities targets mostly individuals who come into routine contact with police for nonserious reasons, the near majority of which are immigrant automobile operators, is significant because it shows that spaces of immigrant social reproduction are now ground zero for interior immigration enforcement. Indeed, it is increasingly the case in central North Carolina that driving between spaces of work, leisure, education, shopping, religious practice, and so on is more dangerous for undocumented immigrants in terms of risking deportation than actually working without papers (Stuesse 2010; Nuñez and The point then is that programs like 287(g) and Secure Communities work, despite their specificities, to generate insecurity —namely, the ever-present threat of detention and deportation—for undocumented populations who are, as a result, increasingly structurally cut off in social reproduction terms from the society in which they nonetheless labor. Heyman 2007). Immigration surveillance has created a migration border—this has transformed the life of an immigrant into a panoptic reality—every place becomes a symbol of insecurity from the overarching state Kalhan 2014 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, “Immigration Surveillance”—Maryland Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 1, Article 2, pg. 58, http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3646&context=mlr)//A N A. Deterritorializing the Migration Border Borders, it is routinely observed, are malleable constructions rather than fixed realities: “less than definite, permeable, and subject to shifts and changes.”234 As such, to speak of “the border” in the context of immigration governance can be misleading and insufficiently nuanced. While territorial borders have long played a constitutive role in defining nation-state sovereignty under international law, like other kinds of boundaries they can be relevant and important for some purposes but not for others, and in varying degrees.235 In some contexts, nonterritorial demarcations are more consequential than territorial borders. The significance and meanings given to both territorial and nonterritorial boundaries are legally, politically, socially, economically, and culturally defined, and can evolve and shift immigration surveillance has accelerated a longterm process of decoupling the territorial border of the United States from what I term its migration border : the set of boundary points at which nation-states authorize individuals to enter or be admitted, prevent or allow their entry or admission, or subject them to possible expulsion.237 Of over time.236 The deployment of new technologies and practices of course, migration borders have never been fully coextensive with territorial borders as a literal matter. Indeed, a longstanding cluster of legal fictions treats individuals as being “at the border” or seeking “entry” when they have been paroled into the United States or arrive at boundary points that, strictly speaking, are well within the country’s territorial limits.238 Like other nation-states, the United States also has long acted extraterritorially to prevent individuals from entering— for example, by interdicting and turning away would-be migrants while they are still traveling to the United States through international waters.239 Migration boundary points also typically exist within broader zones that often are treated as roughly equivalent, in varying degrees, to the actual boundary points themselves.240 Nevertheless, a powerful and commonplace narrative assumes that migration borders are and should be coextensive with territorial borders —as reflected in the very fact that the doctrinal principles that comprise entry-related legal fictions are understood as “fictions” in the first place rather than simply as immigration surveillance has hastened the detachment of migration borders from territorial borders . On the one hand, the changes in rules and practices for use of drones along the U.S.-Mexico border, visa issuance, the Visa Waiver Program, preinspection and screening of travelers outside the United States, and pre-departure collection and analysis of travelers’ data from international carriers all seek—selfconsciously and by design—to push the migration border extraterritorially outward .241 This objective long predates the 2001 terrorist attacks. As volumes of cross-border traffic into the United States became doctrinal nuances or complexities. However, in combination with immense expansions of immigration enforcement activities, considerably larger, officials began to implement extraterritorial screening mechanisms as a means of facilitating more efficient immigration and customs screening when individuals and goods arrived in the United States.242 Since the late 1990s, however, and especially since the 2001 attacks, the expansion of extraterritorial migration and mobility screening mechanisms increasingly has been justified with reference to antiterrorism, national security, and public safety-related concerns—as seen in Congress’s explicit 2004 finding that “[t]he further away from the borders of the United States that screening occurs, the more security benefits the United States will gain.”243 DHS understands its own mission in precisely these terms : to “push[] our operational borders outward so that our physical borders become our last line of defense and not our first.”244 On the other hand, the expansion of both direct and indirect post-entry enforcement simultaneously draws the migration border inward, selfconsciously constructing virtual, domestic border checkpoints throughout the country’s interior by identifying “events that are necessary for life in a modern society” where it may be possible to “exercise control” over individuals in a manner analogous to the control exercised at the territorial border.245 The particular approaches of these post-entry enforcement initiatives vary considerably, and each one involves a distinct set of public and private actors—including law enforcement and criminal justice officials, but also welfare agencies, public hospitals and health agencies, motor vehicle licensing agencies, private employers, private landlords, and potentially others. Collectively, however, these initiatives establish a kind of immigration panopticism , which eliminates zones in society where immigration status is invisible and irrelevant and puts this large array of public and private actors in the position of identifying individuals and determining immigration status; collecting, analyzing, and storing personal information; screening and identifying potential immigration law violators; and sharing information with federal immigration authorities.246 While these initiatives increase the likelihood of placing many individuals in removal proceedings, proponents place even greater emphasis on their ability to trigger a process they characterize as “self-deportation,” which disciplines potentially deportable noncitizens into internalizing the perception that their immigration status is constantly being monitored and, ultimately, into both revealing their status in a range of day-to-day settings and conforming to social expectations that they depart the country.247 racial profiling indict Their studies are flawed – and if there’s racial profiling the law it’s on the individual level – law can’t solve Charles 14 (Patrick J. Charles- Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Doctor of Law (J.D.) in Law, Comparative Law, Constitutional History and Queen Mary-University of London LLM in Legal Theory and History, Distinction. "Weighing the Constitutionality of State Immigration Verification Laws in the Wake of Arizona v. United States." Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development. Winter 2014. 27 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev. 441. Lexis.)//lb It should be noted here that even before state immigration verification laws were enacted, verification of immigration status was already taking place accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10). In these instances, state and local law enforcement were not required to verify immigration status in accordance with state law. The officer maintained individual discretion in contacting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). n97 And despite [*461] this already existent enforcement at the state and federal levels, there has yet to be a study affirmatively linking immigration verification with racial profiling. This includes lawful vehicular stops, which are statistically monitored by most states. Certainly, immigration rights groups and liberal immigration law professors may continue to claim otherwise, but their evidentiary links are tenuous and built on personal suspicions rather than hard data. n98 According to the United States Bureau of Justice statistics, national traffic stops are being conducted nearly proportionate to race; white (8.4%), black (8.8%), and Hispanic (9.1%). n99 In other words, the potential for persons to be questioned about their immigration status during vehicular stops is not disproportionate according to race. This does not negate that there may be certain police districts or officials that intentionally profile based on race, but there is no substantiated evidence this will be the result of state immigration enforcement as a whole. n100 A study by the reputable Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, [*462] Ethnicity & Diversity has provided the most detailed data set asserting otherwise. n101 The study examined ICE's Criminal Alien Program (CAP) in Irving, Texas from September 2006 to November 2007. The CAP seeks to target the deportation of criminal aliens booked or processed in state and local jails. n102 Although the CAP is designed to target deportable aliens with criminal histories, the study convincingly shows that aliens with civil immigration violations were deported at a substantially higher rate than criminal aliens. n103 It is from this conclusion that the study infers cooperation with ICE led the Irving Police Department to engage in racial profiling. n104 A general glance at the study's tables and data seems to support this stance. Yet a closer look at the evidence reveals the conclusions are mere inferences that lack sufficient data points. For instance, the study argues that racial profiling is proven by two data sets. The first is a chart tracking the overall arrests of persons according to race. Excluding the month of July 2007, the percentage of arrests according to race remained consistent with census data. If anything, the data shows that persons of white complexion were arrested at a higher rate than Hispanics when they constituted 7% less of the population total. n105 July 2007 was arguably the only month in which Hispanics were arrested consistently with census data according to race. The second data set is much more problematic. Upon the implementation of the CAP, the chart indicates that the arrests of Hispanics for Class-C misdemeanors rose exponentially before tailing off. n106 Because arrests for Class-C misdemeanors are at the discretion of the officer, the study concludes that race proved instrumental in that discretion. What the study fails to take into account is the two additional data sets necessary to make this connection: (a) data on the nature of the misdemeanor and (b) data on [*463] whether Class-C misdemeanors rose as a whole. The nature of the misdemeanor is rather important. A general comparison of the increase in Hispanic traffic arrests with the overall Hispanic arrests during the same period reveals that the July 2007 rise was almost solely the result of traffic violations. n107 It is likely that these arrests were the result of driving without a valid license (a Class-C misdemeanor in Texas), lack of insurance or valid immigration papers, and other potential factors that would lead a reasonably prudent officer to inquire about immigration status. It would be upon this inquiry and checking with ICE about issuing a detainer that the officer likely made an arrest. Circumstances like this do not indicate racial profiling, but the active enforcement of federal immigration law at the state level. The two are very distinct in terms of constitutionality. The former (deliberate racial profiling) is unconstitutional, and the latter (enforcing the law and cooperating with federal authorities) is constitutional. It must be noted, however, the circumstances of the vehicular stops mentioned above are merely speculation. The study never sought to answer this all important question, nor did it track data of vehicular stops as a whole. Thus, many questions are left unanswered in order to affirmatively link racial profiling with state and local immigration enforcement. Did vehicular stops rise upon the implementation of the CAP? Did the racial composition of vehicular stops rise or change dramatically? Did the arresting officer first arrest the person and contact ICE later or did the officer contact ICE after a reasonable suspicion of unlawful status? The lack of sufficient data points on vehicular stops also applies to lawful stops or investigations for breaches of the peace and drunken behavior. n108 Did the lawful stops increase as a result of the CAP or did the officers merely become aware that they could legally cooperate with federal authorities? The answer to this question is significant, for the officers may have been unaware of their ability to cooperate with ICE, unfamiliar with detecting fraudulent immigration documents, and other immigration enforcement procedures before partnering with ICE. Overall, the study does not prove what it contends - i.e. racial profiling increases when state and local law enforcement cooperate with ICE. The only conclusion that the study supports is ICE deports more unlawful aliens for civil violations than criminal activity. Its authors believe this should not be the case because it is inconsistent with congressional intent in instituting the CAP. However, the federal immigration scheme as a whole allows [*464] for the deportation of any unlawful immigrant, not just criminal immigrants. In fact, it is more reasonable to argue that if ICE did not act it would violate the executive branch's duty to enforce the law as prescribed by Congress. n109 Naturally, this does not dispel that state immigration verification laws may lead to ancillary burdens not contemplated by Congress such as the repeated interception and detention of lawfully present aliens or unconstitutional racial profiling. n110 If either of these scenarios should present themselves the respective state immigration verification law is preempted. However, the evidentiary foundation necessary to prove such unconstitutional ancillary burdens must be clear and convincing, not a plausible conclusion based upon the manipulation of evidence. n111 As was seen in the case of the Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity report, it is rather easy for analysts to manipulate data to support a desired conclusion. It is for this reason that the data points must be intimately related and connected as to prove the verification of immigration status results in unconstitutional violations across the board. n112 There will indeed be instances where individual persons are improperly detained or racially profiled. There will also be instances where a respective city, town, or county improperly enforces the law as to impose unconstitutional [*465] ancillary burdens. In such cases, however, it is not the law that is unconstitutional, but the enforcement. And in such cases, the legal redress is civil rights litigation against the respective offenders, not the preemption of the law itself. To be clear, there is a strong legal distinction between a law that imposes unconstitutional ancillary burdens and individuals that choose to impose unconstitutional ancillary burdens, such as racial profiling, based upon a poor reading and application of the law. Circumvention/Solvency Shadow enforcement means aff can’t solve – locals will still profile Sweeney 14 (Maureen A. Sweeney JD, 1989, Yale Law School. "Criminal Law: Shadow Immigration Enforcement and Its Constitutional Dangers." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Spring, 2014. 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 227. Lexis.)//b Shadow immigration enforcement is the distorted exercise of regular policing powers by a state or local officer who has no immigration enforcement authority for the purpose of increasing immigration enforcement. In a regular law enforcement environment, shadow enforcement involves the disproportionate targeting of vulnerable "foreign-seeming" populations for hyper-enforcement for reasons wholly independent of suspected involvement in criminal activity as defined by state or local law. Shadow enforcement occurs at the margins of regular police work, external to the enforcement mandate of state troopers, local police, and sheriffs' deputies. In the vast majority of cases, these officers have no training, mandate, or authority to enforce federal immigration law. Their involvement in the routine communication of immigration information to federal authorities, however, can create strong and sometimes perverse incentives that distort the ways in which they carry out their mandated policing duties. The lure of possible immigration checks, for example, can influence the officers' choice of targets for traffic enforcement or whether to merely cite people for offenses or to arrest them (and thus bring them into the station for fingerprint checks that can reveal immigration status). n5 This dynamic generally goes unacknowledged and unregulated within regular police structures. It operates under the table, in the shadows. The effects of shadow immigration incentives are widespread and profound for the relationship between local law enforcement and the broad communities they serve, especially with regard to community trust and guarantees against biased policing based on race or national origin. A few concrete illustrations help to describe the phenomenon of shadow enforcement and to highlight its dangers. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division recently conducted a number of investigations of biased policing that revealed compelling evidence of shadow immigration enforcement, which both distorted the conduct of regular policing in local jurisdictions and resulted in rampant civil rights violations. One of these investigations focused on the sheriff's office in [*231] Alamance, North Carolina. After an exhaustive two-year investigation that included statistics and records review; review of policies, procedures, and training materials; and over 125 interviews, DOJ concluded that the sheriff's office engaged in a pervasive pattern or practice of biased policing targeted against Latinos. n6 Among other problems, DOJ found that Latino drivers were targeted for traffic enforcement at a rate between four and ten times greater than non-Latino drivers. n7 Notably, DOJ found that many of the deputies' discriminatory practices were specifically intended to facilitate immigration checks on the targeted Latinos, thus connecting the racially targeted policing to shadow immigration enforcement. n8 Officers without authority illegally detain undocumented citizens – aff can’t solve Sweeney 14 (Maureen A. Sweeney JD, 1989, Yale Law School. "Criminal Law: Shadow Immigration Enforcement and Its Constitutional Dangers." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Spring, 2014. 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 227. Lexis.)//lb Another illustration of these dynamics in a different context can be seen in the recent investigations of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers at various airports. n9 The officers in question were specially trained "assessors" as part of a model behavior detection antiterrorism program tasked with detecting unusual behavior in passengers that could indicate a security threat. But officers reported that managers in Boston, anxious to boost numbers and justify their program, pressured their assessors to meet certain threshold numbers for referrals to other law enforcement agencies, including the state police and immigration officials. To meet those thresholds, significant numbers of officers explicitly targeted blacks and Latinos in the hope that searches would yield drugs or immigration problems. n10 In the words of an attorney who interviewed eight officers who complained about the rampant practice, "Selecting people based on race or ethnicity was a way of finding easy marks." n11 Officers reported that as many as 80% of passengers searched during certain shifts were minorities and that so many minorities were referred to the state police that officers there questioned why minorities represented such a disproportionate number of those referred. n12 In Newark, New Jersey, the racial profiling of Mexicans and Dominicans was so blatant that fellow TSA officers called that airport's behavior detection group "the great Mexican hunters." n13 Officers reported that the direction for these practices came to them from their superiors who conveyed that they were "to go look [*232] for illegal aliens and make up behaviors" with which they could justify and document a referral to immigration authorities. n14 Finally, there are instances when even this thin veneer of regular law enforcement disappears, leaving a state officer with absolutely no justification for an arrest other than immigration enforcement that is wholly outside his authority. Recently, in Maryland, a Latino man was called to the scene of a traffic stop to recover his car, which someone else had been driving. When he arrived at the scene (at the officer's request and having committed no violation of traffic or other state law), he was immediately questioned by the officer about his immigration status; had his keys taken; and was removed from the car, handcuffed, taken to a holding cell, and held for approximately two hours for purposes of "immigration investigation" before he was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). n15 The state officer had no delegated federal authority to conduct civil immigration enforcement, and he did not have authority under state law to detain or arrest this man for a (nonexistent) state crime or for a federal administrative violation. When the officer was questioned in immigration court about the legal basis for his actions, he acknowledged that he had no authority to enforce federal civil immigration violations and explained that this was why he had merely "detained," rather than arrested, the man. n16 He further explained that he was not required to inform the man of his right to remain silent under Miranda or to comply with other arrest procedures because the man was not being accused of a crime. n17 In other words, precisely because the officer was acting without legal authority, he took the position that the usual legal limits to his authority did not apply, leaving him free to act without constitutional justification. These examples demonstrate how the lure of the easy, collateral immigration arrest has proved to be strong for officers in a variety of contexts. In some cases, politically accountable enforcement policymakers, such as sheriffs, encourage officers to be tough on immigration and to increase immigration-related arrests. In others, officers seem to internalize and respond to rhetoric that has increasingly cast unlawful immigration as a [*233] law-and-order issue rather than a response to a complex web of influences such as family, economics, politics, and opportunity. n18 As a result, many officers have come to understand immigration enforcement as part of their general duty to enforce the law. They may experience satisfaction in making more immigration arrests, even if those arrests are not part of their law enforcement mandate. This motivation to carry out their duties so as to maximize immigration arrests takes a toll on these officers' primary law enforcement focus. The officers in the above examples were mandated to carry out a specific task - to screen for terrorism, or to enforce the criminal and traffic laws of the state. Instead of focusing on those tasks, however, the lure of the "easy mark" led them to distort (or ignore) their primary jobs in favor of increasing immigration apprehensions. In the process, of course, they also engaged in wholesale violations of the constitutional rights of those subjected to race-based stops, searches, and interrogations. n19 No oversight means aff can’t solve – empirics prove local law enforcement circumvents Sweeney 14 (Maureen A. Sweeney JD, 1989, Yale Law School. "Criminal Law: Shadow Immigration Enforcement and Its Constitutional Dangers." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Spring, 2014. 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 227. Lexis.)//lb Just as no central regulations govern state and local enforcement of federal immigration law , no standardized training curriculum for, or oversight of, state and local officers exists regarding immigration enforcement or the proper sharing of immigration status information with federal authorities. Most departments likely provide no training on these aspects of the job; the peripheral nature of officers' involvement in immigration enforcement virtually ensures that departments' training and oversight will not focus specifically on immigration activities, even when shadow immigration enforcement creates particular constitutional dangers. The fact that law enforcement officials are elected in many jurisdictions where immigrants have little political voice further means that those officials have few political incentives to invest resources in vigorously protecting immigrants' civil liberties. n193 [*270] Unfortunately, the Maricopa and Alamance County sheriff's offices again provide examples of what can happen in a local office when officers have inadequate training or politically compromised oversight on suspects' constitutional protections. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has made no secret of his strong political views about immigrants, and DOJ found that he had created "a general culture of bias" in the office and encouraged broadly discriminatory policing targeted against Latinos. Significantly, DOJ's investigation concluded, among its many findings, that specific failures in training and oversight allowed for and exacerbated this discriminatory culture: [Maricopa County Sheriff's Office] fosters and perpetuates discriminatory police and jail practices by failing to operate in accordance with basic policing and correctional practices and by failing to develop and implement policing and correctional safeguards against discrimination in such areas as training, supervision, and accountability systems. n194 The investigation likewise found that the office retaliated directly against individuals who complained about or criticized its practices. n195 Testimony in a racial profiling lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs against the county and its sheriff's office additionally focused on deputy training and oversight. n196 The interaction of these elements is, of course, not unique to that county but rather demonstrates dynamics that play out in perhaps less dramatic fashion in various programs and in departments all over the country. DHS's own Homeland Security Advisory Council's Task Force on Secure Communities found in September 2011 that the program's integrity suffered because state and local jurisdictions were not sufficiently accountable for civil rights abuses connected with Secure Communities. n197 The Task Force recommended reforms to the complaint process, active ICE monitoring for improper policing connected with Secure Communities, and the establishment of a pilot multidisciplinary panel to review complaints. n198 In response, ICE has developed additional training materials and has [*271] publicized its complaint procedure, n199 but it has been unable to compel state and local law enforcement to use those training materials or cooperate in investigations of abuse. In its July 2012 report on Secure Communities, GAO continued to identify as a problem for civil rights protections the lack of accountability of state and local jurisdictions. n200 DOJ's Alamance County investigation similarly found a culture of bias that began with the sheriff and permeated the department. Specifically, it found that poor reporting of its activities made oversight of the department difficult by masking racial profiling and other discriminatory practices. n201 Anti-profiling laws empirically fail – officers discriminate subconsciously Benin 13 (Cynthia Benin NYU School of Law . "Randomizing Immigration Enforcement: Exploring a New Foruth Amendment Regime." New York University Law Review. November 2013. 88 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1735. Lexis.)//lb The observation that racial profiling is common practice is not to suggest that the government encourages immigration officers to do so. Agencies have attempted to guide officer discretion through stipulated factors that inform individualized suspicion. ICE has published "indicators" for certified local officers to consider in making immigration arrests, including proximity to the border, number of occupants in a vehicle, disheveled manner of dress, and English-speaking ability. n86 [*1750] Arizona law enforcement officers are given a similar non-exclusive list of considerations when formulating reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence. n87 The Supreme Court itself effectively created a profile in Brignoni-Ponce by stipulating a laundry list of factors that a Border Patrol officer may consider in making stops along the border. n88 The failure of such profiles to prevent racial profiling is manifest. Most obviously, both the ICE indicators and the Brignoni-Ponce factors permit consideration of race or ethnicity so long as those traits are not relied on exclusively. n89 Parts II.B and II.C of this Note include a broader discussion of race and ethnicity in the immigration context and consider whether, if Hispanic appearance is statistically correlated with unauthorized status, its use by law enforcement amounts to the kind of "illegitimate" profiling the authors seek to avoid. This normative debate notwithstanding, scholars note that even a "statistically legitimate 'profile that includes race'" is likely to become discriminatory in effect. n90 Where one factor is more salient than others - as is the case with race, gender, or ethnicity - that factor tends to acquire disproportionate weight. n91 Officers acting on the Brignoni-Ponce and ICE factors will unduly rely on Hispanic appearance, creating a vastly [*1751] overinclusive profile that subjects masses of U.S. citizens and lawful residents to unwarranted investigation. n92 Even if Hispanic appearance was not an approved factor in officially sanctioned profiles, its exclusion would not prevent officers from considering it. Officers at Chicago's O'Hare Airport employing a drug courier profile, which did not include race or ethnicity as a factor, disproportionately stopped African-American women and subjected them to humiliating body-cavity searches. n93 Unfettered bigotry is not the only explanation for racial profiling. An officer's own experience may lead him to believe race and ethnicity are legitimate indicators. Unofficial norms may develop within agencies as officers share information and develop a profile of "the usual suspects." n94 Finally, officers may discriminate unwittingly through what one scholar describes as "the unconscious failure to extend to a minority the same recognition of humanity, and hence the same sympathy and care, given as a matter of course to one's own group." n95 A wealth of literature suggests the danger of implicit bias is real and prevalent. n96 States pass immigration legislation- Arizona Supreme Court ruling proves Lewis et. Al. 12 (Paul G. Lewis from Arizona State Univeristy, Doris Marie Provine from Arizona State Univeristy, Monica W. Varsanyi from John Jay College, and Scott H. Decker from Arizona State Univeristy. “Why Do (Some) City Police Departments Enforce Federal Immigration Law? Political, Demographic, and Organizational Influences on Local Choices.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. October 4, 2012.)//lb At least two kinds of legislative pressures bear on local police agencies in their interactions with immigrants. First, an increasing number of states and local governments have passed legislation specifically authorizing or requiring local police to assume a more proactive posture in identifying unauthorized immigrants. Arizona’s SB1070, for instance, requires local police to check for immigration violations when they encounter someone they suspect may be an unauthorized immigrant and forbids local governments from limiting police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Similar laws were passed in other states, but their legitimacy has been challenged in the courts. In its June 2012 decision in US v. Arizona (567US ___ (2012)), the US Supreme Court placed strict limits on the power of police to detain the persons they stop to check immigration status, whereas nevertheless allowing the law’s so-called “show me your papers” provision to stand. The courts are also considering claims that racial profiling will be encouraged by such laws. 2NC Ext. Organized Crime AT: Organized Crime Undocumented immigrants have zero trust in state and local police—that decks solvency for organized crime Chávez 2013 Department of Political Science, University of Utah (Eduardo Reyes, “IMMIGRATION FEDERALISM: THE CASE OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BY NONFEDERAL AGENCIES”, http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/HJP/article/viewFile/967/729)//AN When state and local police enforce immigration laws, the relationship between them and their respective communities can be jeopardized. When the community fears the local police force, the level of trust and cooperation is seriously undermined. In the case of undocumented immigrants, they are less likely to come forward and report crimes due to the possibility of deportation. When the community does not cooperate with the local police, the ability for the police force to effectively perform their duties is destabilized. Most immigrants would be discouraged to participate with the local police either because of fear of deportation or distrust. Thus, a great number of prospective witnesses of crime would not be willing to cooperate, decreasing the chances of a case being solved. For instance, “Many...immigration groups that may be vulnerable to high rates of victimization come from countries where distrust of authorities” is common (Decker et al., 2008, p. 170). So, when local residents perceive their local officers to have business with federal immigration officers, they would be reluctant to participate due to fear and lack of trust. There’s no decrease in trust, and decreasing programs like S-Comm won’t revitalize it—prefer our ev—it’s the most comprehensive analysis Cox and Miles 2014 † Professor of Law, NYU School of Law; Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics and Walter Mander Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School. (Adam and Thomas, “The Real World of Immigration Federalism”, http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Adam%20Cox%20The%20Rea l%20World%20of%20Immigration%20Federalism_2.pdf)//AN In short, we find no meaningful evidence that the largest integration of local police into federal immigration enforcement in the history of the United States undermined the efficacy of local law enforcement. This core finding calls into question many of the strong claims made by the literatures on cooperative immigration federalism and procedural justice. It also raises an obvious question: where did these claims go wrong? Sussing this out is beyond the scope of this project, but in closing we offer a few speculative thoughts. First, theorists of cooperative immigration federalism may have been working with an excessively optimistic account of what immigrant-police relationships look like in the absence of local involvement in federal immigration enforcement. A longstanding finding in the procedural justice literature is that the communities most likely to have large numbers of immigrants--urban centers with large minority populations, higher rates of poverty, and so on--are places where there is already a considerable lack of trust in the police. If baseline levels of trust are low, there isn't much lower to go when a new program like Secure Communities is introduced. Relatedly, if immigrants (like many citizens) often view different "law enforcement" entities as a single undifferentiated mass--seeing local cops, federal investigative services like the FBI and DEA, and immigration enforcement arms like CBP and ICE as changes in the extent of cooperation between these entities will actually have little effect on public attitude s. Second, the procedural justice work on public attitudes about the police may have a all of a piece—then reverse causation problem. As we described earlier, that literature makes quite detailed claims about how the public comes to hold particular beliefs about law enforcement officials. Beliefs about fair treatment are driven by actual police practices, and those beliefs in shape perceptions of police legitimacy, with legitimacy shaping willingness to comply with the law and cooperate with law enforcement. While there is no doubt some truth to this account, it also seem plausible that causation often runs the other way: that a person's perception of whether the police are legitimate shapes her beliefs about whether the police are likely to treat her fairly. To the extent causation runs in this direction, discrete policy interventions—even a widely publicized and highly salient one like Secure Communities— are extremely unlikely to have much of an effect on one's willingness to help out the police. Third, accounts of law enforcement success that turn on the cooperation of the community at large, rather than on other law enforcement techniques may be overblown. The sort of cooperation contemplated by those accounts may be important for a limited set of offenses— perhaps paradigmatically for cases involving domestic abuse and other forms of violence among intimates. But other investigative techniques, including the very different sort of “cooperation” that is often obtained from co-conspirators or others involved in a criminal enterprise, may be much more important. Thus, even in a world where Secure Communities sows distrust of the police among immigrants, that distrust may not interfere with the bulk of what police do in order to solve most crimes. 2NC Ext. Gang Violence Low Gang Violence decreasing now- LA proves Reicher 15 (Mike Reicher is an investigative reporter for the Los Angeles News Group with a focus on government accountability, “Decline in gang violence leads to dramatic drop in Los Angeles homicides,” 1/23/15, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20150123/decline-in-gang-violence-leads-todramatic-drop-in-los-angeles-homicides, SZ) They moved away, found peace or were locked up. However it happened, fewer gang members have been killing others since the early 2000s, and the decline has fueled a dramatic drop in all Los Angeles County homicides, experts say. Nearly all of the nation has benefited from a drop in crime, but Los Angeles County stands out. In 2002, 1,231 people died at the hands of others, but by 2010, the figure dropped below 700. Fueling the countywide drop, the city of Los Angeles’ homicide rate fell at about twice the pace of New York’s between 2000 and 2010, according to U.S. Census and FBI statistics. Why has L.A. succeeded so strikingly? Sociologists, police officials, social workers and criminologists haven’t been able to explain, let alone give one key reason. Instead, they point to trends and efforts on the national and local levels: more effective policing, the absence of a drug epidemic, stricter sentencing laws, gang intervention programs and demographic changes. “I don’t think anybody can tell you,” said Wes McBride, executive director of the California Gang Investigators Association. “I think it’s all these issues working together. I think it’s a change in attitude with the younger people. They’re tired of it.” Some of them are hustling in less violent businesses or moving to new markets. Instead of dealing narcotics, they might be forging immigration papers, birth certificates or driver’s licenses, McBride said. A sustained police crackdown in the Los Angeles area also pushed many gang members to economically depressed portions of the Inland Empire or to Las Vegas, said Jorja Leap, professor at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. 2NC Ext. Exaggerated/No Impact Their authors are exaggerating – No real threat of organized crime Williams 14 (Phil Williams is a published author, has a PhD, and teaches and researches Security studies, foreign policy analysis, transnational organized crime, terrorism, “Organized Crime and Terrorism,” LACC Working Paper No. 2/2014, Date Accessed: 7/13/15, https://lacc.fiu.edu/research/publications/working-paper-2-williams.pdf, SZ) The notion of a nexus between criminal and terrorist organizations surfaced during the 1990s. The term narco-terrorism, however, was coined even earlier than this. Ironically, it initially referred to the Medellin drug trafficking organization in Colombia using terrorist tactics to coerce the government into abandoning its policy of extraditing drug traffickers to the United States; subsequently, its meaning was reversed and it was predominantly used to describe terrorist organizations using narcotics trafficking as a funding mechanism. After September 11, in particular, it was frequently used to refer to the FARC and the Taliban using income from the drug business to fund their insurgent activities. Meanwhile, the broader notion of a criminal-terrorist nexus that emerged during the 1990s, inspired by events in the Balkans, focused less on the appropriation of criminal activities by terrorists or terrorist activities by criminals, and more on direct cooperation between criminal and terrorist organizations—a cooperation that soon became enshrined in the concept of a criminalterrorist nexus. The Madrid bombings in 2003, in which the attacks and their preparation were financed with the proceeds of drug trafficking, are also portrayed as an example of a nexus in action. This argument challenges widespread allegations of an emerging crime terrorism or trafficking-terrorism nexus, as well as a broader analytic trend emphasizing threat convergence. It suggests that most claims about the nexus are based on little more than flimsy anecdotal evidence, from which unwarranted and exaggerated inferences are drawn . One or even a few examples of cooperation between criminals and terrorists do not make a nexus. And they certainly do not provide evidence of a “grand shift” whereby “international drug traffickers and international terrorists are in a hedonistic marriage of design . . . linked at the hip, and… extremely wealthy.”1 Yet such grandiose claims abound, fueled by worst-case thinking and unwarranted generalizations from the few to the many. No security challenges – No connection between terrorism and organized crime – Proves no impact Williams 14 (Phil Williams is a published author, has a PhD, and teaches and researches Security studies, foreign policy analysis, transnational organized crime, terrorism, “Organized Crime and Terrorism,” LACC Working Paper No. 2/2014, Date Accessed: 7/13/15, https://lacc.fiu.edu/research/publications/working-paper-2- williams.pdf, SZ) The security challenges posed by terrorist-criminal cooperation and by terrorists engaged in drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping and other activities are relatively modest. Convergence and cooperation cannot be ignored, but do not represent the kind or level of threat sometimes claimed. Moreover, there is a downside for terrorists in both cooperation with traffickers and appropriation of trafficking methods. For terrorists, cooperation creates risks of betrayal by pragmatic criminals, especially those who have no affinity for the cause. Moreover, cooperating with criminals also increases the possibility of infiltration by law enforcement and intelligence agents. Similarly, trafficking and other criminal activities can undermine both the status and legitimacy of a terrorist organization, as well as cause internal arguments and even divisions over the allocation of increased resources. Governments can also develop counternarratives that tarnish the appeal of high-minded terrorists by emphasizing their linkage to common criminals and common criminality. In the final analysis, therefore, not only can the threat be contained, but it might also provide opportunities that can be exploited by the United States and its allies. 2NC Ext. Non-Inherent End Racial Profiling Act of 2015 was introduced- Proves the plan is non-inherent Gregg 15 (Remington Gregg serves as legislative counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, principally counseling the organization on federal legal and policy issues, “End Racial Profiling Act of 2015 Introduced in Congress,” 4/24/15, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/end-racial-profiling-act-of-2015-introduced-in-congress, SZ) On Wednesday, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced the End Racial Profiling Act of 2015. The bill creates a federal prohibition on racial profiling that includes targeting a person based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation gender identity or sexual orientation. Recent incidents of racial profiling which have ended tragically has brought renewed national attention to the issue in every corner of this country. Profiling of LGBT individuals also continues to be problem, especially for LGBT people of color and members of the transgender community. In a recent report on profiling by law enforcement, the NAACP found: As a number of the human impact stories above show, members of the LGBT community, particularly LGBT people of color, face discrimination at every stage of the criminal justice system. A 2014 national survey indicates that 73 percent of LGBT people and people with HIV report having had face-to-face contact with the police. In another study, a quarter of LGBT people and people with HIV who reported in-person contact with law enforcement said they experienced one form of harassment or misconduct—including profiling, verbal or physical assault, sexual harassment, or assault and false arrest. In a separate survey of transgender discrimination, 22 percent of transgender individuals who had police interactions reported harassment, 6 percent reported physical assault and 2 percent reported being sexually assaulted by officers. In December 2014, the Department of Justice updated guidance which prohibited federal law enforcement officials from profiling an individual based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion to include gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. While an important step, the guidance is unable to address issues at the state and local level. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2015 would prohibit federal, state, and local law enforcement from targeting a person based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation without trustworthy information that is relevant to linking a person to a crime. The bill also requires federal law enforcement to maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling (defined broadly), including data collecting and processes for investigating and responding to complaints alleging racial profiling. AT: Health Care Case answers AT: Economy Turn: Giving healthcare to undocumented immigrants will cause major economic downfall Work 15 (Workpermit.com, July 1st 2015, “California will subsidize health care of illegal immigrant children”, http://www.workpermit.com/news/2015-07-01/california-will-subsidizehealth-care-of-illigal-immigrant-children) to receive state-funded subsidize the healthcare costs of illegal A recently announced budget deal in California could pave the way for children, living in the USA illegally, healthcare coverage. California would be the first state in the US to immigrant children. A deal struck between Governor Jerry Brown and legislative leaders would provide cover for an estimated 170,000 immigrants aged 18 years and under. It's expected that the plan will easily pass the state Senate and Assembly. To subsidize the healthcare costs of 170,000 illegal immigrant children, it's estimated that the new plan will cost taxpayers $40 million over the first 12 months, beginning May 2016. According to the Los Angeles Times it will then cost $132 million annually, after the first year, to extend Medi-Cal coverage to low-income children under the age of 19 irrespective of their legal status. Senior research fellow on poverty and the US welfare system for the right wing Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, said: "It's a fact that illegal immigrants cost approximately $60 billion per year – meaning that they receive $60 billion more in US government benefits than they pay in taxes. The new plan in California will simply increase the amount of tax." California's healthcare provision forms part of a $115.4 billion budget agreement for the state's upcoming fiscal year. Supporters of expanded healthcare spending say that 'it's a necessity because of federal inaction.' State senate leader, Kevin de León, said: "As Washington dithers because it can't get things done, we are in need of immigration reform. The fact is, many of these children require some form of healthcare and they get it in the emergency room." However, according to the Associated Press, Republicans are arguing that expanded healthcare provisions won't improve access for illegal immigrants as there are not enough doctors that accept 'Medi-Cal' patients – California's Medicaid program. Generous laws for illegal immigrants Mr de León said: "This budget highlights that in California immigrants matter, irrespective of who they are and where they come from. California boasts some of the USA's most generous immigration laws when it comes to illegal immigrants." California is well-known for its liberal approach to illegal immigrants. In 2014, the state permitted those in the US illegally to apply for a driving licence. By April 2015, the state had received over 200,000 applications for a driving licence from undocumented immigrants, while the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) predicts that 1.4 million licences will be issued to illegal immigrants over the next three years. Spokesman for the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - Ira Mehlman, criticised the plan to expand healthcare provisions saying: "I don't care how generous California thinks it is being this is just another example of the state paying massive bills in a continued and relentless effort to accommodate illegal US immigration." He added: "It is forcing taxpayers to pay money to provide healthcare that could be supporting other crucial needs in the state. God knows there are many vital needs not being met in California." Economic collapse inevitable Moran 15 (Andrew Moran, July 10th 2015, “U.S. economy to collapse like Greece if country stays on current path”, http://economiccollapsenews.com/2015/07/10/peter-schiff-u-seconomy-to-collapse-like-greece-if-country-stays-on-current-path/) The United States could become the next Greece, a bankrupt economy and an insolvent government, if the country maintains the current path. When politicians promise the moon without sufficient funding then this is what you get, says Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital. Speaking in an interview with Newsmax on Monday, Schiff noted that the only difference between Greece and the U.S. is that creditors have finally realized that Athens is broke. For some reason, “America’s creditors are still delusional.”“They still think that we’re good for our debts and the only reason that delusion is possible is because interest rates are still at zero,” said Schiff. “[If] interest rates ever allowed to rise, it would become obvious that we can’t pay our bills and we would have a crisis similar to what Greece is looking at now.” This is why, suggests Schiff, the U.S. has to look to Greece as an economic lesson. “This is what happens when politicians promise more than their taxpayers can pay,” he added. “Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are guilty of this. They pander [to] the voters, they make all sorts of promises and when the bills come due, it’s a crisis and they’re going to come due in more countries than Greece.” Eventually, the bills will come due in the U.S., but those bill will be a lot more than what the country can afford to pay. And quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve has become the issue because the central bank monetized government debt. This leads to excessive money printing. Unfortunately, the same thing will happen in Greece once they leave the European Union and adopt the drachma, the Greek currency. Since Greeks don’t want to make any serious reforms, like pension payments, everything will be worth a lot less. “That’s the fate that awaits Greece if they return to the drachma,” Schiff stated. “The Greeks don’t want to accept cuts to their pensions, but if they end up getting their pensions in drachma instead of euros, those pension payments will be worth a lot less.” Again, the same thing will occur in the U.S., except it won’t change currencies. “We’re not going to change currencies, but the only way the U.S. government can make good on its obligations is to print the money,” Schiff posited. “When they do that, the money is not going to have very much value when the Social Security recipients or the bondholders ultimately get paid.” Turn-Healthcare is bad for the economy Sanger-Katz 13 (Margot Sanger-Katz, correspondent at the New York Times, “Health Care: Great For the Economy Today, Terrible later”, Jan 31, 2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/health-care-great-for-the-economy-today-terriblelater-20130131) //AS In the short term, the Affordable Care Act will create even more health care jobs. But over the long term, it is likely to push down salaries, not in- flate them.¶ Some 40 million uninsured Americans stand to benefit from the law’s new subsidies in the next 10 years. And evidence suggests that once they get insurance, they’ll seek more care. At the same time, the programs to reduce utilization will exert significant downward pressure on health spending. Hospitals have begun facing penalties if too many patients who leave the hospital return within 30 days. Soon, doctors will begin earning bonus payments based on how their care measures up to quality standards.¶ In doctors’ offices, health care professionals are trying to work “at the top of their license.” Nurses, instead of doctors, administer flu shots. Medical assistants, instead of nurses, take patients’ vital signs. Medical assistants can check blood pressure. This transformation may not reduce the total number of jobs, but it could push the distribution of health professions down the income scale. You don’t need an M.D. to phone a patient and ask him his weight or remind him to come in for a blood test. Indeed, the fastest-growing subspecialty is home health. Aides in this field require minimal training and command low salaries, but they can help prevent the kind of catastrophic health problems that lead to expensive hospitalizations. Health care remained strong through the economic recession – wouldn’t bring it down, actually brought it back up Lobb 9 (Annelena; [reporter for MarketWatch]; “US Stocks Bounce; Health-Care Strong; Banks, GM Weak”; 2/3/2009; http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocksbounce-health-care-strong) JKS A rise for health-care stocks and an unexpected increase in pending-home sales Tuesday helped major indexes break a three-session losing streak and sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average up more than 100 points. Weakness for financial stocks and car makers served as a reminder of the shaky state of some of the pillars of the U.S. economy. Tuesday's move felt like the continuation of a technical bounce that began when the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average tested their lows for the year Monday, said Joe Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist for options brokerage thinkorswim. Financial stocks were conspicuously absent from the rally, however, as Bank of America fell by more than 10%, coming within 25 cents of its lowest mark of the crisis, and Citigroup was off 4.4%. "What's discouraging in today's market is that the financials are taking it on the chin," Kinahan said. "There is no way we have any kind of long-term recovery without the financials being at least a stabilizer, if not a leader." Nobody is willing to buy into the financial sector before the Treasury Department plan that's supposed to surface next week, Kinahan said. "Are we nationalized, or are we not nationalized? Is it 'good bank/bad bank' and who falls under what category? There's so much uncertainty right now." In the latest round of earnings reports, drug maker Merck was one of the few bright spots, up 4.4% in recent trading, after posting a profit for the fourth quarter. Large health care firms have been one of the stalwarts in equities to start 2009, with traders highlighting their defensive nature and strong balance sheets. But the ascendancy of defensive stocks, which are thought to be hiding in the worst of times, points to a trading environment where economic concerns remain at the forefront. The Dow was recen