1NC GOP will win the House now. Nate Silver, NYT, “G.O.P. Now Projected to Gain 53 House Seats,” 10/27/2010, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/choppy-day-in-houseforecast-projected-g-o-p-gains-inch-forward-to-53-seats/#more-2783 Republicans strengthened their position in a couple of districts that received fresh polling from The Hill. In particular, John Spratt, the longtime Democratic incumbent in South Carolina’s 5th congressional district, was shown 10 points behind the Republican, Mick Mulvaney. Because the district had not received polling in some time, the poll has a lot of influence on Mr. Spratt’s forecast. The model now gives him just a 12 percent chance of holding his seat, a sharp decline from 53 percent yesterday. The chances for two other Democrats, John Salazar in the Colorado 3rd district, and Baron Hill in the Indiana 9th, also dropped on The Hill’s polling. But the same set of polls contained good news for other Democrats whom it tested, like Leonard Boswell in the Iowa 3rd district, and the two Democratic incumbents in the Dakotas, Earl Pomeroy and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, although both Mr. Pomeroy and Ms. Herseth-Sandlin are still rated as underdogs in the model. Another Democrat to see her odds improve today was Colleen Hanabusa in the Hawaii 1st district, who was given a 5-point lead in a new poll that ordinarily has a strong Republican lean. Ms. Hanabusa is one of two Democrats favored to knock off a Republican incumbent, along with Cedric Richmond of the Lousiana 2nd district in New Orleans. The Democrats’ position on the generic ballot also improved slightly, particularly with a Marist College poll showing them in an overall tie with Republicans among likely voters, a better result than most other recent polls. But this improvement was offset by a series of downgrades made by CQ Politics, which changed its ratings in a couple dozen races, almost all of the changes favoring Republicans. The model gives a heavy emphasis to the race ratings issued by CQ and the three other agencies that it tracks. Overall, the model resolved these changes in favor of Republicans, who added one more seat to their projected total for the second evening in a row. The model’s best guess is that the new Congress will be composed of 203 Democrats and 232 Republicans: a net gain of 53 seats for the G.O.P. B. Action on immigration is key to Dem victories. Lawrence, 8/12/10 – Washington, DC-based immigration policy specialist (Stewart J. “Obama and Latinos.” Counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/lawrence08122010.html) President Obama’s decision to sue Arizona over its proposed immigration enforcement law may have reflected the administration’s honest election-year politics, a way of stigmatizing the GOP, and rallying the liberal faithful, especially Latinos. A Gallup poll in June found that Latinos were increasingly disaffected from Obama and his policies, while the President’s favorability rating with Whites and Black judgment that such laws are repugnant and violate federal authority. But the lawsuit was also calculated was unchanged. From a high of 69% in January, Obama's rating with Latinos had fallen 12 points to 57%. Among Spanish-speaking Latinos, the drop was even more According to Gallup, the slide was largely due to Obama’s failure to pursue comprehensive immigration reform, a cause that is near and dear to the country’s fastest-growing ethnic constituency, which some pollsters rightly refer to as the “sleeping giant” of American politics. But thus far the Obama gambit isn’t working - and that spells trouble. According to the most recent polls, a majority of Latinos - nearly 60%, in fact - are still disappointed with his handling of immigration. Unless that perception is reversed, the Democrats face electoral disaster this November. Without a strong Latino turnout in at least 30-35 congressional races where their votes could sway the outcome, the GOP is almost certain to recapture the House, regaining control of the key committee and subcommittee chairmanships that will shape the nation's policy agenda – including immigration - leading up to 2012. And Republicans could also win a precipitous: 25%. majority of the governorships and state legislatures which would allow them to dominate the upcoming federal redistricting process, influencing the composition of the House for at least another decade – perhaps two. GOP-controlled House gets SKFTA passed Green, 9/13 – senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Matt, 9/13/10. “[Viewpoint] U.S. mid-term elections and us.” http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2925891) Americans came back from a three-day holiday the week of September 7 to see new public opinion poll numbers from most of the news media confirming that the Democrats will take a major hit in mid-term Congressional elections in November. The general favorability rating for Republicans and Democrats is now roughly even after several years in which the Democrats had a significant lead, and polls in specific House and Senate races have influential political analysts predicting the Republicans will take the House of Representatives and could take the Senate as well. Politics is always a guessing game, but by some calculations these are the most dismal polls for an incumbent party before a mid-term election in over fifty years. This is not an election about U.S.-Korea relations or even foreign policy, of course. The big issues are a lack of new U.S. jobs and concern that the Federal Government has grown too large and fiscally irresponsible under Barack Obama’s administration. (Many also blame the final Bush years for this as well, but he is not running this time). That said, a change of leadership in the House and maybe the Senate could have some impact on U.S.-Korea relations. One potentially positive impact could be on the U.S.-Korea FTA (Korus). When President Obama announced that he wanted to pass Korus by the end of the year, over 100 Democratic members of Congress sent him a letter expressing their opposition to the FTA. Republicans in the House are much more supportive of free trade than Democrats, and Obama could have the numbers to pass Korus if he were willing to work with a new Republican majority. (Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has to approve all commercial treaties). There is a precedent for this. Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 under the slogan, “It’s the economy stupid,” and initially pushed more protectionist and interventionist economic policies after he was elected. When the Republicans took the House in November 1994, they cut spending for Clinton’s industrial policy initiatives and forced a rethink about economic strategy in the White House. Clinton ended up advancing the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), which had been negotiated by the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, and he did so by reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans over some strong objections within his own caucus. There is some speculation that Obama may do the same thing this time. He has already highlighted trade promotion as one way to create new jobs and his political advisors will be looking for some area where they can make progress with an opposition-controlled Congress. That’s key to US-ROK relations – failure to pass SKFTA after the midterm tanks them Snyder et al, 10 – adjunct senior fellow for Korea studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy at the Asia Foundation and Pacific Forum at CSIS (Scott A, June. With Charles L. Pritchard, John H. Tilelli, and the CFR Independent Task Force. “U.S. Policy Toward the Korean Peninsula.” Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force Report No. 64. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Korean_PeninsulaTFR64.pdf) The KORUS FTA also helps bind the United States and South Korea more closely together strategically, economically, and politically.52 The economic significance of the KORUS FTA is substantial, but the oppor- tunity to bring South Korea closer to the United States as a partner— especially given that China is currently South Korea’s primary trade and investment partner—is significant. Failure to approve the agree- ment would send a negative message: that despite South Korea’s role and significance as one of the top twenty economies in the world, there are limits to U.S. economic and, by extension, strategic cooperation with South Korea. Following U.S. midterm elections and in the context of steady U.S. economic improvement, ratification of the KORUS FTA should be a top Obama administration priority for 2011. US-ROK relations key to prevent a North Korean nuclear crisis Pritchard et al, 09 – President of the Korea Economic Institute (Charles L, 6/16. With John H. Tilelli Jr., Chairman and CEO, Cypress International, and Scott A. Snyder, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Korea Studies, CFR. “A New Chapter for U.S.-South Korea Alliance.” Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/19635/new_chapter_for_ussouth_korea_alliance.html) While all eyes have been trained on North Korea's belligerent and aggressive actions in recent weeks, it is important to note that the U.S.-South Korea alliance has emerged as a linchpin in the Obama administration's efforts to successfully manage an overcrowded global agenda, and a pivotal tool for safeguarding U.S. long-term interests in Asia. When South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak meets with President Barack Obama at the White House Tuesday, the two leaders must effectively address three main areas: policy coordination to address North Korea's nuclear threat, the development of a global security agenda that extends beyond the peninsula, and collaboration to address the global financial crisis as South Korea takes a lead on the G-20 process. By conducting a second nuclear test in May, followed by a number of missile launches, North Korea has forced its way onto the Obama administration's agenda. First and foremost, effective U.S.-South Korea alliance coordination is critical to managing both the global effects of North Korea's nuclear threat on the nonproliferation regime and the regional security challenges posed by potential regime actions that lead to further crisis in the region. North Korea's internal focus on its leadership succession, and the apparent naming of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's little-known and inexperienced youngest son as his successor, make the task of responding to North Korea's aggressive and destabilizing actions all the more challenging. Both deterrence and negotiation must be pursued on the basis of close consultations. Presidents Obama and Lee must also develop coordinated contingency plans in the event of internal instability in North Korea. Through effective U.S.-South Korea alliance coordination, it should be possible to forge a combined strategy capable of managing the nuclear, proliferation, and regional security dimensions of North Korea's threat. A coordinated position would also strengthen the administration's hand in its efforts to persuade China to put pressure on North Korea. North Korean crisis causes nuclear war and triggers every impact Hayes and Green, 10 - *Victoria University AND **Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute (Peter and Michael, “-“The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia”, 1/5, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf) The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas). The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow...The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger...To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via ecological and food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by comparison. How the great powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community. 1NC Uniqueness – wages are rising now. Katie Johnston Chase, Boston Globe, “Raises give workers a lift,” 8/22/2010, http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/08/22/companies_plan_to_raise_wages_but_will_workers_spend_or_save/ As the economy sputters back to life, businesses that made major cuts to survive the recession are beginning to invest in their employees again during the recovery. Nearly 90 percent of companies are increasing salaries this year, according to two national surveys, and 98 percent expect to do so next year. Link – Increasing the labor supply increases competition for jobs, which drives wages downward. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “Opposing view: A corporate 'feeding frenzy' Visas push is about helping companies rather than workers,” 3/25/2008, http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16502&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1681 Today we are watching an amazing spectacle: Many in Congress — including allegedly labor-friendly Democrats — are pushing to increase the importation of foreign labor just as the USA slips into what may be its worst recession in decades. Why? Because the greed of a handful of multinationals is demanding more and more access to "skilled" foreign labor. Sure, we hear bogus "studies" that claim garden-variety foreign programmers will save the U.S. economy. But former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted the real agenda: "Significantly opening up immigration to skilled workers … would compete with highincome people, driving more income equality." In 2007, he further opined that, "Our skilled wages are higher than anywhere in the world. If we open up a significant window for skilled (foreign) workers, that would suppress the skilled-wage level and end the concentration of income." Wage deflation kills the economy – consumer demand and investment. Patrick Belser, Global Labour University, “Why we should care about wages,” 1/18/ 2010, http://column.global-labour-university.org/2010/01/why-we-shouldcare-about-wages_3262.html The second reason why we should care is that a continued deterioration in wages is bad news for the economic recovery. The pace of the recovery depends largely on the extent to which people are able to consume whatever the global economy produces. And consumption, in turn, depends on the level of wages. In fact, in some advanced economies, almost 80% of household income comes from wages and salaries. Although GDP figures in the course of 2009 provided indications of a possible economic rebound, the trends in real wages observed during the past few quarters raise serious questions about the true extent of a global economic recovery and also highlight the risks of phasing out government rescue packages too early. As the experience of Japan during the past decade has cruelly shown, wage deflation deprives national economies of much needed demand and can result in lengthy periods of economic stagnation. Finally, we should already be thinking about the post-crisis world. Before the crisis, in the period from 1995-2007, the share of wages in GDP had declined in a majority of countries for which data is available. This may have been due to a combination of weaker trade unions, labour-saving technology, openness to trade and the pressures arising from the financial of markets. Whatever the cause, the imbalance between increasing profits and stagnating wages has contributed to the crisis by creating an explosive mixture of high liquidity on financial markets, low rates of interest, and huge household debts. A system of bonuses which distorted incentives towards short-term risk provided the additional dynamite. For a more stable future, we should identify policies which ensure that productivity growth - when it is back - translates into adequate increases in wages for a majority, and not just higher bonuses for a few. Only this way can advanced economies achieve more sustainable patterns of consumption and investment. Wage deflation causes protectionism, kills global trade. Bloomberg, 09 (Patrick Rial, U.S. Debt Crisis May Cause ‘Fall of Rome’ Scenario, Duncan Says, Richard Duncan, author of “The Dollar Crisis.” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJ6jnKWHrQgI) U.S. workers are now likely to face declining wages and that may create a political backlash against free-trade policies, he said. The nation’s jobless rate jumped to a 26-year high of 9.7 percent in August, while wages logged a 2.6 percent increase from the previous year. “As unemployment remains above 10 percent well into the foreseeable future, it won’t be long before Americans start voting for protectionism,” Duncan said. “That’s going to be bad because protectionism will mean world trade will diminish and will overall reduce global prosperity.” CP 1NC The United States federal government should establish a sealed-bid, single-price auction system for the distribution of tradable visa permits to employers wishing to sponsor employment-based visas for noncitizens that hold advanced degrees in science or technology from accredited universities in the United States. Auctions should take place quarterly, with an initial yearly allocation of 280,000 visas. The non-disclosed target price for visa permits should be $10,000. Subsequent allocations of visas should rise proportionally when the average price of permits was above $10,000, and fall proportionally when the average price was below $10,000, in the prior auction. If the allocation of permits disproportionately favors large companies, the United States federal government should set aside an adequate number of permits on which for small companies to bid. Quarterly auction accurately sets the optimal number of visas for the labor market – means zero job losses or wage deflation Peri 10 [Peri, Giovanni. 2010. Professor of Economics @ UC Davis. The Impact of Immigrants in Recession and Economic Expansion. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute] These facts suggest that legal immigration should also be made to respond to labor market conditions. How can this be done? One principle would be to allow the number of employer visa applications to serve as the main indicator of how strong labor demand is under current economic conditions. This obviates the need for the government to undertake the very difficult task of determining labor demand through incomplete and insufficiently timely statistical sources. For instance, suppose firms were able to apply and bid one quarter in advance for foreign workers' permits in programs such as the H-1B, in an auction. While the government could set the total number of permits, the relative bidding by employers would ensure that visas are allocated efficiently. Moreover a high winning price would signal high demand and could prompt a larger number of permits in the following quarter. In order to implement this policy, one would need to determine several details of the auction and some economists have spelled out how such a system could work. An independent government agency or commission could be called upon to determine the number of permits issued and the details of implementation. How much would net immigration ideally vary over the economic cycle? As a thought experiment, let us present here a few simple reference calculations. The current foreign-born population in the United States is about 40 million people rate has been about 1.5 percent of the stock each year. On average, 600,000 new immigrants arrived each year, the size of the foreign-born population would remain unchanged (resulting in zero net immigration). While the number of returnees should be calculated more carefully if one would really like to implement (according to 2009 data) and over the last 20 years the return migration therefore, if immigration policies based on it, the basic point here is the following: as it is net immigration that affects the labor market and the productive outcomes in the US economy, we should think of 600,000 new immigrants as "the floor" that produces no changes at all in the current US labor market. Allowing new entries through work-related visas in years of economic expansion on top of the 600,000 needed to maintain the stock would allow the United States to retain the positive long-run effects of immigration while minimizing the negative short-run effects. Implementing this policy would, of course, require careful thought about which types of visas should be encouraged to respond to the economic cycle, and I will not go into detail here. The basic principle, however, is that a labordemand driven number of new visas can simply reinforce the natural cyclicality of immigration and speed up the capital and technology adjustment in the face of immigration. For instance if we assume that gross inflows of workers on employment-based visas of some kind (temporary or permanent) were allowed to increase by 300,000 during economic expansion in addition to the baseline of 600,000, and if we assume that in a given decade half of the years, on average, have strong economic growth, this would imply 1.5 million net new immigrants per decade, representing about 1 percent of the labor force of 150 million people. This, in turn, would imply a net increase of 0.26 percent of income per native worker over that period and no job losses either in the short or in the long run for native workers of high and low skill levels. These numbers are quite small and the US economy could easily adjust to such an inflow of immigrant workers in expansionary years. CP 1NC The United States federal government should exempt non-Russians from the employment-visa quota and preference category system if they hold an advanced degree in science or technology from a school in the United States. The Russians are trying to push more spies in the country – the plan can only help that Hennessy and Knight ‘10 (Peter and Richard, 17 August, “Russia's intelligence attack: The Anna Chapman danger”, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10986334) **Cites Stephen Lander, former Director-General of M15** But that's not how everyone saw it. Sir Stephen Lander, Director-General of MI5 until 2002, has told a BBC Radio 4 documentary, Why Russia Spies, that the very existence of a ring of Russian "illegals" (spies operating without diplomatic cover) is no laughing matter. "The fact that they're nondescript or don't look serious is part of the charm of the business," he says. "That's why the Russians are so successful at some of this stuff. " They're able to put people in those positions over time to build up their cover to be useful. They are part of a machine... And the machine is a very professional and serious one." Illegal and invisible The use of illegals, says Lander, is a menacing type of espionage, perfected by the Russians during the Cold War. " They were posted into the West with one of two roles," he says. "One, to build up long-term cover with the eventual intention over many years to get a position in a government machine somewhere in the West, where they could spy for good. "The other role was to be a head agent of a network of spies who had been recruited by others, perhaps the legal residency, and were run from a third country by an illegal - still an intelligence officer, but not under any official cover." To British intelligence, the fact that Russia is still prepared to fund and deploy illegals against the West is a cause for concern, not least because illegals are extremely difficult to uncover. Sir Gerry Warner, former deputy chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, says illegals are heavily deployed in Russia's neighbouring states, like Ukraine and Georgia. "If they wanted to have illegals they could have them here," says Warner, "I've no doubt about that. Whether they would think it worthwhile, I simply don't know." Whether there are Russian illegals in Britain or not - and if there are, they are unlikely to be detected, Sir Gerry says - there is no doubt that "legal" Russian spies, those operating under diplomatic cover, are mounting an intelligence attack here. In fact, that attack is about as intense now as it was at the height of the Cold War. "If you go back to the early 90s, there was a hiatus," says Lander. "Then the spying machine got going again and the SVR [formerly the KGB], they've gone back to their old practices with a vengeance. "I think by the end of the last century they were back to where they had been in the Cold War, in terms of numbers." Russian spies will disable our military and our nuclear arsenal Rifat ‘10 (Tim, is the world’s leading expert on RV and RI, Unlike all other RV/RI companies, has never worked for any government. He is therefore able to give you the real RV and RI technology – RV Science. See FBI warnings, Last modified March 19, “US psi-spies”, http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vision_remota/esp_visionremota_9c.htm) News of this massive Russian paranormal-warfare research projects eventually filtered out to the West. It was thought by CIA analysts that the Soviets might be capable of telepathically controlling the thoughts of leading US military and political leaders, as well as being able to remotely kill US citizens. Telekinesis could be used to disable US hardware such as computers, nuclear weapon systems and space vehicles. The report stated: ‘The major impetus behind the Soviet drive to harness the possible capabilities of telepathic communication, telekinetics, and bionics are said to come from the Soviet military and the KGB.’ No wonder they were worried! Telekinesis is real – Psi-warfare leads to our destruction Rifat ‘6 (Tim, is the world’s leading expert on RV and RI. Unlike all other RV/RI companies, has never worked for any government. He is therefore able to give you the real RV and RI technology – RV Science. See FBI warnings, Last modified 3/24, “Conclusion”, http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vision_remota/esp_visionremota_9j.htm) It seems from the standpoint of conventional science, that the concept of remote viewing cannot possibly exist. Unfortunately, there are numerous declassified CIA and DIA documents amounting to tens of thousands of pages, which catalogue the U.S. government’s top secret remote viewing programme. First hand corroboration about the U.S. military’s secret RV projects, comes from actual military remote viewers such as Joe McMoneagle and Lyn Buchanan, who now teach the general public remote viewing. More extraordinary are the declassified documents released by the U.S. government which document the Soviet paranormal warfare programme which are reproduced in full in appendices i and ii; they mention psychotronics giving the capability to Russian Psi-warriors to remotely influence, effect electronics by telekinesis and even remotely kill. These documents are freely available under the American Freedom of Information Act, and the author recommends that the serious researcher look at these papers. The concept that the superpowers engaged in an inner space arms race using Psi-warriors seems far fetched, but sometimes truth is stranger than fact. It is alleged that both U.S. and Russian psychic warriors engaged in a secret paranormal war, remotely influencing and remotely killing each other. There is some mention of there being a seventy percent failure rate in the training of remote influencers, these trainees being driven mad by the hypnosis and drug regimens needed to induce these high level Psi-abilities. David Morehouse mentions this remote influencing programme in his account of his military remote viewing training. The ramifications of this knowledge that remote viewing and Psi-warfare not only actually exist, but have a long history of development by the superpowers, leads to a rather disturbing new vision of recent history and the advent of the new millennium which will be dominated by Psi. If humanity and its nation states develop more and more powerful weapon systems such as: HAARP, the billion watt ionispheric heater, based in Alaska, Russian beam weapons, Chinese nuclear and biological weapons, the ability to remotely view these top secret installations is secondary, to the ability to remotely influence the politicians and generals which control these awesome weapon systems. It does nor matter how powerful the weapon may be, if the brain that controls it can be remotely influenced. The advent of Psi-warfare leads to a dramatic new turn in the way future wars will be fought. 1NC – Generic Solvency Text: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should grant advance parole with all necessary extensions to non-citizens if they hold an advanced degree in science or technology from a school in the United States. Solves 100% of case and avoids politics Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html) For instance, there is nothing that would bar the USCIS from allowing the beneficiary of an approved employment based I-140 or family based I-130 petition, and derivative family members, to obtain an employment authorization document (EAD) and parole. The Executive, under INA § 212(d)(5), has the authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits. The crisis in the priority dates where beneficiaries of petitions may need to wait for green cards in excess of 30 years may qualify for invoking § 212(d)(5) under “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits.” Similarly, the authors credit David Isaacson who pointed out that the Executive has the authority to grant EAD under INA §274A(h)(3), which defines the term “unauthorized alien” as one who is not “(A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General” (emphasis added). Under sub paragraph (B), the USCIS may grant an EAD to people who are adversely impacted by the tyranny of priority dates. Likewise, the beneficiary of an I-130 or I-140 petition who is outside the U.S. can also be paroled into the U.S. before the priority date becomes current. The principal and the applicable derivatives would enjoy permission to work and travel regardless of whether they remained in nonimmigrant visa status. Even those who are undocumented or out of status, but are beneficiaries of approved I-130 and I-140 petitions, can be granted employment authorization and parole. The retroactive grant of parole may also alleviate those who are subject to the three or ten year bars since INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) defines “unlawful presence” as someone who is here “without being admitted or paroled.” Parole, therefore, eliminates the accrual of unlawful presence. While parole does not constitute an admission, one conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is already admitted on a nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed. Since parole is not considered admission, it can be granted more readily to one who entered without inspection. On the other hand, it is possible for the Executive to rescind the grant of admission under INA §212(d)(5), and instead, replace it with the grant parole. As an example, an individual who was admitted in B-2 status and is the beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired can be required to report to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). who can retroactively rescind the grant of admission in B-2 status and instead be granted parole retroactively. Semiconductors 1. The US industry is strong and growing – dominates the global market. Semiconductor Industry Association, “Doubling Semiconductor Exports Over the Next Five Years,” 6/17/2010, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=19&ved=0CE8QFjAIOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.siaonline.org%2Fgalleries%2FPublications%2FDoubling_Exports_Paper_0610.pdf&rct=j&q=United%20States%20semiconductor%20industry%20offshore%20suppliers &ei=HbTFTP3FBoL48AbfzbmbBg&usg=AFQjCNFuaZKVqhT5xYyAjiGalikcWwfJVA&cad=rja The U.S. industry’s share of the worldwide semiconductor market share has been in the high 40 percents since 1996, and was 51 percent in 2009 (See Table 1, Row 4). The U.S. is particularly strong in microprocessors and microperipherals (82% worldwide share in 2009) and analog (62% share), and weaker in memory (22% share) and discrete devices (28% share). The 58 percent U.S. share in the U.S. market is higher than its 49 percent share in markets outside the U.S., although in 2009 its share in the U.S. market dropped but increased in markets outside the U.S. market. (See Table 1, row 6-8). The SIA collects data on U.S. headquartered companies sales in a number of product and regional markets. 2. Alt causes – a. Taxes Dewey & LeBoeuf, 9 leading global law firm providing clients with both local and cross-border solutions, more than 1,100 lawyers in 26 offices in 15 countries, (“MAINTAINING AMERICA’S COMPETITIVE EDGE: GOVERNMENT POLICIES AFFECTING SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY R&D AND MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY,” Report prepared for the Semiconductor Industry Association, March, http://www.choosetocompete.org/downloads/Competitiveness_White_Paper.pdf Further tax reductions abroad make U.S. burden heavier. U.S. competitiveness as an investment location for semiconductor firms is further undermined by substantial tax and financial incentives widely available to semiconductor companies locating abroad. Investment location decisions are not made solely based on the availability of tax and related investment incentives. Proximity to the customer and market size tied to purchasing power of the domestic population, fit with the multinational’s global supply chain, and certain other factors critical to semiconductor companies, such as intellectual property protection and the ability to influence global-standards-setting activities, all factor into the decision-making process. However, when other factors in the decisionmaking process are roughly equal and when a firm has already fully exploited its domestic market, tax and other financial incentives are critical determinants in the decision whether and where to locate overseas. As ties binding U.S. semiconductor manufacturers to the United States are frayed and attenuated, these government incentives overseas gain in importance and accelerate the push to locate overseas. b. Export controls Richard Van Atta, et al., Institute for Defense Analysis, Mark Bittmann, Paul Collopy, Bradley Hartﬁeld, Bruce Harmon, Marshall Kaplan, Nicolas Karvonides, Michael J. Lippitz, Jay Mandelbaum, Michael Marks, Malcolm Patterson, Kay Sullivan, “Export Controls and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base,” January 2007, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CEYQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acq.osd.mil%2Fip%2Fdocs%2Fida_studyexport_controls_%2520us_def_ib.pdf&rct=j&q=United%20States%20semiconductor%20industry%20offshore%20suppliers&ei=HbTFTP3FBoL48AbfzbmbBg&usg= AFQjCNFpNnV9qD8HRocdAbipipWN23afcQ&cad=rja US-based IC, SME and materials firms depend on exports. For US-based IC firms, much of their market is serving electronics products manufacturers (both US and foreign-owned) located outside of the US. For SME and materials firms, this is due to rapid growth of advanced IC manufacturing in Taiwan, China and Korea (a significant portion of which is due to foreign direct investment by US-based firms). Some observers of the US semiconductor industry are concerned about this migration as well as the loss of US commercial participation in certain SME segments. Disparities in application of export controls by the US relative to its Wassenaar partners is said to exacerbate the problem by restricting US industry in accessing rapidly growing Asian markets, without conferring any national security benefit, due to the ability of the Chinese to access comparable technologies from Europe and Japan. Semiconductor industry leaders have called on the US government to address these disparities as part of a broader effort to respond to purported unfair trade practices by foreign governments, organizations, or firms. This study found that, since the inception of Wassenaar, US-based IC, SME and materials companies have not been severely impacted by export controls, but this may not be the case going forward. US implementation of semiconductor export controls burdens US semiconductor companies with more conditions on foreign sales and longer and less predictable waiting periods for license approval than that faced by competitors in Europe or Japan selling comparable products, but licenses are rarely denied. Companies contacted by this study and published reports cite only a handful of instances where sales were lost to a foreign competitor due to delays or conditions in US export licensing. However, staffing requirements and the administrative burden of export controls represent a unilateral cost to US industry relative to its foreign competitors. The costs of compliance are rising and threaten to become a competitive disadvantage to USbased firms in the increasingly competitive international semiconductor industry. More importantly, licensing delays and uncertainties threaten to give US suppliers a reputation for being unreliable partners in the lean, “just in time,” worldwide supply chains that increasingly characterize high technology industries. Implementation of “deemed exports”—a license that must be obtained before providing to foreign nationals information related to controlled technologies—has led some companies to no longer hire Chinese researchers and other controlled foreign nationals due to the risk and difficulty of complying with these regulations. Many of these talented individuals are doubtless hired by foreign competitors. 3. Advanced semiconductors play a very small role in military tech, and the DOD is the only buyer. Richard Van Atta, et al., Institute for Defense Analysis, Mark Bittmann, Paul Collopy, Bradley Hartﬁeld, Bruce Harmon, Marshall Kaplan, Nicolas Karvonides, Michael J. Lippitz, Jay Mandelbaum, Michael Marks, Malcolm Patterson, Kay Sullivan, “Export Controls and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base,” January 2007, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CEYQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acq.osd.mil%2Fip%2Fdocs%2Fida_studyexport_controls_%2520us_def_ib.pdf&rct=j&q=United%20States%20semiconductor%20industry%20offshore%20suppliers&ei=HbTFTP3FBoL48AbfzbmbBg&usg= AFQjCNFpNnV9qD8HRocdAbipipWN23afcQ&cad=rja For the purposes of this sector study, the “semiconductor industry” comprises firms producing semiconductor materials, semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME), and semiconductor integrated circuits (ICs).9 Worldwide revenues in 2005 were $31 billion, $34 billion, and $227 billion, respectively. The semiconductor industry is widely viewed as “strategic,” supporting economic growth through innovative clusters of electronics and broader information technology (IT) firms (such as in “Silicon Valley”), as well providing high valueadded exports and high-wage employment. Beyond the economic importance of the semiconductor industry, today’s dominant US conventional military capabilities derive from the US Department of Defense’s relative success in fostering and exploiting semiconductor-based computer, communication and sensor networks for military purposes. Advantages in “network centric warfare” based on advanced electronics, is assumed in much of current US defense strategy and planning. While electronics and IT are critical to US military capabilities, the most advanced ICs today play a relatively small role, and the US Department of Defense (DoD) is a niche player in the market. With a few exceptions in areas such as sensors and intelligence systems, the ICs embedded within today’s most advanced military systems tend to be far from commercial state-of-the-art. Nevertheless, the US government has sought to prevent adversaries from accessing the most advanced ICs, SME and materials through the CCL, administered by the US Department of Commerce. Radiation hardened (RADHARD) ICs used in nuclear and space systems are controlled by the Department of State through the ITAR. US export controls are coordinated internationally through the “Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies,” which came into force in 1996 as successor to the Soviet-era “Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls” (CoCom). 1. No WMD terrorism- they see it as counterproductive. Brad Roberts, Inst Dfnse Analyses, and Michael Moodie, Chem & Bio Arms Cntrl Inst, ‘2 (Defense Horizons 15, July) The argument about terrorist motivation is also important. Terrorists generally have not killed as many as they have been capable of killing. This restraint seems to derive from an understanding of mass casualty attacks as both unnecessary and counterproductive. They are unnecessary because terrorists, by and large, have succeeded by conventional means. Also, they are counterproductive because they might alienate key constituencies, whether among the public, state sponsors, or the terrorist leadership group. In Brian Jenkins' famous words, terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead. Others have argued that the lack of mass casualty terrorism and effective exploitation of BW has been more a matter of accident and good fortune than capability or intent. Adherents of this view, including former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, argue that "it's not a matter of if but when." The attacks of September 11 would seem to settle the debate about whether terrorists have both the motivation and sophistication to exploit weapons of mass destruction for their full lethal effect. After all, those were terrorist attacks of unprecedented sophistication that seemed clearly aimed at achieving mass casualties-had the World Trade Center towers collapsed as the 1993 bombers had intended, perhaps as many as 150,000 would have died. Moreover, Osama bin Laden's constituency would appear to be not the "Arab street" or some other political entity but his god. And terrorists answerable only to their deity have proven historically to be among the most lethal. But this debate cannot be considered settled. Bin Laden and his followers could have killed many more on September 11 if killing as many as possible had been their primary objective. They now face the core dilemma of asymmetric warfare: how to escalate without creating new interests for the stronger power and thus the incentive to exploit its power potential more fully. Asymmetric adversaries want their stronger enemies fearful, not fully engaged--militarily or otherwise. They seek to win by preventing the stronger partner from exploiting its full potential. To kill millions in America with biological or other weapons would only commit the United States--and much of the rest of the international community--to the annihilation of the perpetrators. Low impact to nuclear terrorism John Mueller, professor of political science at the University of Rochester, and Karl Mueller, assistant professor of Comparative Military Studies at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, May/June 19 99, Foreign Affairs, “Sanctions of Mass Destruction,” p. Lexis Nuclear weapons clearly deserve the “weapons of mass destruction” designation because they can indeed destroy masses of people in a single blow. Even so, it is worth noting that any nuclear weapons acquired by terrorist groups or rogue states, at least initially, are likely to be small. Contrary to exaggerated Indian and Pakistani claims, for example, independent analyses of their May 1998 nuclear tests have concluded that the yields were Hiroshima-sized or smaller. Such bombs can cause horrible though not apocalyptic damage. Some 70,000 people died in Hiroshima and 40,000 in Nagasaki. People three miles away from the blast sites received only superficial wounds even when fully exposed, and those inside bomb shelters at Nagasaki were uninjured even though they were close to ground zero. Some buildings of steel and concrete survived, even when they were close to the blast centers, and most municipal services were restored within days. A Hiroshima-sized bomb exploded in a more fire-resistant modern city would likely be considerably less devastating. Used against well-prepared, dug-in, and dispersed troops, a small bomb might actually cause only limited damage. If a single such bomb or even a few of them were to fall into dangerous hands, therefore, it would be terrible, though it would hardly threaten the end of civilization. No retaliation John Mueller, Professor Political Science - Ohio State University, ‘5 (Conflict Studies Conference, psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/NB.PDF) However, history clearly demonstrates that overreaction is not necessarily inevitable. Sometimes, in fact, leaders have been able to restrain their instinct to overreact. Even more important, restrained reaction--or even capitulation to terrorist acts--has often proved to be entirely acceptable politically. That is, there are many instances where leaders did nothing after a terrorist attack (or at least refrained from overreacting) and did not suffer politically or otherwise. No chance of US – Sino war --- no incentive for China Bremmer, 10 – president of Eurasia Group and author (Ian Bremmer, “China vs. America: Fight of the Century,” Prospect, March 22, 2010, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/china-vs-america-fight-ofthe-century/) China will not mount a military challenge to the US any time soon. Its economy and living standards have grown so quickly over the past two decades that it’s hard to imagine the kind of catastrophic event that could push its leadership to risk it all. Beijing knows that no US government will support Taiwanese independence, and China need not invade an island that it has largely co-opted already by offering Taiwan’s business elite privileged investment opportunities. US-China conflict won’t go nuclear Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania) September 9/29, 2004 U.S. military capacity is now so overstretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts that a Chinese move to realize its own top strategic objective, the scooping up of Taiwan to complete the hat trick with Hong Kong and Macao, would find the United States hard-pressed to be able to respond at all. A U.S. threat of a nuclear attack on China -- with China's inevitable nuclear counterstrike -- would be so wildly unacceptable in political terms in the United States itself as to be out of the question for any U.S. administration. The idea of causing Los Angeles to disappear because China had seized Taiwan would be a trade-off that no American leader would even dare contemplate. America is lucky so far that China has not yet sought to match its economic reach in Asia with a corresponding assertion of political influence. That doesn't mean that Asia will inevitably become a sphere of Chinese dominance. What will happen instead -- what is already happening, in fact -- is that other Asian powers such as Japan, Korea and India will increasingly take steps to check Chinese power by increasing their own military capacity. In other words, what was a situation in which the United States stood between Japan and Korea and the imposition of Chinese influence will now become one in which those countries will become more dependent on their own resources to defend themselves. The response of the Koreans could be said to be a move toward resolving the problems between South and North Korea to enable them to present a united front to the Chinese. The response of Japan that can be expected will be limited remilitarization. The health and peace of the region will depend on the degree to which the competition among these countries will be economic, rather than political and military. What will this modification of the balance of power in Asia mean for the United States? First of all, none of this will happen tomorrow. The extension of China's reach and the Japanese and Korean response will be gradual and spread out across the years, although there may well be some pinpricks at the . The Chinese themselves will avoid direct confrontation with the United States at all costs. It is not their way. Conflict between the two countries would be asymmetrical in the extreme in any case. Basically, the two can't attack each other. Nuclear warfare is out. The million-man People's Liberation Army isn't portable. The Chinese are definitely not into terrorism. extremities sooner rather than later No Nukes – NIE MacAskill 7 [Ewen MacAskill, Guardian's Washington DC bureau chief. He was diplomatic editor from 1999-2006, chief political correspondent from 1996-99 and political editor of the Scotsman from 1990-96, “US spies give shock verdict on Iran threat”, 12/3/2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/03/iran.usa] US intelligence agencies undercut the White House today by disclosing for the first time that Iran has not been pursuing a nuclear weapons development programme for the last four years. The disclosure makes it harder for President George Bush and the vice-president, Dick Cheney, to make a case for a military strike against Iran next year. It also makes it more difficult to persuade countries such as Russia and China to join the US, Britain and France in imposing a new round of sanctions on Tehran. The national security estimate which pulls together the work of the 16 US intelligence agencies, today published a declassified report revising previous assessments of Iran's weapons programme. "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," it said. Bush and Cheney have been claiming that Tehran is bent on achieving a nuclear weapon. The British government, which is planning to discuss the report with its US counterparts over the next few days, has also repeatedly said it suspects Iran of seeking a nuclear weapons capability. The Iranian government insists it is only pursuing a civilian nuclear programme. The US national security estimate disclosed that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 and had not restarted it. Long range missiles fail – all the major countries could defeat them UCS 9 (Union of Concerned Scientists, the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization, Missile Defense No Answer to North Korean Missiles, 4-3-9, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/missile-defense-noanswer-0216.html) LE If North Korea's upcoming satellite launch is successful, it will represent a significant step for the nation's missile program, but it does not mean that North Korea has a missile that could carry a nuclear weapon to intercontinental range, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Nor does it mean that the United States should bolster its missile defense capability. "Whether or not North Korea's satellite launch is successful, missile defense advocates are likely to use it to argue for a boost in spending on missile defense," said David Wright, co-director of UCS's Global Security Program. "But missile defense is not the answer to longrange missile development by North Korea or other countries." Wright, a physicist, pointed out that government and independent technical studies have concluded that decoys and other countermeasures can defeat anti-missile systems. These analyses show that any country that is capable of developing and building a long-range missile and nuclear weapon also would have the technologies to deploy effective countermeasures. Moreover, he added, a September 1999 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on foreign missile developments noted that " Russia and China each have developed numerous countermeasures and probably are willing to sell the requisite technologies." "Given the U.S. missile defense system's high profile, any country developing missiles to fire at the United States would incorporate decoys in its missile design," Wright said. "And it is highly unlikely the United States would know details about the decoys before an attack, giving any attacker the advantage of surprise." The technical reality is that missile defense is not an effective way to stop a missile attack once an attack has been launched, Wright said. "If U.S. policymakers believe a missile attack is a significant security threat, it is irresponsible for them to advocate missile defense as a realistic response. Doing so could create a false sense of security, divert defense dollars from more important uses, and reduce any incentive to develop more effective measures to reduce a missile threat." Nmd Causes Global Arms Race, Weapons Prolif, And Space Weps CAMILLE GRAND, Institut français des Relations internationales (IFRI), Paris. Lecturer, Institut d’études politiques de Paris, and Ecole spéciale militaire, and Adviser for arms control and non-proliferation at the French Ministry of Defense. 01 "NMD and arms control: a European view." http://www.mi.infn.it/~landnet/NMD/grand.pdf [JWu] Analysts opposing NMD and European leaders have written numerous pieces, and made numerous statements demonstrating a genuine concern that, if mishandled, NMD could or would jeopardize 30 years of arms control efforts. French President Jacques Chirac stated that NMD is “of a nature to retrigger a proliferation of weapons, notably nuclear missiles.”3 German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed a similar view when he said, “Neither economically, nor politically, can we afford a new round of the arms race.”4 According to these views, the worst-case arms control scenario is that NMD deployment by the US will be followed by Russia’s withdrawal from major arms treaties and verification regimes (the INF Treaty, the tactical nuclear regime of 1991, START), as well as its development of greater offensive and defensive capabilities. China would also block further arms control efforts and increase the expansion of its nuclear forces, followed by India and Pakistan. Additionally, Russia and China could loosen their already weak export controls and deliberately accelerate missile and WMD technology proliferation. “States of concern” could engage in a missile buildup to try to challenge the emerging NMD and local TMD programs. This would lead to a renewed interest and potential arms race among the major powers in more modern offensive capabilities and counteroptions including space-based weapons. Many would therefore share the view expressed at the 2000 NPT review conference by Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh that NMD “could run counter to efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” \ Proliferation leads to a global nuclear war. Taylor 6 [Theodore B., Chairman of NOVA. July 6 2006, “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” http://wwwee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html] JL Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of "latent proliferation," finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war. Hege Frontline Can’t solve entrepreneurship – plan causes diploma mills Miano 09 [John Miano has been with the Center for Immigration Studies since 2008 and his area of expertise is in guest worker programs, particularly in how they affect the technology work force. Mr. Miano has a BA in Mathematics from The College of Wooster and a JD from Seton Hall University. Mr. Miano is also the founder of the Programmers’ Guild, an organization committed to advancing the interests of technical and professional workers; “No Green Cards for Grads”, July 20, http://www.cis.org/miano/grads] What Mr. Frank advocates is tantamount to granting universities the ability to sell U.S. immigration benefits. How much is a green card worth on the open market? If Mr. Frank had his way, we would soon find out. The U.S. would have quickie graduate programs spring up all over. Fourth tier and for-profit universities would set up programs tailored to foreign students. The ability of universities to sell immigration benefits could justify high tuition prices for such programs. Consider the simplest case. U.S. universities could market graduate programs to people who already have a PhD or MS from foreign institutions. Take one or two courses at the U.S. school and get an MS degree in the exact same field. The university could even include it as part of the package employment. What Mr. Frank has completely lost in his call for foreign student to remain in the U.S. is the benefit gained from such students returning home. Foreign students create a pool of people who have learned about American and Americans in general. When they return home they serve as American ambassadors to the world. If foreign students remain in the U.S., our national investment in them (financial investment that could have been used to fund education for Americans) is squandered. Immigrants don’t leave because of our visa restrictions – their author Vivek Wadhwa et al 9 Executive in Residence Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University Senior Research Associate Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School AnnaLee Saxenian Dean and Professor School of Information University of California, Berkeley Richard Freeman Herbert Asherman Chair in Economics, Harvard University Director, Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard Law School Director, Labor Studies Program, National Bureau of Economic Research Gary Gereffi Director, Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, Professor Sociology Department Duke University Alex Salkever Visiting Researcher Masters of Engineering Management Program Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University, “America’s Loss Is the World’s Gain”, Kauffman Foundation, March, http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/americas_loss.pdf) We find that, though restrictive immigration policies caused some returnees to depart the United States, the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life. Demographic characteristics Here are some of the characteristics of the returnees we surveyed and some comparisons with the population of Indian and Chinese immigrants in the United States in 2006. • The vast majority were relatively young. The average age of Indians was 30, and of Chinese was 33. • The majority (89.8 percent of Indians and 72.4 percent of Chinese) were male; most (72.7 percent of Indians and 67.1 percent of Chinese) were married; and most (59.5 percent of Indians and 58.6 percent of Chinese) had no children. • They were highly educated, with degrees primarily in management, technology, or science. Fifty-one percent and 40.8 percent respectively of Chinese respondents held Masters and PhD degrees. Of Indian respondents, 65.6 percent held Masters and 12.1 percent held PhD degrees.2 • A comparison of our sample with national data on Indian and Chinese immigrants shows that these returnees are at the very top of the educational distribution for these highly educated immigrant groups—precisely the kind of people that our earlier research has shown make the greatest contribution to the U.S. economy and business and job growth. Visa status of returnees • A third (32.2 percent) of the Chinese respondents were in the United States on student visas, in comparison with about a fifth (20.2 percent) of Indians. 19.8 percent of the Chinese and 48.0 percent of the Indians were on temporary work visas. • Even those who are permanently settled in the U.S. choose to return. 26.9 percent of Indian respondents and 34 percent of Chinese respondents held green cards or U.S. Citizenship. • Most returnees did not appear to be motivated by visa issues. Seventy-six percent indicated that considerations regarding their visa did not contribute to their decision to return to their home country. Reasons for coming to and for leaving the U.S. The returnees cited career, education, and quality of life as the main reasons to come to the United States. • Amongst the strongest factors bringing these immigrants to the U.S. were professional and educational development opportunities. Of Indian and Chinese respondents, 93.5 percent and 91.6 percent respectively said that professional development was an important3 factor, and 85.9 percent and 90.5 percent respectively said that 2 This difference in the level of educational attainment between highly skilled Indian and Chinese immigrants to the U.S. is consistent with the findings of comparable surveys. See Saxenian (2002). 3 In the text, percentages of responses given as “important” are those to which respondents answered “somewhat important”, “very important”, or “extremely important”; percentages of responses given as “unimportant” are those to which respondents answered “not very important” or “not at all important”. 3 America’s Loss Is the World’s Gain educational development was important in their decision to migrate to the United States. • Other key factors were quality-of-life concerns, better infrastructure and facilities, and better compensation. The majority (67.4 percent of Indians and 69.1 percent of Chinese) said that the availability of jobs in their home countries was not a consideration in their decision to migrate to the United States. Returnees cited career and quality of life as the main reason to return to their home country rather than stay in the United States. • The commonest professional factor (86.8 percent of Chinese and 79.0 percent of Indians) motivating workers to return home was the growing demand for their skills in their home countries. • A significant majority (84.0 percent of Chinese and 68.7 percent of Indians) believed that their home countries provided better career opportunities. Furthermore, 87.3 percent of Chinese and 62.3 percent of Indians saw better career opportunities in their home countries than in the United States. • Financial compensation was a factor important to 62.1 percent of Chinese and 49.2 percent of Indian returnees. Social/family factors Family considerations are strong magnets pulling immigrants back to their home countries. Care for aging parents was considered by 89.4 percent of Indians and 79.1 percent of Chinese respondents to be much better in their home countries. Family values were also considered to be better in their home countries by 79.7 percent of Indians and 67.0 percent of Chinese. Additionally, 88.0 percent of Indians and 76.8 percent of Chinese reported that the opportunity to be close to family and friends was better at home. No worker shortage – their ev is based on false allegations by corporations. Gene Nelson, IT professional, “Foreign workers take jobs away from skilled Americans,” 8/21/ 2008, http://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/1304 Wealthy advocates of H-1B visas have industriously worked to keep this employer-designed program hidden from middle-class Americans, who are outraged when they learn how it harms them. In 2002, Nobel economics laureate Milton Friedman correctly identified the 1990 H-1B visa program as a "government subsidy" because it allows employers access to imported, highly skilled labor at below-market wages. False allegations of worker shortages have been a popular ₪ stopped here at 08:24 ₪ approach. But American colleges and universities graduate four to six times the number of students needed to fill openings in technology fields that are generated by retirements and business expansion. Econ is growing now Jack Phillips, Epoch Times, “Beige Book: US Economy Growing Modestly,” 10/21/2010, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/44624/ The US Federal Reserve's Beige Book, released on the afternoon of Wednesday Oct. 20, highlighted that the nation’s economic activity has been rising “at a modest pace” between September and October. The Beige Book gives an overall report of the 12 Federal Reserve Districts in the US. Overall activity remains somewhat limited in the districts but is showing signs of progress has emerged. “Manufacturing activity continued to expand, with production and new orders rising across most Districts,” the report said. “Demand for non-financial services was reported to be stable to modestly increasing overall. Consumer spending was steady to up slightly, but consumers remained pricesensitive, and purchases were mostly limited to necessities and non-discretionary items.” Companies won’t use the plan to hire – they’re hoarding cash Jia Lynn Yang, Washington Post, “U.S. companies buy back stock in droves as they hold record levels of cash,” 10/7/2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606772.html?hpid=topnews For months, companies have been sitting on the sidelines with record piles of cash, too nervous to spend. Now they're starting to deploy some of that money - not to hire workers or build factories, but to prop up their share prices. Sitting on these unprecedented levels of cash, U.S. companies are buying back their own stock in droves. So far this year, firms have announced they will purchase $273 billion of their own shares, more than five times as much compared with this time last year, according to Birinyi Associates, a stock market research firm. But the rise in buybacks signals that many companies are still hesitant to spend their cash on the job-generating activities that could produce economic growth. Some companies are buying back shares partly because they don't want to invest in developing new products or services while consumer demand remains weak, analysts said. "They don't know what they want to do with all the cash they're sitting on," said Zachary Karabell, president of RiverTwice Research. Historically low interest rates are also prompting some companies to borrow to repurchase shares. Microsoft, for instance, borrowed $4.75 billion last month by issuing new bonds at rock-bottom interest rates and announced it would use some of that money to buy back shares. The company already has nearly $37 billion in cash, but much of that money is being held by its operations overseas. The tech company is reluctant to repatriate the money, because it would get hit with a huge corporate tax bill. A share buyback is a quick way to make a stock more attractive to Wall Street. It improves a closely watched metric known as earnings per share, which divides a company's profit by the total number of shares on the market. Such a move can produce a sudden burst of interest in a stock, improving its price. Global collapse has become impossible – the rise of central banks has made a 1930s repeat impossible. Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, “The Secrets of Stability,” 12/12/2009, http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12/11/the-secrets-of-stability.html One year ago, the world seemed as if it might be coming apart. The global financial system, which had fueled a great expansion of capitalism and trade across the world, was crumbling. All the certainties of the age of globalization—about the virtues of free markets, trade, and technology—were being called into question. Faith in the American model had collapsed. The financial industry had crumbled. Once-roaring emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil were sinking. Worldwide trade was shrinking to a degree not seen since the 1930s. Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated predicted we were doomed to a long, painful bust, with cascading failures in sector after sector, country after country. In a widely cited essay that appeared in The Atlantic this May, Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, wrote: "The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump 'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression." Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political instability and violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest in several emerging markets. Of one thing One year later, how much has the world really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses to the crisis—soaring debt and fears of inflation. But overall, things look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The predictions of economic and political collapse have not materialized at all. A key measure of fear and fragility is the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So consider this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year. All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The question I have at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to business as usual?" This revival did not happen because markets managed to stabilize themselves on their own. Rather, governments, having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis hit. By massively expanding state support for the economy—through central banks and national treasuries—they buffered the worst of the damage. (Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to be seen.) The extensive social safety nets that have been established across the industrialized world also cushioned the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but things are nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s, when governments played a tiny role in national economies. It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: the cheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock and bond markets. Yet these rallies also demonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a very powerful economic force. When John Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action could provide everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again. Not the financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization. only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started cranking again—the animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking risk and profit. Beyond all this, though, I believe there's a fundamental reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last year. It is the same reason that we weathered the stock-market crash of 1987, the recession of 1992, the Asian crisis of 1997, the Russian default of 1998, and the tech-bubble collapse of 2000. The current global economic system is inherently more resilient than we think. The world today is characterized by three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature. Worker shortages are crucial to refocus businesses to adaptive strategies – this is a bigger internal link to the economy Eleanor Bloxham, CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance, “How companies can fill the skilled worker gap -- start training them again!” 10/6/2010, http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/05/news/economy/joblessness_training_hiring_practices.fortune/index.htm Joblessness erodes our national optimism, our enthusiasm for innovation, as well as our overall economic outlook and it leads to the wealthiest nation in the world having a poverty problem. Some of the solutions to joblessness are intractable and complex. Others are more manageable, like for instance, better utilization of the huge idled workforce just waiting for another job in this country. Among the recent issues being discussed with respect to U.S. joblessness is the number of available jobs for which there are no skilled applicants. But, like the mortgage modeler who came to believe that housing prices couldn't go down, we may not be operating with the right model when it comes to our views on hiring and training. Being able to find people with precisely the right skills to step into a job is a relatively new assumption, historically speaking. Does this model of filling jobs really serve us? Will it help us solve U.S. joblessness? Thirty years ago, computer companies hired pools of programmers and engineers who did not know how to write code when they were hired but who were expected to learn on the job. Requiring previous Fortran and machine language experience wasn't the norm in those days, and the best programmers may not have even had the opportunity to learn those languages in college. Rather, finding smart people who would learn and put their aptitude to work was the goal. Fast forward to today when many companies have allowed software -- and the companies that make software -- to rule their businesses. Rather than thinking through what's actually crucial in running a business, companies have become accustomed to buying software from enterprise software companies like Oracle (ORCL, Fortune 500), SAP (SAP), and IBM (IBM, Fortune 500 ), and organizing their business practices around the less-than-robust thinking required to run the programs. Then, when laying out job descriptions, instead of looking for someone who has handled certain challenges or achieved certain goals, companies simply require several years of experience with that particular accounting, or CRM, or invoicing, or HR suite, and tend to look at little else. It's not only software firms that have hijacked the thinking inside U.S. business; consultant models have done so also. Management techniques like TQM, Lean, and Six Sigma are quite valuable, but it's the concepts behind these programs rather than an automaton following them that is important. Yet, again, in developing job descriptions, firms persist in requiring specific experience in those particular techniques. Why is this? Because just as in the time of rising housing prices the mortgage models seemed to work fine, in the time of nearly full employment, requiring specifics was easy and convenient. The need for businesses to work together to shoulder this responsibility of sustained unemployment was not critical, the way it is today. Time to retool the hiring process Just as mortgage firms have had to retool, so must companies, with board oversight, rethink the recruiting process. The human-resource function has always been one of the least recognized and least addressed in U.S. businesses. The first place to start is with those who recruit. Companies and boards need to ensure that their recruiters are people who can think beyond the keywords of software programs and recognize real talent, who can understand that someone right out of college-or someone in their 50s, 60s, or 70s-may have as much to bring to the company as a disgruntled 30- or 40-year-old with the specific experience that the job description asked for. Reconsidering recruiting systems is important not only for our current situation of joblessness and economic malaise, it's also important in strengthening our firms. Future software packages will change-what was necessary before is obsolete now-and firms need employees who can bridge that gap, not people who know only one thing very well, and resist change or innovation. Companies will need people who can imagine the future and can meet whatever new challenge this changing world brings. Creating a resilient and enthusiastic staff with diverse experiences is important both in the C-suite and on the shop floor. It begins with boards recognizing that their role in creating the economy includes ensuring that the recruiting practices of the firms they oversee are not convenience- and short-term oriented but rather are aimed at building a core of individuals who can carry the firm through unforeseen changes. Those individuals may or may not have six years of Six Sigma and two years of SAS. Those valuable employees, if they can think, can easily learn those skills. But it's the thinking that ultimately will matter -- to the firm and collectively to our economic growth. Innovation’s high now Tom Price, Miller-McCune Magazine, “U.S. Challenged for High-Tech Global Leadership,” 3/13/2010, http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/u-schallenged-for-high-tech-global-leadership-10818/ Despite negative trends, U.S. R&D continues to lead the world by a large margin. In 2007, America’s $369 billion R&D spending exceeded all of Asia’s $338 billion and all of the European Union’s $263 billion. The United States spent more than the next four countries — Japan, China, Germany and France — combined. America’s share of all high-tech manufacturing has risen — and it continues to lead the world — even though the U.S. share of exports has declined. That’s because the United States consumes so much of its product domestically. The United States makes nearly a third of the world’s high-tech goods, compared with the European Union’s 25 percent and China’s 14 percent. It’s the world leader in communications, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and aerospace. It trails only the EU in scientific instruments and China in computers. U.S. inventors obtained 81,000 U.S. patents in 2008, more than double Japan’s 35,000 and all of Europe’s 23,000. America’s 49 percent share inventors also led in what the report calls “high-value” patents — those that were given protection by the EU and Japan as well as by the United States. The U.S. share of 30 percent was down from 34 percent in 1997. China obtained just about 1 percent of both kinds of patents. But its scientists have become the second-most-prolific contributors to of those patents dropped from 55 percent in 1995. U.S. scholarly journals, another area in which the United States continues to lead the world. The globalization of science is illustrated by the worldwide growth in many measures of scientific prowess, no matter which countries dominate, the board said. For example, high-tech exports more than tripled to $2.3 trillion worldwide between 1995 and 2008. The estimated number of researchers increased to 5.7 million in 2007 from 4 million in 1995. Global R&D expenditures totaled $1.1 trillion in 2007, up from $525 billion in 1996. Cross-boarder co-authorship also increased from 8 percent of scientific articles published in 1988 to 22 percent in 2007. Foreign corporations actually invested more in U.S.-based research ($34 billion) in 2006 than U.S. firms invested overseas $28.5 billion. Both more than doubled since 1995. Heg doesn’t solve conflict Hachigan and Sutphen 2008 (Nina and Monica, Stanford Center for International Security, The Next American Century, p. 168-9) In practice, the strategy of primacy failed to deliver. While the fact of being the world’s only superpower has substantial benefits, a national security strategy based on suing and ratiaing primacy has not made America more secure. America’s military might has not been the answer to terrorism, disease, climate change, or proliferation. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have become more dangerous in the last seven years, not less. Worse than being ineffective with transnational threats and smaller powers, a strategy of maintaining primacy is counterproductive when it comes to pivotal powers. If America makes primacy the main goal of its national security strategy, then why shouldn’t the pivotal powers do the same? A goal of primacy signals that sheer strength is most critical to security. American cannot trumpet its desire to dominate the world military and then question why China is modernizing its military. No impact to the transition Ikenberry 08 professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University (John, The Rise of China and the Future of the West Can the Liberal System Survive?, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) Some observers believe that the American era is coming to an end, as the Western-oriented world order is replaced by one increasingly dominated by the East. The historian Niall Ferguson has written that the bloody twentieth century witnessed "the descent of the West" and "a reorientation of the world" toward the East. Realists go on to note that as China gets more powerful and the United States' position erodes, two things are likely to happen: China will try to use its growing influence to reshape the rules and institutions of the international system to better serve its interests, and other states in the system -- especially the declining hegemon -- will start to see China as a growing security threat. The result of these developments, they predict, will be tension, distrust, and conflict, the typical features of a power transition. In this view, the drama of China's rise will feature an increasingly powerful China and a declining United States locked in an epic battle over the rules and leadership of the international system. And as the world's largest country emerges not from within but outside the established post-World War II international order, it is a drama that will end with the grand ascendance of China and the onset of an Asian-centered world order. That course, however, is not inevitable. The rise of China does not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition. The U.S.-Chinese power transition can be very different from those of the past because China faces an international order that is fundamentally different from those that past rising states confronted. China does not just face the United States; it faces a Western-centered system that is open, integrated, and rule-based, with wide and deep political foundations. The nuclear revolution, meanwhile, has made war among great powers unlikely -- eliminating the major tool that rising powers have used to overturn international systems defended by declining hegemonic states. Today's Western order, in short, is hard to overturn and easy to join. This unusually durable and expansive order is itself the product of farsighted U.S. leadership. After World War II, the United States did not simply establish itself as the leading world power. It led in the creation of universal institutions that not only invited global membership but also brought democracies and market societies closer together. It built an order that facilitated the participation and integration of both established great powers and newly independent states. (It is often forgotten that this postwar order was designed in large part to reintegrate the defeated Axis states and the beleaguered Allied states into a unified international system.) Today, China can gain full access to and thrive within this system. And if it does, China will rise, but the Western order -- if managed properly -- will live on. Threats are always exaggerated – multiple warrants Layne, Associate Professor, 1997 (Christopher Layne, Visiting Associate Professor at Naval Postgraduate School, “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy”, International Security, Vol. 22 Issue. 1 Summer 1997). The security/interdependence nexus results in the exaggeration of threats to American strategic interests because it requires the United States to defend its core interests by intervening in the peripheries. There are three reasons for this. First, as Johnson points out, order-maintenance strategies are biased inherently toward threat exaggeration. Threats to order generate an anxiety “that has at its center the fear of the unknown. It is not just security, but the pattern of order upon which the sense of security depends that is threatened.” Second, because the strategy of preponderance requires U.S. intervention in places that concededly have no intrinsic strategic value, U.S. policymakers are compelled to overstate the dangers to American interests to mobilize domestic support for their policies. Third, the tendency to exaggerate threats is tightly linked to the strategy of preponderance’s concern with maintaining U.S. credibility. Latent power can sustain Heg Wohlforth ‘7 (William, Prof and Chair of Dept. of Government @ Dartmouth, “Unipolar stability: the rules of power analysis”, Harvard International Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, Spring) US military forces are stretched thin, its budget and trade deficits are high, and the country continues to finance its profligate ways by borrowing from abroad--notably from the Chinese government. These developments have prompted many analysts to warn that the United States suffers from "imperial overstretch." And if US power is overstretched now, the argument goes, unipolarity can hardly be sustainable for long. The problem with this argument is that it fails to distinguish between actual and latent power. One must be careful to take into account both the level of resources that can be mobilized and the degree to which a government actually tries to mobilize them. And how much a government asks of its public is partly a function of the severity of the challenges that it faces. Indeed, one can never know for sure what a state is capable of until it has been seriously challenged. Yale historian Paul Kennedy coined the term "imperial overstretch" to describe the situation in which a state's actual and latent capabilities cannot possibly match its foreign policy commitments. This situation should be contrasted with what might be termed "self-inflicted overstretch"--a situation in which a state lacks the sufficient resources to meet its current foreign policy commitments in the short term, but has untapped latent power and readily available policy choices that it can use to draw on this power. This is arguably the situation that the U nited S tates is in today. But the US government has not attempted to extract more resources from its population to meet its foreign policy commitments. Instead, it has moved strongly in the opposite direction by slashing personal and corporate tax rates. Although it is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and claims to be fighting a global "war" on terrorism, the United States is not acting like a country under intense international pressure. Aside from the volunteer servicemen and women and their families, US citizens have not been asked to make sacrifices for the sake of national prosperity and security. The country could clearly devote a greater proportion of its economy to military spending: today it spends only about 4 percent of its GDP on the military, as compared to 7 to 14 percent during the peak years of the Cold War. It could also spend its military budget more efficiently, shifting resources from expensive weapons systems to boots on the ground. Even more radically, it could reinstitute military conscription, shifting resources from pay and benefits to training and equipping more soldiers. On the economic front, it could raise taxes in a number of ways, notably on fossil fuels, to put its fiscal house back in order. No one knows for sure what would happen if a US president undertook such drastic measures, but there is nothing in economics, political science, or history to suggest that such policies would be any less likely to succeed than China is to continue to grow rapidly for decades. Most of those who study US politics would argue that the likelihood and potential success of such power-generating policies depends on public support, which is a function of the public's perception of a threat. And as unnerving as terrorism is, there is nothing like the threat of another hostile power rising up in opposition to the United States for mobilizing public support. With latent power in the picture, it becomes clear that unipolarity might have more built-in self-reinforcing mechanisms than many analysts realize. It is often noted that the rise of a peer competitor to the United States might be thwarted by the counterbalancing actions of neighboring powers. For example, China's rise might push India and Japan closer to the United States--indeed, this has already happened to some extent. There is also the strong possibility that a peer rival that comes to be seen as a threat would create strong incentives for the U nited S tates to end its self-inflicted overstretch and tap potentially large wellsprings of latent power. Competitiveness isn’t key to hege Reihan Salam, Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation, “ROBERT PAPE IS OVERHEATED,” 1/21/2009, http://www.theamericanscene.com/2009/01/21/robert-pape-is-overheated Pape spends a lot of time demonstrating that U.S. economic output represents a declining share of global output, which is hardly a surprise. Yet as Pape surely understands, the more relevant question is how much and how readily can economic output be translated into military power? The European Union, for example, has many state-like features, yet it doesn’t have the advantages of a traditional state when it comes to raising an army. The Indian economy is taxed in a highly uneven manner, and much of the economy is black — the same is true across the developing world. As for China, both the shape of the economy, as Yasheng Huang suggests, and its long frontiers, ₪ stopped here at 08:25 ₪ as Andrew Nathan has long argued, pose serious barriers to translating potential power into effective power. (Wohlforth and Brooks give Stephen Walt’s balance-of-threat its due.) So while this hardly obviates the broader point that relative American economic power is eroding — that was the whole idea of America’s postwar grand strategy — it is worth keeping in mind. This is part of the reason why sclerotic, statist economies can punch above their weight militarily, at least for a time — they are “better” at marshaling resources. Over the long run, the Singapores will beat the Soviets. But in the long run, we’re all dead. And given that this literature is rooted in the bogey of long-term coalition warfare, you can see why the unipolarity argument holds water. At the risk of sounding overly harsh, Pape’s understanding of “innovativeness” — based on the number of patents filed, it seems — is crude to say the least. I recommend Amar Bhidé‘s brilliant critique of Richard Freeman, which I’ll be talking about a lot. Pape cites Zakaria, who was relying on slightly shopworn ideas that Bhidé demolishes in The Venturesome Economy. The “global diffusion of technology” is real, and if anything it magnifies U.S. economic power. “Ah, but we’re talking about the prospect of coalition warfare!” The global diffusion of technology is indeed sharply raising the costs of military conquest, as the United States discovered in Iraq. The declining utility of military power means that a unipolar distribution of military power is more likely to persist. And yes, it also means that unipolar military power is less valuable than it was in 1945. npolarity now and inevitable ass ‘8 [Richard. Pres of CFR. “What Follows American Dominion?” The Financial Times, 16 April 08. lexis] The unipolar era, a time of un-precedented American dominion, is over. It lasted some two decades, little more than a moment in historical terms. Why did it end? One explanation is history. States get better at generating and piecing together the human, financial and technological resources that lead to productivity and prosperity. The same holds for companies and other organisations. The rise of new powers cannot be stopped. The result is an ever larger number of actors able to exert influence regionally or globally. It is not that the US has grown weaker, but that many other entities have grown much stronger. A second reason unipolarity has ended is US policy. By both what it has done and what it has failed to do, the US has accelerated the emergence of new power centres and has weakened its own position relative to them. US energy policy (or the lack thereof) is one driving force behind the end of unipolarity. Since the first oil shocks of the 1970s, US oil consumption has grown by some 20 per cent and, more important, US imports of petroleum This growth in demand for foreign oil has helped drive up the world price from just over $20 a barrel to more than $100 a barrel. The result is an enormous transfer of wealth and leverage to those states with energy reserves. US economic policy has played a role as well. President George W. Bush products have more than doubled in volume and nearly doubled as a percentage of consumption. has fought costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, allowed discretionary spending to increase by 8 per cent a year and cut taxes. The US fiscal position declined from a surplus of more than $100bn in 2001 to an estimated deficit of about $250bn in 2007. The ballooning current account deficit is now more than 6 per cent of gross domestic product. This places downward pressure on the dollar, stimulates inflation and contributes to the accumulation of wealth and power elsewhere in the world. Poor regulation of the US mortgage market and the credit crisis it spawned have exacerbated these problems. Iraq has also contributed to the dilution of American primacy. The conflict has proved to be an expensive war of choice - militarily, economically and diplomatically, as well as in human terms. Years ago, the historian Paul Kennedy outlined his thesis about "imperial overstretch", which posited that the US would eventually decline by overreaching, just as other great powers had. Prof Kennedy's theory turned out to apply most immediately to the Soviet Union, but the US - for all its corrective mechanisms and dynamism - has not proved to be immune. Finally, unipolarity's end is not simply the result of the rise of other states and organisations or of the failures and follies of US policy. It is also a consequence of globalisation. Globalisation has increased the volume, velocity and importance of cross-border flows of just about everything, from drugs, e-mails, greenhouse gases, goods and people to television and radio signals, viruses (virtual and real) and weapons. Many of these flows take place outside the control of governments and without their knowledge. As a result , globalisation dilutes the influence of big powers, including the US. These same flows often strengthen non-state actors, such as energy exporters (who are experiencing a dramatic increase in wealth), terrorists (who use the internet to recruit and train, the international banking system to move resources and the global transport system to move people), rogue states (which can exploit black and grey -markets) and Fortune 500 companies (which quickly move personnel and investments). Being the strongest state no longer means having a near-monopoly on power. It is easier than ever before for individuals and groups to accumulate and project substantial power. All of this raises a critical question: if unipolarity is gone, what will take its place? Some predict a return to the bipolarity that characterised international relations during the cold war. This is unlikely. China's military strength does not approximate that of the US; more important, its focus will remain on economic growth, a choice that leads it to seek economic integration and avoid conflict. Russia may be more inclined towards re-creating a bipolar world, but it too has a stake in co-operation and, in any event, lacks the capacity to challenge the US. Still others predict the emergence of a modern multipolar world, one in which China, Europe, India, Japan and Russia join the US as dominant influences. This view ignores how the world has changed. There are literally dozens of meaningful power centres , including regional powers, international organisations, companies, media outlets, religious movements, terrorist organisations, drug cartels and non-governmental organisations. Today's world is increasingly one of distributed, rather than concentrated, power. The successor to unipolarity is neither bipolarity or multipolarity. It is non-polarity.