Shell
1NC
will pass but its tight
Cowan 6/7
[Richard, Columnist focused on Congressional policy, “Immigration Reform Backers Insist Bill Will Pass
Within a Few Weeks”, Reuters, 6/7/13, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/07/immigration-reformbackers-insist-bill-will-pass-within-a-few-weeks/]
The “Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act,” a nearly 900-page reworking of the nation’s 27-year-old
immigration law, faces a tough fight in the Democratic-held Senate and an even harder battle in the
more conservative House of Representatives later this year.¶ At its core is a plan to move 11 million people residing in
the United States illegally – many of whom came from Mexico years ago – out of their illegal status and onto a 13-year path to citizenship.¶ At
the same time, the legislation would spend around $6 billion more to strengthen border security and would change the way temporary visas
are issued, putting more emphasis on helping U.S. farmers and high-tech industries get foreign labor.¶ “It
is gratifying to see the
momentum behind this package of common-sense reforms, which will make our country safer and help 11 million
to give senators
ample opportunity to change the bill – a few dozen amendments are expected – Reid also warned that he would
not allow opponents to debate the measure endlessly. Work on the bill will be wrapped up before the July 4 recess, Reid,
undocumented immigrants get right with the law,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.¶ While he promised
a Nevada Democrat, said.¶ The bill’s handling of the 11 million undocumented residents is particularly problematic for many Senate
Republicans who see it as rewarding people who broke the law by entering the United States illegally while others waited in foreign lands for
their applications to be processed.¶ “We can’t reject a dutiful, good person to America and then turn around and allow someone else who
came in illegally to benefit from breaking our laws to the disadvantage of the good person,” said Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.¶
Sessions, who has been a leading voice against the legislation, added: “It will definitely give amnesty
today” to the 11 million.¶ Sessions and other senators are expected to push for greater border security efforts
and are also likely to try to eliminate the pathway to citizenship for the 11 million.¶ Nevertheless, backers
of the bill were confident that it will pass within a few weeks , putting the onus on the Republicancontrolled House to tackle the immigration overhaul, a top issue to Hispanic voters who mainly backed Obama in last
year’s election.¶ Republican Senator John McCain, a member of the “Gang of Eight” that wrote the legislation, said he remains
optimistic that there are at least 60 votes in the 100-member chamber to pass the bill, the number needed to clear any
I’m confident of that,” McCain told Reuters. ¶ He said he believed
that by the time the amendment process ends, backers will have 70 votes on passage, the number
supporters are aiming for to put pressure on the House to act.¶ “There are some real concerns about
border security that we have to work through, but I’m confident that we will be able to do so,” McCain said.
procedural roadblock.¶ “We’ve got over 60 votes.
Plan drains PC
(INSERT LINK
PC Key to immigration reform – Obama using it effectively now
Hindustan Times 6/11 [Obama back in fray on immigration reform,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Americas/Obama-back-in-fray-on-immigrationreform/Article1-1074774.aspx]
US President Barack Obama
made an outspoken pitch for a Senate bill on comprehensive immigration reform on
Tuesday, branding those opposed to it insincere about fixing a badly broken system.
Obama has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months, fearing his open support would
swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and who are determined to kill it.
But as the legislation faced a crucial test vote in the Senate, Obama waded into the fray, leveraging
the political capital on the issue
he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters.
"This week, the Senate will consider a common-sense, bipartisan bill that is the best chance we've had in years to fix our broken immigration
system," Obama said at an event at the White House.
The president also sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should
not be passed without tough new border security measures.
"I know there's a lot of talk right now about border security so let me repeat: today illegal crossings are near their lowest level in decades.
"If passed, the Senate bill, as currently written and as hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America
has ever seen. So nobody's taking border enforcement lightly."
Obama also took direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who are opposed to the bill, which was drawn up in
the Senate by a bipartisan group of lawmakers known as the "Gang of Eight."
"There's no reason Congress can't
the motives of those wanting to block the bill.
get this done by the end of the summer," Obama said, but cast doubt on
key to sustainable growth- stops double dip recession
Haseltine 10 (Eric, Neuroscientist, Former Head of Science and Technology for US Intelligence
Community, "Why America's Economy is On the Brink of Going Down the Tubes...for Good," The
Huffington Post, August 24, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-haseltine/why-americas-economy-iso_b_688483.html)
Recessions, especially the deep downturn that started in 2008, always cause us to scramble. Companies routinely
slash spending while governments do the opposite, trying to shock the country's economic heart
into beating again through heroic measures such as the recent stimulus package. Concern about a
possible "double dip" recession have the hands of corporate CFO's and Washington officials hovering over the panic
button again, mere months after the last push. But our scramble to reduce the impact of the latest disaster distracts us from
addressing the deep-seated problems that inexorably create the next disaster, and the one after that. Why waste energy on the distant future, we reason,
when we'll never get to that future if we don't solve the problem staring us in the face? We all focus on addressing here-and-now emergencies because we
have no choice. What limits our options are not outside events, such as economic downturns, but internal events that go on inside our brains. As
a neuroscientist, I've learned that our brains are hardwired to avoid near term threats and to ignore long term opportunities , because our brains are identical
to those of our distant ancestors who faced a daily struggle for survival. When our brains evolved into their present form, about 50,000 years ago, the
environment was incredibly harsh and risky, limiting life expectancies to 20-25 years. Diverting attention from day-today survival in those Paleolithic times
would have invited disaster. Neuroscientists
call this hard-wired preference for quick fixes over long range
pursuits temporal myopia: everything past the immediate future looks fuzzy, or even invisible, and
is therefore irrelevant. Unless we overcome our temporal myopia, we'll continue to put band-aids on this economy and
it will continue to deteriorate: in other words, we'll continue to treat symptoms and never go for a complete cure.
And what would such a cure look like? Let's start by looking at disease that afflicts us. The fundamental problem with America's
economy is a decline in the capabilities and motivation of our workforce. True economic growth -not the artificial kind spurred by fiscal policy -- stems from innovations such as Google's search engine that create
entirely new businesses and markets. Such innovations grow out of technological advances, which in turn emerge
from earlier scientific discoveries. Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, reinforced this idea when he said
"Capitalism expands wealth primarily through creative destruction -- the process by which the cash flow from obsolescent, low-return capital is invested in
high-return, cutting-edge technologies." And where do cutting-edge
technologies come from? Modern Economists such as Paul Romer,
abilities of "human capital" (people)
who attain these abilities through education and training. But the National Academy of Science report, "Is America Falling off a Flat Earth?" points out that
science, technology and math education of the American workforce has been in steep decline for
decades, as students now choose careers in business, law or media over the high tech jobs that were so attractive in
the post-Sputnik 60's and 70's. In stark contrast, workforces of countries such as China are becoming
much more tech savvy, such that China now rivals the US and Europe in patents and technical publications. S. James Gates, a physicist who
Robert Lucas and Robert Barro argue that technical innovations ultimately spring from the cognitive
served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology said, "If you look at U.S. performance on various international metrics, depending on
which one you use, we come out something like 24th or 25th in the world." In my own informal survey of middle school and high-school students, conducted
during school speaking engagements to increase the allure of science, most kids tell me that they plan to steer clear of science because it's "way too hard."
Other kids observe that "scientists are nerdy." As a result of these widespread attitudes -- nurtured by Hollywood's portrayal of scientists as socially clueless
eccentrics --
innovation-fueled economic growth will increasingly take place outside America's borders,
and our economy will spiral into relative decline for the foreseeable future. We can pull out of this
dive, however, if we see through our temporal myopia to some hard facts: we will never motivate the
majority of America's youth to give up "cool" careers that promise to make lot of money for
"nerdy," un-cool science and technology careers that require hard work in school. We have simply
grown too comfortable as a society and lost the fire in our belly. During World War II, and right after Sputnik, did
students, teachers and parents let the prospect of hard work learning science, math and engineering deter them? No, because we faced obvious
crises. Harvard Business School Professor, John Kao, author of Innovation Nation: How America is Losing Its Innovative Edge, Why It Matters and How We Can
Get it Back said, ""Fifty years ago the Soviet satellite Sputnik burst the nation's bubble of complacency and challenged America's sense of global leadership. But
we rose to the challenge with massive funding for education, revamped school curricula in science and math, created NASA and put a man on the moon."
Today
we face a brain race vs. a space race that is every bit as problematic for America as the first
Russian satellite, but this crisis amounts to a "silent Sputnik" that flies under America's radar. Out
of sight, out of mind. I believe that Americans are unlikely to notice, let alone react to such a stealth threat. The only answer is to
reach out to motivated Americans, in places like China and India, who don't yet know they're going
to be Americans. Let's gear up a recruiting system that combs secondary schools in China, India, Russia, Europe and South America for top science
and technology talent, just as college football programs look for the best high school athletes. We'll offer these kids -- who do have fire in their bellies because
they've grown up in countries that haven't gotten complacent -- full scholarships to American colleges and a fast track to US citizenship once they complete
their studies. This
will, in the long run, inject new vitality into our workforce and our economy and help
cure our deep economic ills.
nuclear wars and turns whole case
O Hanlon et al, 12
O’Hanlon 12 Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Director of the John L. Thornton China Center and Senior Fellow in
Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development at the Brookings Institution, former Professor at
the University of Michigan [“The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt,” Los Angeles Times, July
10th, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthalohanlon]
Alas, globalization and automation trends of the last generation have increasingly called the American dream into question for the working
classes. Another decade of underinvestment in what is required to remedy this situation will make an isolationist or populist president far more
likely because much of the country will question whether an internationalist role makes sense for America — especially if it costs us well over
half a trillion dollars in defense spending annually yet seems correlated with more job losses. Lastly, American
economic weakness
undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purport 7ed decline.
If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take
actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friendswill doubt our
commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will
sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial
Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely. When running for
president last time, Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the
Muslim world, controlling global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through
development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if
elusive goals. However, for Obama or his successor, there is now amuch more urgent big-picture issue:
restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamentalprerequisite to
effective foreign policy is not reestablished.
Uniqueness
Issue Specific
Will Pass – General
Yes passage – Graham claims GOP support
Wasson 6/16
[Eric, political staff writer, “Graham predicts 'breakthrough' passage of immigration bill with over '70
votes'” The Hill, 6/16/13, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305827-graham-predictsbreakthrough-passage-of-immigration-bill-with-over-70-votes#ixzz2WR4g4fib]
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday
predicted overwhelming congressional passage of an immigration
reform bill.¶ “I think we are going to have a political breakthrough, that Congress is going to pass
immigration reform,” Graham said on NBC's Meet the Press.¶ He said the Senate will give the reform bill — which
currently has a path to citizenship for the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants — overwhelming support .¶ “I think we are
going to get plus 70 votes ,” he said. “I've never been more optimistic about it.”¶ Graham said passing the
bill is a political necessity for the GOP.¶ “If we don't pass immigration reform, if we don't get it off the table in a
reasonable, practical way, it doesn't matter who we run in 2016,” he said. “ We're in a demographic death spiral
as a party.¶ The only way we can get back in the good graces of the Hispanic community, in my view is pass comprehensive immigration
reform.”
Rubio too and he swings votes
Mali 6/16
[Meghashyam, Hill politics editor, “Sen. Rubio Says Most of Immigration Reform Bill in ‘Perfect Shape’”
The Hill, 6/16/13, http://thehill.com/video/senate/305825-sen-rubio-says-most-of-immigration-reformbill-in-perfect-shape#ixzz2WRJM77JP]
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Sunday said
that much of the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform bill was in
“ perfect
shape ,” but added he would insist on tougher border security measures.¶ Rubio, one of the authors of the bill, was asked if he
still supported it on ABC’s “This Week.”¶ ¶ “I think it's an excellent starting point, and I think 95, 96 percent of the
bill is in perfect shape and ready to go. But there are elements that need to be improved. This is how the legislative
process is supposed to work,” said Rubio .¶ The Tea Party favorite, seen as critical to winning
conservative support for the measure, has called for more stringent border security requirements.¶ On Sunday Rubio
declined to say if he would vote against the bill without those added provisions.¶ “I don't really want
to get involved in these hypotheticals and ultimatums,” he said.¶ Rubio said he was optimistic that
senators could craft a border deal.
It’s all just noise – CIR will pass
Salter 6/14
[Mark, former chief of staff (McCain), “Amid Immigration Reform Cacophony, Passage Looms,” Real
Clear Politics, 6/14/13,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/amid_immigration_reform_cacophony_passage_
looms_118816.html#ixzz2WR8FIYDP]
Losing sight of the forest for the trees is a paradox of the 24/7 news cycle, which often pays equal
attention to important and insignificant political developments, and important and insignificant
players. The kind of granular and excited press scrutiny applied to the debate on immigration reform
legislation, for example, where it seems almost anything uttered on the subject by almost anyone can get a quick headline in Politico, makes it
harder to judge the bill’s prospects.¶ Who whispered what to whom in the cloakroom or which senator’s offhand comment as he stepped into
an elevator signaled progress, or which senator’s peevishness in a caucus meeting pointed to trouble for the bill aren’t likely to tell us anything other than the
obvious.¶ ¶ One
hundred members of the Senate are presently engaged in debating a sweeping and
complex measure on an issue of considerable political importance to both parties. They have different views on
the subject and various motives for their actions, and they will all have something to say about it before the debate is over. But, as with any
institution, some of its members will have a greater say over the ultimate fate of the legislation than
will others.¶ So, who matters and who doesn’t? Well, for starters, you can put most members of both parties in the “they
don’t really matter very much ” category. That’s a bit of an exaggeration and not entirely fair. They all have a vote, and anyone who votes
in the majority will have played a small but limited role in the bill’s success or failure.¶ So, let’s refine the category to those members of Congress whose minds on
the subject are firmly made up, who won’t change their position no matter how much the bill is amended during the debate, but who won’t take a leadership
position in efforts to support or defeat it. At it happens, that category includes most members in both parties. ¶ They’ll
make statements during
the debate to explain their position and try to inoculate themselves from whatever political risks
they’re taking, if any. Supporters will insist they don’t back amnesty and opponents will insist they
aren’t anti-immigrant. (For the purposes of this debate, that mostly translates into saying they aren’t anti-Hispanic; some of their best friends are
Hispanic, and, in a couple of cases, even their parents.) But you could write the platitudes for them and what they say and
do won’t affect the bill’s prospects one way or another.¶ Ted Cruz belongs in this category . He won’t support
he won’t play much of a role in convincing others to oppose it because
those members who value his opinion on the matter have already made their minds up to oppose it as
well.¶ Given the amount of press attention he’s received since arriving in the Senate, it seems obvious that Cruz sees this issue as he sees every other major issue
the bill no matter how it is amended. And
-- as an opportunity to preen about how he’s standing up for his principles against the sell-out Republican squishes in Washington. Never mind that his principles
aren’t always as inviolate as he likes to make them out to be, and they rarely include the principle of discharging the responsibility to govern that he asked the
voters of Texas to grant him. The only thing that seems to matter to Mr. Cruz Goes to Washington is what his country can do for him. ¶ Rand Paul might matter -- if
he is, as he insists is the case, genuinely interested in shaping a comprehensive bill he can support. He could influence other libertarian-leaning Republicans. But he’s
not serious if he continues to demand an amendment that effectively sunsets the bill pending a future Congress’ judgment about whether the border security
provisions worked as advertised.¶ Future Congresses aren’t bound by the actions of past Congresses. If five or 10 years from now Congress decides the bill didn’t
achieve its objectives, it can pass new legislation. But it ought to do it by regular order, facing the same difficulties and political risks this Congress faces as it tries to
pass this one.¶ The
Gang of Eight matters. Any member who’s working to address the concerns of
colleagues who are persuadable for or against the bill matters. Persuadable members matter .¶ Who
else matters? John Boehner, who recently suggested to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he will allow the House
to vote on immigration reform even if a majority of Republican members haven’t agreed support it. If
the House speaker means that, it’s probably the only real news on the immigration debate this week.
Because -- and here’s a fact that really matters -- majorities in both chambers already support
comprehensive immigration reform, and it will probably have a filibuster-proof majority in the
Senate.¶ To the feigned horror of Ted Cruz, the leadership of both parties wants it to pass (although some
Republican leaders aren’t always eager to publicly admit it). The GOP’s most recent vice presidential nominee wants it to pass,
as do most Republican leaders who care about the GOP’s future as a national party. Which means, no
matter how many “Perils of Pauline” stories you read in the press, immigration reform is probably
going to be enacted. And that’s the forest lurking behind the trees of Washington’s indiscriminate
hyperbole.
Will pass – prime example of bipart
Stuart 6/11
[Elle, Research Assistant, Foreign Policy Fellows Program at New America Foundation, “Immigration
Reform: Bipartisanship's Improbable Poster Child,” New America Foundation, 6/11/13,
http://inthetank.newamerica.net/blog/2013/06/immigration-reform-bipartisanships-improbableposter-child]
You could forgive Tamar Jacoby and Simon Rosenberg if they had a cynic’s déjà vu. The two advocates have traveled down the comprehensive immigration path
before. They were there in 2006 and 2007, when a few brave souls tried to pass a bipartisan grand deal on immigration and failed. So why is it that both Jacoby
and Rosenberg, the Republican and Democratic representatives for New America’s conversation on immigration reform, are cautiously
optimistic about the hopes for immigration reform in 2013? Is the need to “get something done” good
enough to get something done? ¶ First, the process has had its own rewards. Rosenberg, president and founder of the
center-left think tank NDN, opened up the discussion by asserting that the so-called “Gang of Eight” discussions have really
worked, forging a durable bipartisan core that has fended off efforts to derail a deal. He said that the
“compromises in the bill were understandable. Democrats didn’t accept things that they didn’t get
anything in return for. Everybody got something, everybody gave something .” Jacoby, President and CEO of
ImmigrationWorks USA, agreed, saying that “a year ago, if you said Republicans would be full partners in
comprehensive immigration reform, people would have laughed. What’s astonishing is that once you have the
will, people still know how to negotiate.” Both panelists reiterated their optimism about the bipartisan
nature of negotiations in the Senate, while expressing a shared hope that the grittier details of the negotiations would not derail a desire
to “get something done” that seems to be pervading both parties. Republicans recognize they lost the
Latino vote badly in 2012; Democrats know they need to keep a promise made to immigration
advocates .
CIR will pass clean – multiple warrants and signals
Barro 6/11
[Josh, current politics editor at Business Insider, Former Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for
Policy Research, “It’s Over: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Going To Pass”, 6/11/13,
http://www.businessinsider.com/its-over-comprehensive-immigration-reform-is-going-to-pass-2013-6]
This Congress only acts when it absolutely has to. We got a resolution to the fiscal cliff and a debt ceiling increase because
those were necessary. We won't get tax reform or a sequestration replacement because those are optional.¶ This week, we learned that
Republicans really do view passing comprehensive immigration reform as an imperative . I'm ready to call
It's going to pass.¶ There have been two big developments. One is that House Speaker John Boehner won't
rule out passing a bill that lacks majority support from the Republican caucus — likely the only way a
bill with a path to citizenship can pass the House.¶ The other is that Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) announced her
support for the comprehensive Senate bill. Crucially, the Huffington Post reports that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the proreform Gang of Eight, was actually urging Ayotte to delay announcing her support.¶ This is weird, but there's a reason. Rubio and
other pro-reform conservatives want changes to the bill. Roughly, these are the proposals that Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) is going to
this:
put forward in an amendment to spend more on border security and delay the normalization of status for unauthorized immigrants until border
agents are apprehending at least 90 percent of people trying to cross the border illegally.¶ Democrats view this as a poison pill that will delay
legalization indefinitely, and they really don't want it in the bill. To get it, Rubio
and Cornyn have to convince them that the
only way to get enough Republican votes for passage is to include such a provision. They need people
like Ayotte to hold out. But the forces within the GOP that favor immigration reform are too strong for
that to happen .¶ Establishment Republican forces in Washington desperately want comprehensive
reform with a path to citizenship and an increase in legal immigration. Business interests view reform
as something that will grow the economy and create opportunities for investment; they may also hope that it
will push wages down.¶ Republican operatives believe that passing immigration reform is a necessary step to
improve the party's standing with the growing Hispanic demographic.¶ Not only do these constituencies really
want a bill, they don't care about border security and so they don't even view the Cornyn
Amendment as a bonus. Rubio and Cornyn's meddling with the bill is all downside.¶ A comprehensive bill will pass the
Senate with the votes of enough Republicans to get past 60 votes. When it gets to the House, Boehner
will be in an uncomfortable position:
There will be enough votes for passage , but most of his caucus will vote against it, and
some will be angry that he brought it up.¶ But that would be true even if the Senate bill were amended to Rubio and Cornyn's liking. Most
House Republicans won't vote for any bill with a path to citizenship. And there is a key difference between not wanting to vote for a
comprehensive immigration reform bill and not wanting one to pass.¶ For
many, many House Republicans, the ideal
situation is for a reform bill to pass over their objections. Business interests will get the bill they want,
Democrats will be deprived of a powerful talking point with Hispanic voters, and individual house members
will be able to tell conservative primary voters that they tried to "stop amnesty." Win, win, win. ¶ This
is why Boehner isn't as "embattled " as you often hear. He's a useful punching bag for the conservatives in his own caucus, who
know that Republicans must agree to various things that conservative primary voters hate. That's the role he's preparing to play again on
immigration.
Even Boehner’s on board and willing to defy caucus
Lee 6/11
[Esther Yu-Hsi, Immigration Reporter at Center for American Progress, “Boehner Believes That
Immigration Bill Will Pass By End of The Year,” Think Progress, 6/11/13,
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/06/11/2133891/boehner-immigration-bill-pass-end-ofyear/]
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said
that the Senate immigration bill has a likely chance of being signed
into law by President Obama by the end of the year, during an interview on ABC News with George Stephanopoulos that aired
on Tuesday. Boehner gave his support for immigration reform, but did not rule out bringing a bill to the
floor that does not have the support of a majority of the House Republican caucus. He did indicate that the
Senate bill does not go far enough to secure the border and deferred to the House when asked about his position for the inclusion of a path to
citizenship.
Will Pass – A2: Citizenship
Citizenship is only a matter of logistics now – not insurmountable
Johnson 5/30
[Fawn, Immigration correspondent for the National Journal, “Will Obama Immigration Plan Make
History?” National Journal, 5/30/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/willobama-immigration-plan-make-history-20130128]
There are three main hurdles to passing an immigration bill—citizenship, guest-workers, and House Republicans. Any one of them could
scuttle the prospects of passage, but all are surmountable .¶ Citizenship. A bizarre shift occurred in the last year when
Rubio emerged onto the national scene and begged fellow conservatives to speak more positively about immigration. The sparring that used
to be about “amnesty,” or legalizing illegal immigrants, is now about granting them citizenship. Rubio and former House
Speaker Newt Gingrich are among the conservatives who have protested any law that gives illegal
immigrants their own method of becoming citizens.¶ That’s fine, say White House officials and
congressional Democrats. They aren’t asking for a special path to citizenship. They just want it to be
possible for non-criminal undocumented immigrants to live legally in the United States and use
regular methods to become citizens within a reasonable amount of time. “Reasonable” is subject to
negotiation—10 years? 20 years ? No one disputes that the illegal immigrants need to be “at the back of
the line.” The negotiation is basically a matter of logistics
immigrants to become citizens. Then it’s over.
unless Republicans refuse to allow any way for illegal
Will Pass – A2: DACA Vote
DACA was vetoed because of process – means substance of CIR can still pass
Grant 6/6
[David, Political staff writer for CSM, “Showered in Boos, Republicans Feed Democratic Immigration
Reform Fears” Christian Science Monitor, 6/6/13,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0606/Showered-in-boos-Republicans-feed-Democraticimmigration-reform-fears]
The 244-to-201 vote, in which three conservative Democrats sided with the GOP and six Republicans joined the Democrats, does not
mean the death of Mr. Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), since the Senate will likely not back
the House's action.¶ Moreover, it is not necessarily a sign that immigration reform is doomed in the
House. Many House Republicans – including House majority leader Eric Cantor of Virginia – might agree with the
intent of DACA, but wanted to rebuke the White House for how it acted. Essentially, Republicans say,
Obama did an unconstitutional end run around Congress.
Will Pass – A2: Guest Workers
Guest worker questions get punted and won’t affect passage
Johnson 5/30
[Fawn, Immigration correspondent for the National Journal, “Will Obama Immigration Plan Make
History?” National Journal, 5/30/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/willobama-immigration-plan-make-history-20130128]
Guest-workers. Conservatives are worried that unions will sink the immigration deal by flatly opposing any bill that has a guest-worker
component. Democrats and unions are wary of guest-worker programs because they fear that Americans will lose out
on job opportunities and working conditions will slide. In the past, the business community and Republicans have insisted that any
comprehensive immigration fix include guest-worker visas.¶ The
weak economy has made this conversation easier .
“Guest-worker” is a dirty word in business circles. It has now in vogue to talk about permanent green cards for
skilled foreign workers, a topic far less inflammatory for unions. There is a dedicated consortium of
influential employers who are willing to throw serious lobbying heft behind more green cards for
foreign engineers and scientists. Obama and the bipartisan group of senators will probably make a big
deal about the need for skilled workers at first and save the trickier question of temporary visas for
low-skilled employees for a smaller stage . (Like, say, at the end of a 12-hour markup in committee.)
Will Pass – A2: House
Posturing pacifies House for passage
Johnson 5/30
[Fawn, Immigration correspondent for the National Journal, “Will Obama Immigration Plan Make
History?” National Journal, 5/30/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/willobama-immigration-plan-make-history-20130128]
No one expects “regular order” in the House on immigration. Any broad bill that comes to the floor under normal proceedings would certainly
be doomed. The House has killed Senate immigration legislation before (in 2006), and forces are gathering to do so
again. The Judiciary Committee counts several bomb throwers as members; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, is the most well known in immigration
circles. The committee also includes ruby-red conservatives like Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, whose actions are closely scrutinized by other
Republicans. Its former chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is feverishly opposed to increasing immigration, particularly for low-skilled
that doesn’t mean an immigration bill can’t get through. A bipartisan group of House
lawmakers has been quietly working on an immigration bill that would satisfy conservatives and
liberals. The Republican participants are a closely-held secret, but whisperers say they include serious conservatives like
Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Ted Poe of Texas, and Raul Labrador of Idaho. House Speaker John Boehner is among the
Republicans who desperately want the GOP’s hand-wringing on immigration to end. He has already
demonstrated that he is willing to flout party rabble-rousers with the House's recent votes on fiscal
cliff taxes and Hurricane Sandy, which passed with more Democrats than Republicans.¶ Boehner has to be careful. He only has so
many chances to put incendiary legislation on the floor before his caucus stages an all-out revolt. To appease them, he will
probably offer one or two high-profile House votes, where Democrats will protest like crazy, on enforcement-only
immigration legislation. That gets the dealmakers to the next step, a conference committee where
workers.¶ But
anything can happen . As Kennedy was fond of saying, "We'll fix it in conference."¶ If Boehner wants the issue
to go away, he might be willing to put a conference report up for a vote despite a raucous caucus. It's
possible that enough Republicans could join with Democrats to support it.
Will Pass – A2: Security/Poison Pill/Border
Not significant enough
Jackson 6/11
[David, White House and political campaign reporter, “Obama stumps for immigration bill”, USA Today,
6/11/13, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/11/obama-immigration-senate-whitehouse-event/2411173/]
Senate Democrats
hope to pass an immigration bill by July 4 . Even if that happens, a bill must also be passed by the
Republican-run House.¶ House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that while he would like to see more security
measures, there's a good chance something will pass eventually .¶ "I think, no question, by the end of
the year we could have a bill. No question ," Boehner told ABC's Good Morning America.
Concessions mean passage likely
Debevec 6/16
[Nicole, White House correspondent for UPI, “The Issue: Immigration Reform Bill Finally Hits Senate
Floor,” UPI, 6/16/13, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/16/The-Issue-Immigration-reformbill-finally-hits-Senate-floor/UPI-74111371375000/#ixzz2WR7NMONX]
NBC News and Roll Call pegged Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Gang of Eight member who wowed the Republican National Convention and may
have thoughts of running for a higher office, as a man under a microscope.¶ Rubio
has indicated he'll need stronger border
security amendments to support the bill -- and bring along more conservative votes.¶ " We are willing
to toughen up border -- many of our colleagues feel that's important -- but without forsaking our principles," Sen.
a member of the bipartisan group.¶ He told The New York Times border
security demands must be reasonable "so that if, God forbid, there's a president in 2017 who hates immigration reform, it will
Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and
still go forward."
Won’t Pass
No passage – border security and house
Wheat 6/14
[Dan, Washington field reporter, “Immigration Reform Outlook Iffy in House, Nassif Says,” Capital Press,
6/14/13, http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-immigration-061413]
As United Farm Workers of America and other groups step up public lobbying for the Senate immigration reform bill,
a lead lobbyist
for
agriculture says
chances of its passage in the Senate are good but just 50-50 in the House.¶ The Senate likely
will pass its bill by the Fourth of July but whether the House can pass a bill so a conference committee between
both chambers starts before the August recess is a key question, said Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western
Growers Association of Irvine, Calif.¶ " It will be more difficult afterward . There won't be much time after that
before the holidays and other bills and then electioneering (for the mid-term 2014 election," Nassif said.¶ " What
they do when campaigning may be different ," he said.¶ On June 13, the Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. Charles
Grassley, R-Iowa, by a vote of 57-43, that would have held off a first step toward legal status for 11 million illegal aliens living in the country
until the Department of Homeland Security had maintained effective control of the entire U.S.-Mexico border for six months.¶ Proponents of
the bill said that could take years to achieve.¶ The Senate bill likely has 60 votes, enough for passage, but the
so-called Gang of Eight
that drafted it wants to get more Republicans on board to reach 70, Nassif said.¶ That would require
agreement on border security, which is difficult , he said. That element is also key in the House, where
there also is a lot of skepticism about government enforcement of anything that passes, he said.¶ "I think we
have to be very cautious about the House," Nassif said.¶ At least two bills and maybe another
partisan group are forming there, he said.
No chance – house
Barrett 6/12
[Ted, CNN Senior Congressional producer, “Senate Immigration Bill Clears First Hurdle; Debate Begins,”
CNN, 6/12/13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/immigration-senate/index.html]
A major immigration bill that would give millions of people living illegally in America a path to citizenship cleared a key
legislative hurdle Tuesday when a strong Senate majority voted to open debate on it.¶ The 82-15 vote, with most Republicans joining the
chamber's Democratic majority in support, launched what was expected to be an arduous legislative journey for the 1,076-page measure.¶
Both supporters
and opponents expect the bill to pass the Senate despite fierce opposition from
conservatives.¶ However, one GOP foe said Tuesday the Republican-controlled House would defeat it in its
current form due to the pathway to citizenship.
Poison pill derails
Bolton 6/11
[Alexander, staff writer for the Hill politics, “Immigration Reform Bill Clears Significant Hurdle in the
Senate,” The Hill, 6/11/13, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/304931-immigration-reform-clearssenate-hurdle]
Many Republicans are pushing for an amendment sponsored by Cornyn that would require 100
percent monitoring capability and a 90 percent apprehension rate of illegal entrants along the southern border
before granting permanent legal status to millions of immigrants in the country illegally. Cornyn’s plan would also require
tracking visa exits with biometric data at certain air and sea ports. ¶ McConnell praised it as “the key amendment ” and
said it would “put us in a position where we can look the American people in the face and say we are
going to secure the border.” ¶ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned its adoption could sink the
entire bill . ¶ “He has set out the principles of what’s in that amendment, and his principles would be a
poison pill to this bill ,” Reid said.
Border security, citizenship and Obama strategy – PC can’t trump
Barrett 6/12
[Ted, CNN Senior Congressional producer, “Senate Immigration Bill Clears First Hurdle; Debate Begins,”
CNN, 6/12/13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/immigration-senate/index.html]
I think it's going to pass the U.S. Senate with a substantial margin," Cruz said. But "absent
major revisions ... this bill will
crash and burn in the House. And it is designed to do so ."¶ Polls show many Americans favor some form of
immigration policy overhaul, depending on the details of legislation.¶ The bipartisan proposal before Senate was hammered out this spring by
the so-called "Gang of Eight" senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans.¶ Some congressional
conservatives call
opposing the "Gang of Eight" plan a matter of principle and say they won't bend.¶ Many consider any
measure offering a path to citizenship tantamount to amnesty for those who entered the country illegally.¶ In
addition, concerns about whether the bill will tighten security along the nation's porous borders, as asserted by backers of the
plan, may make it difficult for conservatives to support it -- especially those up for re-election next
year.¶ "The bill grants permanent legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants, as currently written,
without really any guarantee of securing the border. Now, how would that possibly be a good idea?"
asked Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, who voted Tuesday for opening debate.¶ Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, a
member of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" who is considered a possible GOP presidential contender in 2016, argued that doing nothing amounts
to what he called a "de facto amnesty" for immigrants currently living illegally in America.¶ House working on its own plan¶ At the same time,
Rubio -- a popular conservative of Hispanic descent -- has made it clear that border security
requirements must be toughened if he and other GOP skeptics will support it.
CIR won’t pass – special interest opposition
Kennedy 6/6
[Joey, community engagement specialist for The Birmingham News, “Comprehensive Immigration
Reform is in Trouble -- and So Are We (Joey Kennedy)”, AL.Com, 6/6/13,
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/06/real_immigration_reform_is_in.html]
There was hope. A time when it really looked like Democrats and Republicans would come together to pass comprehensive immigration
reform that would be the best for the nation. Oh, there were always do-nothings out there like Alabama's own Sen. Jeff Sessions: against
everything; in favor of very little.¶ But
now the feeling is the Senate Gang of Eight's immigration reform bill is in
trouble and the House's effort to carve out an immigration reform bill has all but ended .¶ It's been a
bad week for constructive immigration reform:¶ -- ABC reports House talks on immigration reform have
collapsed . Instead, the House will likely pass individual pieces of immigration reform, which President Barack
Obama and the Senate probably won't support.¶ -- The head of the labor union that represents the 12,000
workers who process immigrant visa applications publicly opposes the Senate bill . "If passed, (the bill) would lead
to the rubber stamping of millions of applications for both amnesty and future admissions, putting the public safety and the taxpayer at risk,"
wrote Kenneth Palinkas, president of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, to the Senate's Gang of Eight.¶ -- Earlier this week, the
Black American Leadership Conference issued an open letter calling on members of Congress to
oppose the Gang of Eight's proposal, saying the increased competition for low-skilled jobs would hurt
all Americans, but particularly African-Americans. The conference pointed out that "more than 13 percent of all blacks are unemployed"
and that "many blacks compete with immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, for low skilled jobs due to skill level and geography . . ."¶
Ironic that Sessions finds himself on the same side as a labor union and an African-American
leadership group, but, as the cliche goes, politics makes strange bed fellows. All have their own
special-interest sacred cows .¶ What none of the immigration reform naysayers do, however, is offer much
in the way of acceptable alternatives. It's easy to be against something ; far more difficult to craft
constructive solutions.
Bipartisan vote count against it
Kelly 6/3
[Eric, staff writer for Gannett Washington Bureau focused on Arizona and Nevada politics, “Immigration
Bill Faces Tough Path in Full Senate”, USA Today, 6/3/13,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/03/immigration-reform-bill/2376243/]
The lobbyist for NumbersUSA, which opposes the bill, said she believes
it will be defeated . The group is running TV ads
nationwide saying the legislation would hurt U.S. citizens and legal residents at a time when 20 million Americans are unemployed or
underemployed.¶ "I think the
bill is in serious trouble," said Rosemary Jenks, government relations director for NumbersUSA,
which opposes increased immigration. "I don't think they have the 60 votes (needed to fend off a conservative
filibuster). They are not going to get all 55 Democrats, especially the ones from red states. And I don't
see them getting enough Republicans to make it to 60."
GOP opposition blocks – Rubio and Labrador
Turnage 6/6
[James, Guardian columnist focused on politics, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will Fail?” The
Guardian Express, 6/6/13, http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/comprehensive-immigration-reform-willfail/]
Four Republican Senators, and four Democratic Senators were given the challenge of crafting a bill that would change our immigration laws.
The so called “gang of eight” accomplished their goal, temporarily. I believe that comprehensive immigration
reform will
fail. And here’s why.¶ Wednesday, Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., claimed he still supported immigration reform, but separated
himself from the Senate version. He was a member of the “gang of eight.”¶ Rubio cited increased border security as the reason for
his back-peddling. He did not tell reporters that he would vote against the Senate measure, but he did say, “If the changes don’t
happen, the bill can’t pass.”¶ He has apparently decided to side with extremists in the House who will
never be happy until our government agrees to build a 1000 foot high fence, with barbwire on the
top, security cameras every 10 feet, and of course it has to be electrified.¶ “We’ll keep working,” he added. “We
won’t abandon the effort, we’ll keep working to ensure that we have a bill that can pass.”¶ Noting that he was asked to join the immigration
effort in part to help bring Republicans on board, Rubio declared, “I can tell you that the
bill as structured isn’t going to pass
the House, and it’s going to struggle to pass in the Senate.”¶ The House had a similar “gang of eight” to
refine their own legislation. Late Wednesday afternoon, it appeared that there will not be a bipartisan bill coming out
of the junior legislative body.¶ Representative Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, left the team over policy disagreements. His
reason for refusing to work with his counterparts was the debate over health care for the immigrants.¶ “I have tremendous
respect for the members of the bipartisan group who have been working with me to fix our broken immigration system,” Labrador said in a
statement. “But after today’s meeting, the framework of the bill has changed in a way that I can no longer support.”¶ Labrador, considered
was key in helping to acquire the Republican vote in the House.¶ Two weeks ago, Labrador
threatened to leave the group over how the costs of health care for immigrants would be covered. Republican members of the
committee expressed concerns that state and local governments would eventually be responsible for
covering the costs. Democrats used the example that if they are not covered, and receive a serious injury, or contract life-threatening
cancer, they could be deported.¶ They reached a compromise until Wednesday, and Labrador resigned from the group.
a hard line conservative,
Won’t pass – DACA signal
Goodwin 6/7
[Liz, national affairs reporter, “A Rocky Week for Immigration Reform,” The Ticket, 6/7/13,
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rocky-week-immigration-reform-201742113.html]
It's been a tough week for supporters of immigration reform.¶ On Friday, a few Republican senators
expressed their reservations about the sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration laws on the first day it was brought to debate
on the Senate floor. Just the day before, nearly the entire House Republican caucus voted to strip the temporary
legal status the Obama administration has offered young unauthorized immigrants since last year,
which sent a strong message that the legalization portion of immigration reform could face an uphill
battle in the chamber.¶ On a mostly party-line vote of 224-201, the House voted for an amendment Thursday introduced by
immigration hawk Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, to reverse President Barack Obama's policy of not deporting young immigrants known as
"dreamers" who were brought to the country as children, attend or have graduated high school, and have committed no crime. The
amendment, which is now attached to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, isn't likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate
the vote cast doubts on reform proponents' gamble that
Republicans, faced with a bruising 2012 election loss spurred on by a poor showing with Hispanic
voters, will line up behind immigration reform to broaden their party's appeal despite some
objections among the GOP base.¶ Frank Sharry, the executive director of the pro-reform America's Voice advocacy group, said
he believes the House wanted to send a signal to the Obama administration about its use of executive power, since the
deportation relief never passed Congress.¶ "They were taking a shot at Obama and executive authority," Sharry said on
or make it past President Barack Obama's desk.¶ But
a conference call with reporters Friday. "I'm sure many of them thought, we're not against 'dreamers,' we're against Obama."¶ Sharry added,
"It's not helpful, but I don't think it's fatal."¶ The Dream Act Coalition, an advocacy group for young unauthorized immigrants, took a less
optimistic view.¶ "Today’s
vote to pass Rep. King’s amendment shows the Republican party ever more moving to
the extreme right and allowing obstruction to be their official policy. We hope the Speaker can stand up to the
fringe voices and restore the integrity of House to ensure it can address problems our country faces," The group said in a statement. Speaker
John Boehner
voted for the amendment.
A2: Thumpers
Top of the Docket
Obama’s priority
Barrett 6/12
[Ted, CNN Senior Congressional producer, “Senate Immigration Bill Clears First Hurdle; Debate Begins,”
CNN, 6/12/13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/immigration-senate/index.html]
Advocates for comprehensive reform
won the first major legislative victory last month when the Senate Judiciary
Committee voted 13-5 to approve the "Gang of Eight" plan.¶ Democratic leaders hope to have a Senate
vote on final passage by the end of June .¶ A bipartisan group has been working on a separate immigration plan in the House,
but the effort suffered a setback last week when a key member dropped out of the negotiations.¶ Previous efforts to pass immigration reform
fell short last decade even though it was said to be a priority of President George W. Bush.¶ Now
major priority
Obama has made the issue a
of his second term.
Vote by July
Cowan 6/7
[Richard, Columnist focused on Congressional policy, “Immigration Reform Backers Insist Bill Will Pass
Within a Few Weeks”, Reuters, 6/7/13, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/07/immigration-reformbackers-insist-bill-will-pass-within-a-few-weeks/]
“It is gratifying to see the momentum behind this package of common-sense reforms, which will make our country safer
and help 11 million undocumented immigrants get right with the law,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.¶ While he promised to give
senators ample opportunity to change the bill – a few dozen amendments are expected – Reid also warned that he would not
allow opponents to debate the measure endlessly. Work on the bill will be wrapped up before the
July 4 recess , Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said.
CIR first
Johnson 5/30
[Fawn, Immigration correspondent for the National Journal, “Will Obama Immigration Plan Make
History?” National Journal, 5/30/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/willobama-immigration-plan-make-history-20130128]
Whatever happens, it will play out in a big way . Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has designated immigration
legislation with the bill number S.1, a signal the bill is the top Senate priority . (He did the same thing
for Obama’s health care bill.) The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to begin crafting it in February. It should be on the
Senate floor in May or June.
Even if it wasn’t is now
Nakamura 6/11
[David, award winning political writer, “At White House, Obama to Rally Support for Senate Immigration
Reform Bill,” Washington Post, 6/11/13, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/postpolitics/wp/2013/06/11/at-white-house-obama-to-rally-support-for-senate-immigration-reform-bill/]
Obama has made immigration reform one of his top second-term priorities , his administration
has played mostly a supportive role as the senate group took the lead in drafting the legislation. White
Though
House aides have said the president recognizes that being too far in front on immigration could risk scaring off Republicans fearful of being tied
too closely with the administration.¶ But opponents of the bill — which features a 13-year path to citizenship for immigrants who are in the
country illegally — are gearing up to offer amendments aimed at delaying or denying the legalization process. And Obama,
who has
been stymied on his efforts at new gun-control laws and a grand bargain to reduce the deficit , has
stepped up his involvement in the immigration issue again this week.
NSA
No impact – not tied to Obama among staunchest critics
Gregory 6/16
[David, Moderator of Meet the Press, “Post Show Thoughts: Syria and the NSA,” NBC, 6/16/13,
http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/16/18987464-post-show-thoughts-syria-and-the-nsa]
National security was a consistent theme on this morning's program as questions about civil liberties and the war on
terror have arisen after the NSA controversy. ¶ The leaker, Edward Snowden, has been criticized by some as being
a traitor, but both Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Senator Graham stopped short of that, saying they would leave it
up to prosecutors to decide. ¶ The leaks also have the potential to make us less safe, according to former
CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, who was a guest on the roundtable.
CIR first – even according to Paul
Jacobs 6/12
[Ben, syndicated politics reporter, “It’s Rand Paul’s World,” Daily Beast, 6/12/13,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/12/nsa-revelations-and-immigration-bill-place-randpaul-center-stage.html]
But Rand Paul isn’t just grabbing headlines on immigration reform. With issues coming to the fore involving privacy,
technology, and the surveillance state long touted by his father, former congressman Ron Paul, the Kentucky senator is uniquely positioned in
the current debate. His 12-hour filibuster on the use of drones on American soil captured the public’s imagination and his strident opposition to
the NSA’s surveillance program, as revealed last week by leaker Edward Snowden, has even included a threat to launch a class-action suit in
federal court. (Snowden reportedly contributed $500 to Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign.)¶ Paul’s
place in the spotlight is
already drawing fire from Democrats. On Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Rep Edward Markey, the Democratic nominee in the
upcoming special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, Vice President Joe Biden slammed Paul as a sinister power in the
modern Republican Party. Biden told attendees that the GOP had become “beholden” to Paul as well
as Ted Cruz. He said that many Republican senators had told him that they had not supported gun-control measures like Toomey-Manchin
in the wake of the Newtown massacre because “I don’t want to take on Rand Paul.”¶ The Kentucky senator was always well
positioned to take the forefront of the debate on privacy with the NSA’s revelations but, with his
efforts both to make himself a crucial vote on immigration as well as to shore up his credentials
among social conservatives—telling attendees Wednesday about his commitment to defending life
from conception to the last dying breath—he’s now made himself one of the key powerbrokers in the
Republican conference. ¶ It is Rand Paul’s moment . He just has to decide how he’s going to use it.
Not relevant for immigration – being saved for 2014
Edroso 6/16
[Roy, political blogger, “Benghazi, Immigration, Syria: Rightbloggers Smear NSA (and Obama) on
Everything,” The Voice, 6/16/13,
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/06/the_nsa_controv.php]
It's getting harder to find rightbloggers who'll admit they still think what was good about spying under George W. Bush remains good under
Obama. At National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy is pretty much holding the torch alone for Total Information Awareness: "National security
should not be nearly as partisan an issue as it has become since the Bush years," he recently sighed.¶ But in the same post McCarthy
that "the officials we have cannot be trusted" -- mirroring the spin by old Bush hands like Dick
said
Cheney, who've been defending NSA while attacking Obama's "credibility."¶ And that's become the
battle order for most of the brethren: Using the NSA news as a force multiplier to get the other DC
"scandals" they've been promoting for the past month -- Benghazi AP IRS etc. -- up to weapons grade
in time for the next congressional elections .
Latest polls prove no consequence
Edroso 6/16
[Roy, political blogger, “Benghazi, Immigration, Syria: Rightbloggers Smear NSA (and Obama) on
Everything,” The Voice, 6/16/13,
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/06/the_nsa_controv.php]
Goldberg's column did not back this judgment up with recent poll results, which show Obama's
approval only slightly down from last month. Maybe Goldberg was thinking of the jump in sales of Orwell's 1984 after
Obama referred to "Big Brother" in talking about the controversy; many of the brethren believe these purchases are not signs of curiosity, but
a vote of no confidence in the President -- or at least they hope it will be read as such : "If you are
upset by what you're hearing about the IRS, the NSA, the Justice Department, and Homeland Security
these days," pleaded Kevin DuJan at HillBuzz, "be part of something and send a message by picking up a copy of '1984' for your family and
friends." This could be as big as the boom in Atlas Shrugged sales that presaged the election of Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson to the
Presidency in 2012.But the lack of relevant metrics don't matter -- the campaign's young yet, and other rightbloggers are working hard on
pushing the correct way of looking at things.¶ "All
can agree that the Obama administration is mired in myriads of
scandals," claimed Goldberg's colleague Victor Davis Hanson, perhaps speaking on the authority of an office survey, " but as yet no
one can quite figure out what they all mean and where they will lead."
Syria
Situation improving – Clinton’s reversal
Kopan 6/14
[Tal, Breaking news reporter for Politico, “Bill Clinton: U.S. Policy on Syria Trending in ‘Right Direction’”
Politico, 6/14/16, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/bill-clinton-syria-barack-obama92798.html#ixzz2WRV1n7IK]
Former President Bill Clinton
said Friday that U.S. policy toward Syria is headed in the “right direction ” after the
White House’s announcement of stepped-up American involvement.¶ Clinton’s comments came after he was asked on
MSNBC’S “Morning Joe” about POLITICO’s report on Thursday that the former president had said earlier this week that President Barack Obama should act more
forcefully to support anti-Assad rebels.¶ “Looks
to me like this thing is trending in the right direction now,” Clinton
said on “Morning Joe.”¶ The former president also said he was “amazed” by the coverage of his earlier remarks, which he noted came on the “last or next to last”
question at a closed-press event with Sen. John McCain, who has been a staunch advocate of arming Syrian rebels. ¶ Clinton said on Friday that
more U.S. assistance for the anti-government rebels is the right way to go.¶ “I think that we should
support the rebel groups more vigorously, and the White House announced that they intend to do
that ,” he said. “They are exploring their options and right now they don’t want to talk about the details and I don’t blame
them , because the less they talk about the details, the more likely their increased assistance is likely to be effective, and like I said, they want to see what our
other allies are willing to do. So I think, on
balance, this should be seen as a positive story.”
No backlash – will garner international support
Dorning 6/16
[Mike, White House correspondent for Bloomberg, “Obama at G-8 Plots Next Syria Steps With Allies,”
Bloomberg, 6/16/13, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-16/obama-at-g-8-plots-next-syriasteps-with-allies.html]
President Barack Obama
will sound out western allies this week on how far to go to intervene in Syria’s
civil war and find out how determined Russia is to stand in the way.¶ Leaders of the Group of Eight industrial nations begin a two-day
summit today in Northern Ireland as the Syrian army, strengthened by reinforcements from Lebanon’s Shiite militia Hezbollah and aid from Iran
and Russia, mounts an offensive to retake Aleppo, the nation’s commercial center and largest city.¶ Obama
last week ratcheted up
backing for the rebels with a decision to send light weapons. On the sidelines of the summit, he will consult on
next steps with European leaders including British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande,
who both have sought bolder action in Syria,
East Policy.¶ “ They’re going
said Andrew Tabler, a Middle East analyst at the Washington Institute for Near
to work out the sophistication of the weapons, and they’ll continue to look at
that in the future,” Tabler said. “The rebels want shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons. They want anti-tank weapons. Are they going to
get them?”¶ The shift in advantage on Syria’s battlegrounds from rebels to President Bashar al-Assad’s loyalists, driven in
part by the influx of Hezbollah fighters, will be a main topic in discussions among leaders at the summit.¶ Agenda Overshadowed¶ The
maneuvering on Syria may overshadow a summit agenda that includes limiting nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea,
managing the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, stabilizing Libya, expanding international trade and restraining tax avoidance.¶ The G-8
comprises leaders from the U.S. U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia.¶ The
U.S. announcement that it would
send direct military aid to the rebels “was left deliberately vague” on the extent of support, said Faysal
Itani, a fellow with the Atlantic Council. European allies as well Russian President Vladimir Putin, an Assad backer, will use bilateral
meetings with Obama to gain greater clarity on his intentions, he said.¶ “We’ve made no decision to arm the rebels, to
arm the opposition, but it’s
very important that we continue to work with them, train them and assist them,”
Cameron said yesterday in London at a briefing with Putin after the two leaders met.
Trio Scandal (IRS, AP and Libya)
Distractions good in the context of immigration – shields Gang of eight
Davis 5/23
[Julia Hirschfeld, syndicated political columnist, “Obama Probes Create Immigration Magic as Bill
Advances”, Bloomberg, 5/23/13, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-23/white-houseprobes-create-immigration-magic-as-proposal-advances]
The trio of investigations causing headaches for President Barack Obama’s administration has also provided a
honeymoon period for the marquee element of his domestic agenda: revising immigration laws.¶ The
congressional probes into various government agencies diverted attention at a critical time , allowing
the Senate Judiciary Committee a respite from the spotlight as it reached critical compromises on the
measure and approved it on a bipartisan 13-5 vote on May 21. The bill would allow the estimated 11 million immigrants living in
the U.S. without authorization a chance at citizenship.¶ “ It’s like magic -- you distract the audience while the real trick
is being done -- and I think right now, while Americans focus on President Obama’s unending
difficulties, it’s good news for the Gang of Eight working on immigration,” said Republican strategist Alex
Castellanos, referring to the four Republicans and four Democrats who crafted the bill.
CIR top of the docket and no impact to thumpers
Davis 5/23
[Julia Hirschfeld, syndicated political columnist, “Obama Probes Create Immigration Magic as Bill
Advances”, Bloomberg, 5/23/13, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-23/white-houseprobes-create-immigration-magic-as-proposal-advances]
“The
timing of all of this is kind of interesting in that it probably took a bit of heat off the markup in
the committee - - that doesn’t mean the bill’s not going to face intense scrutiny on the Senate floor,” Democratic strategist Jim Manley
said.¶ “Regardless of all the so-called scandals whirling around, the fact is the immigration bill is about the only
thing that’s going to get done this year ,” he said.¶ Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a member of the group of eight
that wrote the compromise bill as well as the Judiciary Committee that signed off on it, said the scandal fever that has broken
out in Washington has “been good” for the legislation, lowering the emotional temperature that has
surrounded past failed efforts to make immigration changes.
Only risk the trio helps
Fabian 5/17
[Jordan, Political editor for Univision, “Why Immigration Reform Will Survive Obama's Scandals”, ABC
News, 5/17/13, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reform-survive-presidentobamas-scandals/story?id=19203730#.UbJgKfnqnzw]
The trio of scandals facing President Obama have many in Washington asking whether this marks the
beginning of the end for his legislative agenda.¶ An issue such as tax reform might be impeded considering that the Internal
Revenue Service is at the center of one of the scandals. But an initiative that could emerge unscathed, or even
strengthened, is immigration
reform.¶ Before the scandals, immigration appeared to be the item on Obama's second-term agenda
that seemed likeliest to pass through Congress. Deep fault lines have developed between both parties on issues like gun control, the deficit, and
debt reduction. But on
immigration, there is strong political incentive for GOP leaders in Washington to join
in the effort to pass a bill. And the scandals haven't changed that.¶ Although it's only been a few days since the
scandals have overtaken the political atmosphere in Washington, developments on immigration have
quietly chugged along . A bipartisan group in the House announced Thursday evening they have reached a deal
in principle on a comprehensive bill after four years of on-again, off-again talks. And in just three markup sessions, the Senate Judiciary
Committee has considered 82 of the 300 amendments offered by its members, over a quarter of the total.¶ Supporters and
opponents of the bill believe that the immigration reform effort can make it through the scandalobsessed environment in Washington.¶ "I think the conditions are ripe for the [immigration] bill to make
it through. The president's been very helpful. He's been there when we've asked him to be, he's laid low when we ask him, and I've got no
complaints about the president and I think he can be very helpful getting it over the finish line," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the
Gang of Eight, told Politico. The publication noted that he is one of "Obama's chief Benghazi critics."¶ Mickey Kaus, a political blogger and well
known critic of the Senate Gang of Eight bill, said
last week that the scandals could take away attention from the
immigration reform effort, claiming that could improve its chances of success.¶ "I actually think these
distracting scandals help the bill's chances of passage," he said at an event sponsored by BuzzFeed. "The problem with this
bill is: the elites like it, the voters don't like it. Every time there is publicity, every time it's at center stage, its chances of
passage get worse."¶ (We would note that polls show that Americans who know about the bill are divided over it, while a plurality
haven't yet formed an opinion. But moving on...)¶ So, yes, there are plenty of reasons immigration reform might fail.
But scandals just aren't one of them .
Thumpers
All-Included Thumper
NSA, Syria, AP, Benghazi trash chances of CIR
AP 6/16
[“Political Turmoil at Home as Obama Heads to Europe,” Saudi Gazette, 6/16/13,
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130616169988]
President Barack Obama
heads to next week’s summit of world leaders in Northern Ireland burdened by a messy
domestic political landscape and distracting controversies. The latest one — about a leaked global
surveillance program — has outraged people abroad and could cast a shadow
on his trip.¶ The question is
whether the growing political battles will affect Obama’s standing at a G-8 summit of leading industrial countries, where he
now will be
dealing with reactions to his decision to arm Syrian rebel forces after a US finding that President Bashar Assad’s regime has
used chemical weapons.¶ The decision should put Obama more in line with Europeans who made similar findings weeks ago. It also sharpens
the differences with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an Assad supporter, who will also attend the summit.¶ Obama travels to Northern
struggles on the domestic front. Despite his convincing victory in November, an improving
economy and his still-respectable popularity numbers, his second-term agenda has stalled. An effort at gun control failed in the
Senate, and his bid for a grand bipartisan bargain to cut government spending without harming the neediest Americans seems dead.¶ His
last big hope for a big legislative win rides on an overhaul of immigration laws.¶ Yet it’s hard to keep
Ireland and later to Germany as he
lawmakers focused on immigration or much else with Obama on the defensive over a series of
controversies. Republicans have been denouncing the administration’s actions surrounding a terrorist
attack in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed the US ambassador and three other Americans.¶ Beyond that, Obama’s Justice
Department took the unusual step of subpoenaing phone records of The A ssociated P ress without prior
That prompted an uproar over
what many critics saw as a violation of constitutional protections of press freedom. Now comes the
leaked information about the N ational S ecurity A gency, the largest US spying organization, collecting the details of telephone
notification and obtaining a search warrant to secretly gather emails of a Fox News journalist.
records of Americans, and two NSA programs that purportedly target foreign messages — including private emails, voice and other data
transmissions — sent through US Internet providers.¶ The
NSA operations on foreign communications traffic might
cause trouble for one of Obama’s top goals at the G-8 summit. The president hoped the G-8 leaders could announce
the start of negotiations on a sweeping free-trade agreement to eliminate tariffs on trade with the European Union. European Parliament
members, elected representatives from the 27-nation EU, now want language on data protection written into any possible deal.
NSA
Spy scandal erodes Obama’s PC
Collinson 6/17
[Stephen, AFP White House Correspondent, “Spy Sweeps Test Obama's Rock Star Status in Europe,” The
Nation, 6/17/13, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline/international/17-Jun-2013/spy-sweeps-test-obamas-rock-star-status-in-europe]
Explosive revelations about US phone and Internet surveillance programmes will challenge President
Barack Obama's
popularity and moral authority
when he lands in Europe on Monday.¶ Because he was not George W Bush,
who was reviled in much of Europe, and thanks to a magnetic personal story and rise to power, Obama wallowed in hero worship as a
candidate in Europe in 2008, and on debut presidential trips.¶ Candidate Obama was the prophet of hope, who told 200,000 young people in
Berlin pining for a new John F. Kennedy, that Europe and America must remember their destiny and "remake the world once again."¶ Yet,
at
home and abroad, in the teeth of a global financial gale, President Obama learned that delivering change
was tougher than promising it. While he honoured a vow to end the unpopular Iraq war, and will halt Nato combat in Afghanistan
next year, Obama has disappointed Europeans on issues like climate change and closing Guantanamo Bay.¶ And now, Obama has
been revealed as the figurehead of a secret American intelligence war that is more sweeping than
anybody knew.¶ Europeans are among foreigners in the crosshairs of a vast phone and Internet surveillance programme run by the
shadowy US National Security Agency (NSA) exposed in newspaper leaks.¶ The man who once vowed to moderate
unpopular ex-president Bush's "war on terror" will be the programme's chief defender when he
arrives in Northern Ireland for the G8 summit and heads onward to visit Germany.¶ "Certainly, this is not a great PR
exercise by the Americans , and this rekindles all of these bad memories of George W. Bush's second
term," said Michael Geary, a fellow at the Wilson Center. "After four years, when Obama has tried to put a softer face
on American power, this is certainly not going to prove very popular for the administration in Europe
and for Obama as well."¶ NSA programmes have stirred warnings that the privacy of Europeans is
being besmirched by an American Big Brother
NSA competes with immigration
Bowman 6/16
[Michael, Political correspondent for VOA, “Washington Week: Focus on Syria, Immigration Reform,”
Voice of America, 6/16/13, http://www.voanews.com/content/washington-week-focus-on-syriaimmigration-reform/1682931.html]
President Obama
says he wants to sign an immigration reform bill into law in coming months.¶ The
coming week could also see further developments concerning the U.S. government’s domestic
surveillance program. And the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue landmark rulings on same-sex marriage either this week or next.
Syria
Syria tanking Obama cred now
Sullivan 6/16
[Sean, wire reporter, “Republicans Criticize Obama on Syria,” Washington Post, 6/16/13,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/16/republicans-criticize-obama-onsyria/]
Republicans in Congress offered fresh criticism Sunday of the Obama administration’s navigation of the
violent conflict in Syria.¶ On ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) charged that the
administration has “failed” to identify elements of the resistance against the Syrian government that the United
States could work with, which has left limited options on the table.¶ “Now the strongest groups fighting against [Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad], unfortunately, are al Qaeda-linked elements . That doesn’t mean that they all are, but it certainly —
this group has become the most organized, the best armed, the best equipped. Our options are now
really narrower than they were a few months ago.” Rubio said.¶ Late last week, the United States announced it would
provide direct military support to rebels fighting the Syrian government by arming them. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on NBC’s “Meet
The Press” that the Obama administration’s actions were simply too little too late and advocated a no-fly
zone over the country.¶ “Our policies are not working. And AK-47s will not neutralize the advantage
that Assad has over the rebels. We need to do more,” Graham said.
Huge fights coming – decisions just starting
Jackson 6/14
[David, White House reporter for USA Today, “In Syria, a messy road ahead for Obama,” USA Today,
6/14/13, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/14/obama-difficult-pathsyria/2424203/]
WASHINGTON — President Obama
traveled a long and tortured path before coming to the conclusion that it
was necessary to provide direct military aid to Syrian rebels trying to topple Bashar Assad's regime. ¶
Now that he's agreed to send small arms and ammunition to the main rebel group, the Supreme Military Council , the way
forward may become more difficult. ¶ Even as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle increasingly call on
Obama to decisively back the rebels, the president is clear-eyed that the road to an endgame could
involve the sort of messy, long and complicated engagement he's tried to avoid.¶ The president's
first big test
on his Syria policy — after the White House's announcement that it was highly likely Assad deployed chemical weapons
against the opposition — comes Monday when Obama meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the
Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland.¶ "They don't want to see a downward spiral. They don't want to see a chaotic situation in the
region," said White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. "It's in Russia's interest to join us in applying pressure on Bashar alAssad in a way that relinquishes his power and stature in Syria."¶ The Russians, along with Iran and Hezbollah, have provided Assad's regime
with mortars, light artillery, antiaircraft guns, antitank weapons and ammunition.¶ As Obama tries to convince Russia to give up Assad,
lawmakers are increasingly pushing for the president to at least provide the same level of weaponry
Russia has provided Assad's forces.¶ Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., told USA TODAY that the United States should
launch cruise missile strikes to ground the Syrian air force and create a safe zone for rebels. Other
lawmakers have called for establishing a no-fly zone.¶ "We have to do something substantial now," Casey said.¶ Obama
remains concerned about providing sophisticated weaponry to the rebels out of fear that they could
end up in the hands of al-Qaeda-aligned fighters among the rebels . It remains unclear what, if any,
high-end weaponry he's willing to give the rebels
Syria’s top of the docket – Obama’s actions unpopular
Bowman 6/16
[Michael, Political correspondent for VOA, “Washington Week: Focus on Syria, Immigration Reform,”
Voice of America, 6/16/13, http://www.voanews.com/content/washington-week-focus-on-syriaimmigration-reform/1682931.html]
Washington’s attention will be split this week between the conflict in Syria and the legislative push
to overhaul America’s immigration system. Syria’s protracted civil war is expected to be a prime topic
of discussion at this week’s G-8 summit in Northern Ireland.¶ President Barack Obama attends the G-8 forum days after the
U nited S tates announced it will provide military aid to Syrian rebels. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said,
“We have steadily increased the size and scope of our assistance to the political opposition and the SMC
(Supreme Military Council). And we have decided to take an additional step forward and provide dramaticallyincreased assistance to the SMC going forward."¶ The decision follows setbacks for the rebels at the hands of forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar alAssad, and U.S. assessments about chemical weapons.¶ “We assess with high confidence that Sarin (nerve agent) has been used, and frankly the (Assad) regime retains custody of those
. U.S. public opinion remains firmly opposed to direct military intervention in Syria, and
even the most outspoken congressional advocates of expanded U.S. involvement say there should be
no American troop deployments to Syria.
weapons," said Rhodes ¶
More fallout coming because of Obama’s static approach
Edelman 6/16
[Adam, Online politics reporter for the NY Daily News, “Lawmakers Hail Arming of Syrian Rebels, Urge
Stronger Action,” NY Daily News, 6/16/13, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lawmakers-hailarming-syrian-rebels-urge-stronger-action-article-1.1374267#ixzz2WRU0dsKD]
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez
said Sunday that he not only supported arming the Syrian rebels but
wanted to explore the possibility of bombing Syrian airfields .¶ “The president is moving in the right direction,”
Menendez said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”¶ “But if Assad continues to have unlimited air power and artillery,
that’s a hard battle to win.”¶ “You can’t just simply send (the rebels) a pea shooter against a blunderbuss at the
end of the day, or else … time is not on our side, and our vital national security interests will not be pursued ,”
he added.¶ President Obama has decided to arm Syrian rebels after evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime used chemical
the U.S. remains unlikely to engage in such additional measures if
comments made Sunday by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough are any indication.¶ "We have to be very discerning
about what's in our interest and what outcome is best for us and the prices we're willing to pay to get
to that place," McDonough said on CBS' "Face the Nation."¶ "We've rushed to war in this region in the past; we're
not going to do it here,” he added.¶ That cautious attitude has attracted widespread criticism from both
weapons against opposition forces.¶ But
sides of the aisle, including eyebrow-raising comments earlier this week from former President Bill Clinton, who
said Obama risked looking “ like a total wuss” and a “total fool ” if he had remained on the sidelines of
the bloody civil war any longer.
Obama’s at rock bottom
Hudson 6/16
[Audrey, award-winning Congressional reporter, “NYT's Dowd: Bill Clinton Schools Obama on Syria”
Newsmax, 6/16/13, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/maureen-dowd-obamaclinton/2013/06/16/id/510176]
Obama hit rock bottom this week when he was criticized by former President Bill Clinton for using
polls to drive policy on Syria, columnist Maureen Dowd said Sunday in her New York Times column.¶ "Not only is President
Obama leading from behind, now he’s leading from behind Bill Clinton ," Dowd wrote.¶ Clinton criticized
Obama during a private meeting Tuesday with Republican Sen. John McCain at the McCain Institute for International
Leadership event in New York. Audio portions of the meeting were leaked to Politico.¶ Clinton said Obama should have more
actively supported anti-Assad rebels in Syria, and that any president who listens to opinion polls looks
like "a total fool."¶ “When the man who polled where to take his summer vacation and whether to
tell the truth about his affair with Monica Lewinsky tells you you’re a captive of polls, you’d better
listen up,” Dowd said.
President Barack
Trio Scandal Trio Scandal (IRS, AP and Libya)
IRS, Benghazi and AP leaks wreck Obama’s PC – decimate CIR
Roth 6/6
[Zachary, Senior politics reporter for MSNBC, “Why is immigration reform losing steam? The IRS”,
MSNBC, 6/6/13, http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/06/18782861-why-is-immigrationreform-losing-steam-the-irs]
Those were the days. Now we’re
seeing reports that negotiations in the House are on the verge of collapse .
And in the Senate, Marco Rubio, in what Steve noted yesterday is a pretty stunning turnaround, is now saying that
without stringent new border security provisions that Senate negotiators already rejected, he won’t
support the bill he helped negotiate.¶ How did things go downhill so fast?¶ For one thing, conservative House
Republicans are now insisting that immigrants be cut off from the benefits of Obamacare during their 15-year path to citizenship. In other
words, as New York magazine’s Jon Chait puts it, “House Republicans' hatred of Obamacare is at such deranged levels that it is leeching into
even largely unrelated problems.” And Rubio, of course, is hampered by his presidential ambitions, which dictate that he not alienate his
party’s right-wing base by appearing to concede too much to Obama and congressional Democrats.¶ But Republicans’
hatred for
Obamacare, and Rubio’s presidential ambitions, both existed a month or so ago, when immigration
reform was going swimmingly. So what’s changed? How about the confluence of Obama administration
“scandals”—the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups, the Justice Department’s aggressive pursuit of journalists, and the ongoing Benghazi
saga—that have re-energized the GOP ? What do those stories have to do with immigration? Here’s what: Let’s set aside the
question of just how scandalous these "scandals" really are, and how much they really reflect on the Obama administration or the
White House. The point is, the Beltway media has bought into them just enough to create, at least
temporarily, a storyline about an administration dogged by political controversy. And that's led
Washington Republicans and their conservative allies to believe that they can ride that storyline back
to power—just as they tried to do in the late 1990s with the Clinton impeachment. (A related benefit: The IRS story, in
particular, is a perfect way for Boehner, McConnell et al. to line up behind the Tea Party and bolster their shaky credibility with the GOP’s
That changes Republicans' calculus on just about everything —especially immigration.
They see a potential way to win back the Senate next year and the White House in 2016 without having to alienate their core
supporters by backing immigration reform. So their motivation for getting behind the project has gone out the
window. Of course, that's far from the only reason that immigration talks may have hit the rocks. But it's almost certainly a piece
activist base.)¶
of the puzzle . ¶ Whether that strategy will work out for Republicans is another question. Getting Americans to think of President Obama,
whose personal likability ratings are consistently high, as a 21st century Richard Nixon, may be a tough sell. But that doesn’t
mean the GOP won’t try. And immigration reform could be the first casualty of their new strategy.
Trio crushes Obama cred on separate issues
Edwards 6/16
[David, Congressional reporter, “Cheney: Obama Has ‘No Credibility’ — but the NSA is ‘to be Believed’”
Raw Story, 6/16/13, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/16/cheney-obama-has-no-credibility-butthe-nsa-is-to-be-believed/]
“I don’t pay a lot of attention, frankly, to what Barack Obama said,” Cheney continued. “Because I find a lot of
it — in other areas, for example, IRS, Benghazi — not credible . I’m obviously not a fan of the incumbent president. I
don’t know what he did to the program.”¶ Wallace pointed out that the president had indicated that the war on terror was coming to an end,
and wondered if that made it harder to justify the vast NSA surveillance.¶ “First of all, he’s wrong,” Cheney declared. “It’s not winding down…
The threat’s bigger than ever.”¶ “So, he’s just dead wrong on the status of the threat,” he added. “In
terms of credibility, I don’t
think he has credibility. And one of the biggest problems we have is we’ve got an important point
where the president of the United States ought to be able to stand up and say, ‘This is a righteous
program, it’s a good program, it saved American lives, and I support it.’”¶ “The problem is the guy has
failed to be forthright and honest and credible on things like Benghazi and the IRS. So, he’s got no
credibility.”
Polling proves the damage
Rove 6/12
[Karl, former deputy chief of staff to Bush, “Obama's Credibility Gap and the 2014 Midterms,” Wall
Street Journal, 6/12/13,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578541331417256500.html]
A trifecta of scandals—the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the Justice Department's subpoena of reporters' phone and email
records, and the government's response to the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi— are eroding President
Obama's credibility .¶ A June 2 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the damage. Fifty-eight percent of those
and Justice Department scandals "raise doubts about the overall honesty and
integrity of the Obama Administration," while 55% say the same about the IRS targeting.¶ A plurality
surveyed say the Benghazi
holds Mr. Obama responsible for each scandal . A combined 41% say he is either "totally or mainly responsible" for
mishandling the Benghazi attack while 19% say he is "not responsible at all." On the Justice Department's seizure of reporters' phone records,
37% believe he is "totally or mainly responsible" versus 14% who say the president is "not responsible at all." On the IRS targeting of
conservative groups, 33% hold Mr. Obama "totally or mainly responsible" while 24% say he is "not responsible at all."¶ There
are
troubling signs in other polls. Just 32% approve of the president's handling of the IRS scandal, with
50% believing "high-ranking Obama administration officials were aware" of the targeting, according to a
June 4 Gallup poll. A recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 44% believe "members of the Obama Administration were involved" in
the IRS scandal (40% say IRS officials acted on their own).¶
The president's overall job approval has been adversely
affected . According to a Gallup poll on Wednesday, his standing is at 45% approve and 47% disapprove,
compared with 52% approve, 44% disapprove in January. With congressional investigations in their early
stages, the scandals will continue to be in the news, and the president's approval numbers are likely
to fall further .¶ Mr. Obama is being hurt by more than the scandals themselves—there's also the administration's hapless messaging.
Stories change and high-ranking officials continue saying things that are patently untrue, even after the facts have come out.¶ On May 15,
Attorney General Eric Holder said under oath that "With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is
not something that I've ever been involved in." Six days later, NBC News revealed that he had been involved. The administration claims the IRS
targeting was "not political," that it was confined to "low-level IRS employees" in Cincinnati, and that it was in response to a tsunami of
applications seeking tax-exempt status. None of these claims are true.¶ Meanwhile, we still don't know what Mr. Obama did the night of Sept.
11 as Americans died during the Benghazi attack, or who concocted the false story that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an antiMuslim video.¶ While
the firestorm over recent leaks in National Security Agency surveillance techniques
belongs in a separate category, this controversy complicates things for the president, preventing
him from pivoting from scandals to other issues.
Internal Links
Obama Pushing
Yes
Its full court press
York 6/8
[Byron, Chief political correspondent for The Examiner, “Obama Jumps into Immigration Debate — Will
that Help or Hurt?” Washington Examiner, 6/8/13, http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-jumps-intoimmigration-debate-will-that-help-or-hurt/article/2531420]
After months of remaining mostly quiet about the Senate Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform proposal, President Obama
will take up the issue this week with a White House event to urge passage of the 1,000-page legislation. The question is
whether that will help or hurt his cause.¶ Timed to coincide with the beginning of Senate debate on the bill, Obama will meet with “a
broad, bipartisan and diverse coalition of business leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, religious and faith leaders, and
other key stakeholders” at the White House Tuesday to press the case that “now is the time to enact commonsense
immigration reform.” The White House says Obama will deliver remarks specifically supporting the Gang of
Eight bill.¶ The president also used his weekly address Saturday to promote the legislation. Arguing that his
administration has strengthened border security, deported criminal immigrants, and stopped enforcing the immigration laws in the case of socalled “dreamers,” Obama said, “If we’re going to truly fix a broken system, we need Congress to act in a comprehensive way. And that’s why
what’s happening next week is so important.”¶ Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!¶ “The bill before the Senate isn’t perfect,” Obama
continued. “It’s a compromise. Nobody will get everything they want — not Democrats, not Republicans, not me. But it is a bill that’s
largely consistent with the principles I’ve repeatedly laid out for commonsense immigration reform.”¶
The president also used his fundraising trip to California to tout the Gang bill. “We’ve seen some hopeful signs
that we can get finally a broken immigration reform system fixed, and I intend to get that done before the end of the
summer,” he told an audience of wealthy donors at a private home in Los Angeles Friday. To accomplish his goal, Obama said, requires the
help of “Republicans who are willing to take what, for them, are some difficult votes and some tough stands.” He singled out GOP Senators
John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Marco Rubio for particular praise.¶ At the same time, Obama urged the defeat of Republicans in Congress. “I have
to say that right now the nature of the Republican Party makes it very difficult for them to engage in common-sense discussions around solving
problems,” he said. “I will get a lot more done with a Democratic House, and I sure need to keep a Democratic Senate.”¶ In a notable aside,
Obama said he doesn’t care if some Republicans support immigration reform solely to improve the GOP’s political prospects. “If I’ve got a
bunch of Republicans who just for purely political reasons decide we’ve got to get right with immigration communities and so we’re going to
pass immigration reform, I’m not concerned about their motives — although I think the folks who so far have stood up are deeply sincere about
what needs to be done — but even if it’s political calculation, I’m game.”¶ So
Obama is jumping into the immigration
debate with both feet . What does that mean? Perhaps his involvement will intensify Democratic support for reform and win over the
few skeptics in his own party. But at the same time, some opponents of reform will likely be happy to see the president become personally
engaged in the issue, on the belief that in the past Obama has actually made his causes less popular by his personal involvement. And at the
least, having Barack Obama out front on immigration reform will intensify the opposition of those Republicans who already have doubts about
the Gang of Eight proposal. From now on, immigration
reform will be a debate with the president playing a major
role.
Obama backing CIR
Munro 6/4
[Neil, White House Correspondent for the Daily Caller, “Obama Pushing for Immigration Bill, Carney
says” The Daily Caller, 6/4/13, http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/04/obama-pushing-for-immigration-billcarney-says/]
President Barack Obama
has been working hard behind-the-scenes to push the far-reaching immigration
law over the finishing line, White House spokesman Jay Carney said today.¶ “The president has been working very
hard on this matter. He’s had numerous conversations with lawmakers in both parties,” he said during the
daily press conference.¶ Previously, White House officials downplayed the president’s role in the immigration debate,
partly because polls show that GOP-leaning voters are more likely to oppose the measure when it is backed by Obama.
Speeches and meetings prove
Viebeck 6/1
[Elise, political pundit for the Hill, “Obama Pushes Congress on Immigration Reform”, The Hill’s Briefing
Room, 6/1/13, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/302897-obama-pushes-congress-onimmigration-reform]
President Obama on Saturday urged
Congress to come to an agreement on immigration reform in order to bolster
his weekly address, the president said that "commonsense" changes to immigration
policy, including a pathway to citizenship, would further the economy's recovery.¶ "There are a lot of reasons to feel optimistic
the U.S. economy.¶ In
about where we're headed as a country," Obama said. "We've just got to keep going."¶ Currently, the House and Senate are engaged in
separate processes that will produce two distinct immigration reform bills.¶ As of this week, House negotiators were still trying to finalize the
details of their reform package. The Senate's legislation will head to the floor in June.¶ Immigration reform would be a victory for Obama, who
was dealt a major blow this spring when the Senate blocked a bipartisan proposal to strengthen background checks for gun buyers.¶
Obama's second-term agenda faces its next big test as the two chambers finalize, then seek to
reconcile, their visions for immigration reform.¶ "We’ve got more doors of opportunity to open for anyone who’s willing to
work hard enough to walk through those doors," Obama said.¶ The remarks also come as several GOP senators prepare
to cross Capitol Hill for a closed-door immigration meeting with House conservatives.¶ That summit, which
will reportedly include Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah), is scheduled for Wednesday. As the first major
bicameral meeting on immigration reform, it would be a major step forward for lawmakers.
White house strategy set
Parnes 5/12
[Amie, White House correspondent at The Hill, “White House Strategy for Winning Immigration Fight
Comes with Some Risks”, The Hill, 5/12/13, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-some-risks]
The White House plans to use an inside-outside game to pressure Congress as it seeks a political victory for
President Obama on immigration reform.¶ The inside game includes meetings with key stakeholder groups, such
as one this week with Asian American and Pacific Islander leaders. In recent days, the meetings have gained steam with
Obama holding at least one meeting per week, according to White House guidance of the president's schedule.¶ It also
includes Obama’s second-term “ charm offensive ” with members of Congress, in which Obama, who needs
an immigration win to help solidify his second term legacy, has used dinner dates and golf outings to engage with his political
opponents.¶ ¶ “We want to make sure we don’t lose any Democrats and work with Republicans to move this forward,” one senior
administration official said.¶ At the same time, Obama is expected to pressure Congress from the outside by
hitting the road in the next few months, one administration official said.¶ Obama will crisscross the country in
the coming months to build public pressure on Congress, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive immigration bill and a path to
citizenship for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
No
Obama on the sidelines
Sarlin 6/11
[Benjy, syndicated political commentator, “Obama: Congress, Get Your Act Together on Immigration,”
MSNBC, 6/11/13, http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/11/president-obama-tells-congress-to-get-its-acttogether-on-immigration/]
For the most part, Obama
has been content to watch the debate from the sidelines in order to give
Republicans political cover to negotiate a bill without tying themselves to the administration. The
White House does have an immigration plan of its own that shares the same general structure as the “Gang of Eight,” which
officials say they intend to introduce as a bill only if talks break down in Congress .
Doesn’t want to risk backlash – Obama’s just paying lip service
Burns 6/12
[Caitlin Huey, political journalist, “Obama Re-Enters Immigration Debate”, Real Clear Politics, 6/12/13,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/12/obama_reenters_immigration_debate__118779.html]
But unlike
his aggressive push for new gun laws earlier this year, the president generally has been
quieter on immigration. He called for comprehensive reform in his inaugural and State of the Union addresses earlier this year, and
did so again in an April speech at the opening of the library for his predecessor George W. Bush, who fought unsuccessfully for similarly
sweeping legislation. Obama kicked off his reform push in Nevada in January.¶ The White House later gave drafts of the president’s own
proposals to a few media outlets, which irked Sen. Marco Rubio and others concerned about tainting the so-called Gang of Eight’s legislative
framework. Obama has also hosted some of the bill’s architects, including Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain, at the White House to
discuss the legislation.¶ “The
president has had to be very careful and have a light touch so he didn’t
associate himself too much with immigration,” Lanae Erickson Hatalsky of the center-left Third Way organization said after
attending Obama’s Tuesday event. But now, she noted, he has little choice but to weigh in: “This week is the time for rubber to hit the road,
Obama’s absence has opened the door for senators with
presumed presidential ambitions (notably Rubio) to curry favor among conservatives. But among some
members of Congress, just the thought of negotiating with the White House is anathema.
and we’re going to see an intense amount of coverage.”¶
X Key
Dems Key
Dems key – fill in GOP shortfall
Fabian 6/10
[Jordan, syndicated political editor, “4 Senate Democrats Who Could Vote Against Immigration Reform”,
ABC, 6/10/13, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/senate-democrats-vote-immigrationreform/story?id=19366041#.UbYje_nqlsk]
You've heard a lot about the Republicans who are standing in the way of immigration reform in the Senate, but
some Democrats may not vote for the bill , either.¶ The Senate will hold its first procedural votes on the Gang of Eight
immigration reform bill this week. For the legislation to avoid a potential filibuster, supporters will need 60 senators to back the
bill.¶ "We got virtually every Democrat. We may miss or lose a handful ," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on
Univision's "Al Punto" this Sunday. "We'll get more than 90 percent of the Democrats. All we need is a little help from the Republicans."¶ But if
the bill's supporters have trouble finding enough Republican backers, they be forced to turn to
undecided Democrats to cobble together the necessary votes.
Dems shaky and key to passage
Bouie 6/11
[Jamelle, syndicated political writer, “Could Some Democrats Vote Against Immigration Reform?”
Washington Post, 6/11/13, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/11/couldsome-democrats-vote-against-immigration-reform/]
Writing for ABC Univision, Jordan Fabian notes that it’s
not just Republicans who might oppose and vote against
comprehensive immigration reform. In the Senate, at least, there are also Democrats who also have
concerns that might lead them to oppose a bill. He names four lawmakers. First is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who
voted against the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill over opposition to its guest worker
program. Even now, notes Fabian, Sanders is weary of bringing in large numbers of foreign workers:¶ “I’m
very dubious about the need to bring foreign unskilled labor into this country,” Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, told The
Washington Post last month. “These are kids, young high school graduates, and the unemployment rate is just extremely high. I do not
understand why they cannot hire those people and need foreign labor.Ӧ Sanders
wasn’t the only senator to vote against
the 2007 bill. Montana Senator Max Baucus and Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor also opposed the Republican-crafted
proposal. Like Sanders, Pryor is concerned about the labor implications of immigration reform — he’s not sure
if the United States should be increasing its number of high-skilled visas. As for Baucus, he opposed a path to citizenship in
2007, and it’s not clear if he’s reversed that position.¶ There’s also Joe Donnelly, the new Indiana senator whose 2010
congressional campaign included a promise to “deport illegals who commit felonies and eliminate amnesty, because
no one should ever be rewarded for breaking the law.” He even voted against the DREAM Act, rejecting what seems to be a
consensus position in the Democratic Party.¶ The advantage of comprehensive immigration reform is that it satisfies a wide
variety of concerns. If you don’t like one provision — the guest worker program, for instance — then you can sign on to the path to citizenship,
or something else. If supporters of immigration reform have been unified on anything, it’s opposition to the piecemeal approach floated by
some House Republicans, in which immigration reform would be broken up and passed in pieces. The problem with this is that as soon as you
disentangle each provision from the other, the coalition for passage falls apart. Keeping reform in one comprehensive package increases its
we shouldn’t assume unanimous Democratic support for an immigration bill. If
comprehensive reform becomes unpopular as the debate over it unfolds and the public focuses on it,
you could also see retreat from red state and vulnerable Democrats. That prospect would become
even more likely if all Republicans, even pro-reform ones in the Senate, end up turning against the proposal,
chances of success.¶ But
which is still in the realm of possibility, if the Senate debate goes in a bad direction. All of which is to
say that the chances of reform passing remain very fragile indeed .
Dems need to compromise
Wagstaff 6/12
[Keith, syndicated senior political columnist, “4 Key Factors that Will Decide Immigration Reform's Fate,”
The Week, 6/12/13, http://theweek.com/article/index/245486/4-key-factors-that-will-decideimmigration-reforms-fate]
4. The
bill's fate also depends on how much Democrats are willing to compromise ¶ While Democrats
certainly have a list of changes they would like added to the bill — including Sen. Patrick Leahy's amendment to allow immigrants
to sponsor their same-sex partners for green cards — their main focus will be on how far they're willing to bend to
get 60 or even 70 votes in the Senate.¶ "I want to get as many votes as we can, but not at the expense of the
basic agreement," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Politico. "When some of my friends announce 70 votes, they create an incentive
for Republicans to dream up things that they either needed in this bill or outside of it. And we need to temper that." ¶ Even if Democrats
can get the votes they need in the Senate, they still have to consider whether the bill will pass the
more conservative House , where partisan arguments have stalled progress on its own immigration bill.
GOP Key
Reps key – number and signal
Dann 6/12
[Carrie, syndicated political writer, “Senate Votes to Begin Historic Immigration Reform Debate,” NBC
First Read, 6/12/13, http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/11/18902366-senate-votes-tobegin-historic-immigration-reform-debate?lite]
A final vote on the legislation is not expected until before the chamber’s July 4 recess. Obama said Tuesday that he wants the bill to his desk by
the end of the summer.¶ President Barack Obama delivers remarks Tuesday at the White House regarding proposed immigration reform
legislation.¶ Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, an outspoken opponent of the bill, acknowledged
after the vote that the bill
likely has sufficient support in the upper chamber but warned that -- without changes -- it won’t
survive to a White House signing ceremony.¶ “This bill is going to pass the Senate, but as written, this bill will
not pass the House ,” Cruz said.¶ Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Gang of Eight member and key GOP backer of the legislation,
told reporters earlier Tuesday he believes the
bill will pass out of the Senate but that it will need substantial
Republican momentum to beat back opponents in the GOP-led House.¶ “If we get just a handful of
Republicans I think it probably dies in the House, so I think it’s imperative we get close to half our
conference ” for a final vote, he said.
Procedural vote proves
Landler 6/11
[Mark, White House correspondent for The New York Times, B.S. International Affairs (Georgetown),
“Obama Backs Bill to Overhaul Immigration as Debate Is Set”, NYT, 6/11/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/with-senate-set-to-vote-obama-makes-immigrationpitch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0]
Republican willingness to weigh significant changes in immigration policy was evident in the 84-to-15 vote
to begin what is expected to be a monthlong debate on the bill, a lopsided majority that comprised 52 Democrats, 2
independents and 30 Republicans. The opponents were all Republicans .¶ Advocates hailed the vote as an encouraging sign for
the measure’s eventual passage. But Senate
veterans warned that the procedural victory did not preclude
Republicans from ultimately rejecting the legislation , which would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million people
who are in the country illegally.
GOP key – strong showing key to success in the house
Kelly 6/3
[Eric, staff writer for Gannett Washington Bureau focused on Arizona and Nevada politics, “Immigration
Bill Faces Tough Path in Full Senate”, USA Today, 6/3/13,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/03/immigration-reform-bill/2376243/]
C omprehensive i mmigration r eform legislation will be debated by the full Senate by June 10, and proponents are hoping to
attract enough Republican votes to create a show of force to House GOP leaders.¶ WASHINGTON — As the
Senate heads back into session Monday, it is poised to take up a sweeping immigration bill that would offer earned citizenship to many of the
11 million immigrants who entered the United States illegally before 2012.¶ Supporters of the bill crafted by the bipartisan "Gang of Eight"
senators guided it to passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee last month while fending off amendments that would have broken apart their
coalition of labor and business groups, Catholics and evangelical Christians, and law enforcement and civil rights' groups.¶ Now,
proponents of the bill face an even tougher challenge : how to lure more Republicans to support the
legislation without alienating Democrats and losing the support of key immigrant rights' groups. ¶ " It's
a balancing act," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration expert and professor of law at Cornell University Law School. "The Gang
of Eight has done a great job so far of walking that tightrope. Now we'll see whether they can
continue to do so on the Senate floor."¶ The Senate is expected to begin debating the bill by June 10. Supporters hope to pass it
before the Fourth of July recess.¶ "The final bill won't be exactly what passed out of the committee," said Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, DVt., who will manage the floor debate on the bill. "The most important thing is to have a path to citizenship for the most people possible in a
way that ultimately benefits and strengthens the United States of America."¶ Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who is one of four Gang of Eight
Republicans along with fellow Arizona Sen. John McCain, said
he is worried about whether the bill can be amended to
pick up enough Republican votes to create a show of force to House GOP leaders. Supporters of the
bill are hoping to attract about 70 votes from the 100-member Senate.¶ "We can pass this out of the Senate,"
Flake said. "The question is, can we get enough votes to convince the House to vote."¶ Flake said he
expects amendments from Republicans on border security and on government benefits and tax breaks for
immigrants who gain legal status.¶ " There is a lot of dissatisfaction among Republicans that the border stuff is
not tough enough, that there are no real triggers," said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a coalition of business
groups. "There certainly are going to be people who are pushing for more teeth, different standards and
meaningful triggers."¶ The bill requires a 90% effectiveness rate for security along the entire Southwest border and prevents
undocumented immigrants who are granted provisional legal status from receiving any federal means-tested public benefits such as welfare or
Medicaid.¶ But conservative
critics don't like the fact that undocumented immigrants would gain
temporary legal status before all of the border requirements have to be met. And some want to deny the newly
legalized immigrants any federal, state or local aid or tax breaks, even when they earn green cards
and become permanent legal residents .¶ "This is a tricky period ," said Frank Sharry, America's Voice, an immigrant
rights group that supports the reform bill. "If they (Gang of Eight senators) go too far in trying to placate Republicans and undermine the parts
of the bill that brought the progressive coalition to the table, they could lose us."
Rubio Key
Rubio key – has ability to sway votes
Barrett 6/12
[Ted, CNN Senior Congressional producer, “Senate Immigration Bill Clears First Hurdle; Debate Begins,”
CNN, 6/12/13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/immigration-senate/index.html]
At the same time, Rubio
-- a popular conservative of Hispanic descent -- has made it clear that border
security requirements must be toughened if he and other GOP skeptics will support it.¶ He is pushing
an amendment that would make Congress, not the executive branch, responsible for deciding if security metrics at the
border have been met before other aspects of the reform bill -- including the pathway to citizenship -- are triggered.¶
Because Rubio's support is so critical , other members of the bipartisan group have hinted they likely
will back his proposal even though they are reluctant to make major changes to their original
compromise.¶ The vote on the Rubio amendment will be one of the most closely watched as floor action unfolds
over the next three weeks.
He’s central and on the fence
Moody 6/13
[Chris, political writer for Yahoo, “Rubio: ‘I’m Done’ If Immigration Bill Includes Gay Couple Amendment”
Yahoo News, 6/13/13, http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rubio-m-done-immigration-bill-includesgay-couple-160223193.html]
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio,
a co-author and key proponent of the Senate immigration bill, said he
will revoke his support if an amendment is added that allows gay Americans to petition for same-sex
spouses living abroad to secure a green card.¶ "If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples
immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill . I'm done," Rubio said Thursday during an interview on the Andrea
Tantaros Show. "I'm off it, and I've said that repeatedly. I don't think that's going to happen and it shouldn't happen. This is
already a difficult enough issue as it is."¶ The amendment, introduced by Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, would grant green cards to
foreign partners of gay Americans. Leahy originally introduced the measure during the Senate Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, but he
withdrew it under pressure from Republican lawmakers who said it would reduce the chance of the bill passing.¶ The
effort underway
in Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration system is a bipartisan one, and its success hinges on
a fragile coalition of political, business and religious groups that span the ideological spectrum .
Opponents of Leahy's amendment have said repeatedly that his proposal would cause some key
groups to withdraw their support and kill the bill. Rubio's exit would be especially devastating to its
survival.
Gets reps on board
Bohan 6/13
[Caren, Domestic Policy Correspondent at Reuters, “Cuban-Americans Rubio, Menendez Battle to be Key
Voice on Immigration Reform”, Reuters, 6/13/13, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/13/cubanamericans-rubio-menendez-battle-to-be-key-voice-on-immigration-reform/]
As the Senate debates the most far reaching immigration bill in a generation, all eyes are on Cuban-American Senator Marco Rubio,
wondering if he might walk away from it.¶ There are concerns that the rising political star from Florida,
crucial to attracting Republican support for the legislation, may decide it doesn’t do enough to
bolster security on the U.S.-Mexico border – a priority for conservatives.
Language amendment proves our argument
Nakamura 6/11
[David, award winning political writer, “Rubio to Offer Immigration Bill Amendment to Strengthen
English Requirements”, Washington Post, 6/11/13, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/postpolitics/wp/2013/06/11/rubio-to-offer-immigration-bill-amendment-to-strengthen-englishrequirements/]
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
wants to strengthen requirements in a sweeping immigration bill that mandate
that illegal immigrants learn English before earning permanent U.S. residency. Under the current bill, immigrants would have to
earn English proficiency or show they are enrolled in a language course. Rubio, a member of the bipartisan group that developed the
legislation, plans to offer an amendment that would eliminate the second provision and require that undocumented
immigrants be able to read, write and speak English before earning a green card.¶ The Senate bill allows
undocumented immigrants to apply for a green card after 10 years and then apply for citizenship three years later.¶ “On the day we announced
the principles that would shape the immigration bill, we made it clear that English proficiency would now be required for permanent residency
for the first time in American history,” Rubio said in a statement. “This
amendment ensures that will be the case.Ӧ
Rubio is considered a key member of the bipartisan group because of his appeal to conservatives, but
he has said recently that the legislation will not earn enough Republican support without changes to
strengthen border security.¶ That has left Democrats and immigration advocates fearful that opponents will lard the bill with too
many roadblocks for immigrants to earn citizenship.¶ “Since the bill was introduced two months ago, the open and
transparent process it has undergone has elicited constructive criticisms to improve it,” Rubio said.
“This is one of the bill’s shortcomings that came to light, which we can now fix .”¶ The Senate is expected to
vote Tuesday on a motion to proceed with the immigration bill, and members on both sides of the aisle are developing a lengthy list of
amendments. Senate leaders have said they hope to hold a vote on the bill before July 4.
Biz/Unions Key
Unions and business key to drum up support – can’t pass without them
Bogardus 6/13
[Kevin, staff Writer on lobbying, business, and labor, “Crunch Time for Lobbyists on Immigration,” The
Hill, 6/13/13, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/305215-crunch-time-for-lobbyists-on-immigrationreform-bill]
Washington’s lobbying powers are bearing down on the Senate in an attempt to push immigration
reform over the finish line. ¶ Business lobbyists, labor leaders and activists of all stripes are swarming Capitol
Hill to ensure that senators don’t turn back
from the biggest overhaul of the nation’s immigration system in decades. ¶ “Starting today, it’s real,” said Ali Noorani, executive
director for the National Immigration Forum. “We have a comprehensive immigration bill going through the amendment process.” ¶ The bill cleared the first hurdle on Tuesday when senators voted overwhelmingly to open debate.
But
the stiffest tests are yet to come , as Republicans push for changes on border security that
Democrats say could sink the bill .¶ Many advocates are focused on securing enough Republican support
to create a filibuster-proof majority, and they are turning up the pressure on senators with a barrage
of events and advertising.¶ “At this point in time, it’s all about getting to 60 votes,” Noorani said.¶ Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate’s Gang of Eight who helped
draft the immigration bill, told law enforcement officials, church leaders and business executives on Wednesday that he would need their help to move
the bill through a gauntlet of amendments.¶ “We still have a lot of work to do. They are five
Republicans committed to this bill — that’s it,” Schumer said.¶ “And that’s where you come in. You have links to
many on the Republican side . ... There’s a whole bunch [of senators] who would like to vote for the bill, and
they are getting a lot of pressure from some in their constituencies to vote ‘no.’ And you are our
antidote to that.”¶ Schumer made the remarks at an event organized by the National Immigration Forum, which has been actively supporting the bill through its “Bibles, Badges and
Business” project.¶ The forum sent more than 100 people to congressional offices on Wednesday to lobby for immigration
reform, providing just one example of how the push has progressed from the secretive, closed-door
talks that senators held earlier this year.¶ Select groups such as by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
AFL-CIO helped negotiate the fine print of the Gang of Eight’s bill in the early stages, and lobbying efforts began
to intensify after the legislative text was released in April.¶ Now that it’s crunch time in the Senate, more groups are
announcing ad buys, organizing fly-in visits to Washington and coordinating rallies on Capitol Hill to
push their priorities.¶ Millions of dollars have already been spent trying to influence the debate. A Kantar Media CMAG study of 2013
television ad buys through June 10 shows that supporters of immigration reform have spent more than $2.4
million, outmatching their opponents by 3-1. Forty-one percent of the supporters’ ads have been in Spanish.¶ Prominent Republicans, including former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, are backing the immigration reform
push.¶ “Please know this is not going to be won in Washington. This is going to be won in your district and in your state,” Barbour said at the same event with Schumer.¶ Barbour will continue to lead the charge. He is scheduled to
appear on a panel hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center on Thursday with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) to tout immigration reform.¶ Other high-profile Republicans figures are also stressing the need for immigration reform.
Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) appeared at a National Association of Manufacturers event on Wednesday to discuss the issue. Economist Doug Holtz-Eakin was scheduled to be there, with Gregory Page, Cargill’s chairman and CEO, joining
Labor unions are stepping up their lobbying as well. In a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, Schumer and Rep. Xavier
Becerra (D-Calif.) spoke to more than 60 local union leaders who were in town to lobby for the Gang of Eight bill. ¶ “Senators are making the key decisions on the
future of immigration over the next couple of weeks, and we want to be here to try to influence
via videoconference from Minneapolis.¶
those decisions ,” said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO’s director of government affairs.¶ The AFL-CIO plans to run online and television
ads in states like Nevada, Alaska and Arizona in support of the Senate bill. Another heavyweight in
labor — the Service Employees International Union — has gone up with a seven-figure advertising
campaign on cable networks.
Key to fundraising and swing republicans
Hesson 6/13
[Ted, Immigration Editor at Fusion, an ABC - Univision joint venture, “Following the Money as
Immigration Reform Heats Up,” ABC, 6/13/13, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/moneyflows-lobbying-ad-buys-immigration-reform-heats/story?id=19393095#.Ub4Urvnqlsk]
Here's how you get the votes to pass immigration reform:¶ Calmly and rationally explain the benefits of revamping our
nation's immigration laws to your congressmen, telling the stories of people whose lives have been dramatically impacted by the way the
current system works.¶ ¶ Oh, here's another way to do it:
spend a ton of money.¶
¶ See Also:
Should We Deport Future Citizens?¶ ¶
With an immigration bill being debated on the Senate floor, the cash continues to flow into lobbying
and ads from both supporters and opponents.¶ ¶ Here's where some of that money is being spent:¶ ¶ Tech Lobbying¶ ¶ We
know big tech companies want to see this immigration reform bill pass, and giants like Microsoft have led
the lobbying on immigration for years .¶ ¶ Now that a bill is moving on Capitol Hill, they're hustling to
make sure business-friendly provisions will make it into the deal. The main goal: more visas for foreign
tech workers.¶ ¶ On Wednesday, Reuters reported that human resources executives from Adobe, Broadcom, Intel and
Motorola Solutions were at the Capitol to meet with lawmakers who might vote for the immigration
plan.¶ ¶ Some of the more intriguing meetings were with uncommitted Republicans, like Mark Kirk (Illinois) and
Rob Portman (Ohio), who they hope to win over to the bill .¶ ¶ In the first three months of the year, seven major tech
companies with a vested interest in immigration spent $13.8 million
on lobbying, USA Today reported in April. Not
all of that went to immigration, but it gives you a sense of the power they wield.¶ ¶ Meanwhile, the National Council of La Raza, a more
traditional immigration reform advocate, spent $80,000 in lobbying.
AFL-CIO especially key – serve as Obama’s muscle
Dinan 5/20
[Stephen, political columnist for the Washington Times, “Labor Union Chief Calls Immigration Bill
Dangerous, Sees Agency as ‘Approval Machine’” Washington Times, 5/20/13,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/union-chief-immigration-billdangerous/?page=all]
The AFL-CIO has put major muscle behind this year’s push for the Senate bill, having negotiated
terms of the legislation’s guest-worker program with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.¶ On a conference call
with reporters this month, Ana Avendano, who works on immigration issues for the AFL-CIO, said the union saw such positive
signs for passage that Mr. Obama should stop most deportations now because the bill likely would give the immigrants legal status.¶
She also disputed a reporter’s characterization of opponents’ efforts to poke holes in the bill, saying
the coalition behind the legislation remains strong .¶ “It’s dangerous to treat the bill as fragile because
it’s not fragile. By treating it as fragile, it really gives the nativists power,” she said.
Reverse causal – collapse of support spills over and wrecks chance at passage
Dinan 5/20
[Stephen, political columnist for the Washington Times, “Labor Union Chief Calls Immigration Bill
Dangerous, Sees Agency as ‘Approval Machine’” Washington Times, 5/20/13,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/union-chief-immigration-billdangerous/?page=all]
That was the same complaint made
by Chris Crane, chief of the union representing agents and officers of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mr. Crane has said the Senate bill would hurt ICE agents’ ability to enforce the law.¶ But the USCIS officers’
opposition could be even more potent . They describe themselves as the “backbone” of any legalization effort — the officers
who will have to review each application and decide whether it meets the standards and whether the person is a security risk.¶
Their
warnings could carry weight with lawmakers worried about a repeat of the amnesty in 1986, when
hundreds of thousands of immigrants defrauded the system. All sides say they want to avoid the same scenario. ¶ Chief among the
USCIS union’s worries is the way the administration has handled President Obama’s non-deportation
policy for “Dreamers” — illegal immigrants who arrived as children and who the Obama administration has said should not be
deported.¶ Last year, Mr. Obama announced a policy titled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that grants a two-year stay of deportation
and work permits.¶ The latest statistics show that the administration is approving almost every application it receives: 99.2 percent of all
applications decided through the end of April, according to numbers released Friday.¶ About 500,000 applications have been submitted in the 8
months the deferred action has been available. Of those, 291,859 have been approved while 2,352 have been denied. The rest are still in
processing.¶ The action is seen as a test-run should Congress pass the Senate’s legalization bill, which would apply to a broad swath of 11
million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the U.S.¶ Mr. Palinkas said the reason so many deferred action applicants are being approved is
because the Obama administration has determined that they don’t need in-person interviews, which “virtually guarantees widespread fraud
and places public safety at risk.Ӧ The Senate Judiciary Committee is working its way through hundreds of amendments to the bill written by
the Gang of Eight.¶ The crux of the bill gives quick legal status to illegal immigrants but withholds the full path to citizenship until the Homeland
Security Department spends more on border security, puts an electronic verification system for workers into place and creates a working entryexit system to check visitors as they come and go at airports and seaports.¶ Obama administration officials cheered the progress from the
sidelines Sunday.¶ “Comprehensive immigration reform is continuing to move forward in the Senate. That’s a really good sign,” White House
Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told CNN’s “State of the Union” program Sunday.¶ The
ICE and USCIS union objections
could become a problem for the AFL-CIO , which enthusiastically embraced the bill this year.
PC
PC Key/A2: Thumpers
Capital is finite and key to immigration – Obama compromising on other fights to
preserve his PC – only plan breaks his strategy
Sanghoee, 13
Sangay Sanghoee, Political Commentator, has worked at leading investment banks as well as at a multibillion dollar hedge fund. He has an MBA from Columbia Business School, Huffington Post, 4/10/13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/compromise-reform-how-oba_b_3055100.html
There is only one thing that President Obama can truly rely on, and that is to get attacked no matter what he does. When he stands up for
Democratic principles, he is criticized by the Republicans for betraying the nation's values. When he tries to be bipartisan, he is criticized by the
Democrats for being weak and a turncoat. It
seems he just cannot win. But he can, and whether his critics realize it or not,
Obama is doing it right now. To understand this, however, it is important to recognize what motivates this particular president.
Some presidents are caretakers. In their view, the best leadership is to make sure that nothing goes terribly wrong and that the ship remains
stable. As long as they do that, they consider themselves successful. But that is not this president. This
president wants to
accomplish something tangible, dramatic, and lasting, and that is to institute reform. Reform in healthcare, reform in
marriage equality, reform in immigration, reform in education, reform in campaign finance, and reform in clean energy. In all these
areas, Obama sees the potential for dramatic change and lasting long-term effects, and that is why he is
willing to go to the mat on these issues. On other things, including Social Security and Medicare, the budget
deficit, and even gun control, he sees less room for dramatic improvement - either because of circumstances or
political reality - and so is more willing to compromise. Is this good or bad? It is neither, really. It is just the nature of this
presidency and perhaps Obama's destiny. Leaders pick and choose their battles based on the nation's circumstances,
unexpected contingencies, and their own instincts. President Obama's instincts led him to fight for healthcare, so he did
- ferociously, and he will do the same for immigration , education, and clean energy. He is being roundly
criticized for proposing a budget that agrees to cuts in Social Security by tying it to a Chained CPI, and for
agreeing to a softer gun control bill than the one his party promised after Newtown, in order to reach compromise with the
Republicans. But what I believe is really happening is that Obama is making some very tough choices.
Political capital is a finite resource and this president will use it where he feels it will do the most
good . We can disagree with him on his priorities, but I also see where he is coming from. Preserving Social Security is important but so is
getting a budget passed and reaching some type of compromise to keep the government running. Gun control is urgent but so are immigration
and education. History
will decide whether the benefits of Obama's reforms on some fronts will outweigh
the costs of his bipartisan compromises on others, but in the meantime, the Democrats should remember that
governing has always been about horse-trading , and that Obama has only a short time left to
address the major facets of his agenda. Obama is prepared to lose a few battles in order to win the
war . That is not being weak or a turncoat. It is being pragmatic and smart . It is also being Presidential.
Thumpers don’t take out the disad – but additional new controversies trigger link and
drain necessary PC
Baker and Benen, 8 (Peter, White House Correspondent for over 20 years, columnist @ NYT, author of the New York Times
bestselling book, The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton (Scribner, co-author, of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir
Putin’s Russia and the End of Revolution, named one of the Best Books of 2005 by The Washington Post Book World, written another book on
the presidency to be published in October 2013 by Doubleday titled Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House, won the Gerald R. Ford
Prize for Distinguished Coverage of the Presidency for his reporting on Bush and the Aldo Beckman Memorial Award for his coverage of
Obama., Steve, American political writer and blogger, an MSNBC contributor, and a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show.. From August 2008
to January 2012, Benen was the lead blogger for the Washington Monthly's "Political Animal" blog.[1] He was the publisher of the political blog
The Carpetbagger Report for five years[2] and was the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report. Benen's articles and op-eds have appeared in a
variety of publications, including the Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post, and the New York Daily News. He has
been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, The Guardian, AlterNet, Political Wire, and Seven Days. He has been a guest on
several radio and television programs, including NPR’s Talk of the Nation,[3] MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC’s The Ed Show,
Current TV's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Air America Radio’s The Sam Seder Show, and XM Radio’s POTUS ‘08.
In July 2009, The Atlantic named Benen one of the top 50 most influential political commentators in the United States.[4]11/9,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015594.php)
During the campaign, Mr. Obama identified many other priorities, like withdrawing from Iraq; talking with Iran; tackling
immigration; closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and renegotiating trade rules with the country's neighbors. Mr. Obama's
transition advisers
studied how past presidents used their first months and concluded that even if various
agencies moved forward in many directions, a new chief executive must husband his time, energy and
political capital for three dominant priorities at most. Several Obama advisers cited Reagan, who
concentrated his early efforts on tax cuts and military spending. But advisers also worry that putting off sweeping
initiatives makes them harder to pass later, when a president's mandate and momentum have faded. They pointed to Mr.
Clinton, who delayed his ultimately doomed health care plan while he passed a deficit reduction package and the
North American Free Trade Agreement. And the pent-up demand from Democrats who waited out the Bush administration will be
enormous.... Mr. Obama recognizes that. In an interview on CNN days before the election, he explicitly ranked his priorities, starting with an
economic recovery package that would include middle-class tax relief. His second priority, he said, would be energy; third, health care; fourth,
tax restructuring; and fifth, education. Using
history as a guide, Obama's team concluded new presidents can invest energy
in, at most, "three dominant priorities." That sounds about right to me, as do Obama's list of priorities. Trying to
do all at once makes it that much more likely that divided attention will produce disappointing
results . Part of the challenge, though, is how and whether the Democratic Congress will follow Obama's lead. As Kevin noted, Dems have
hopefully "learned their lesson from 1993 and can put their egos in check enough to actually take some guidance from the guy in the White
House." There's no practical difference between Obama's vision and that of congressional leaders. The
trick of it is allowing the
president to take the lead in setting the agenda . My sense is Pelosi and Reid will be anxious and cooperate partners. We'll
see soon enough.
PC Key
Obama PC key to rally the public – also balancing means no turns
Landler 6/11
[Mark, White House correspondent for The New York Times, B.S. International Affairs (Georgetown),
“Obama Backs Bill to Overhaul Immigration as Debate Is Set”, NYT, 6/11/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/with-senate-set-to-vote-obama-makes-immigrationpitch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0]
Other experts
said Mr. Obama had learned from hard experience during the health care and budget debates about
the right time to lie low and the right time to insert himself in the process.¶ “There’s no question that the
president has a delicate dance ,” said Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Council. “He’s got to
strike the right tone and the right balance of using the office effectively and not trampling on the
process that’s currently under way.”¶ A senior White House official said Mr. Obama’s involvement was important
because the bill’s success would hinge on winning the support of Hispanic voters , and “there is no
Republican with the credibility to sell this to that community — only the president can.”
PC key to get Dems to compromise and rally support
Burns 6/12
[Caitlin Huey, political journalist, “Obama Re-Enters Immigration Debate”, Real Clear Politics, 6/12/13,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/12/obama_reenters_immigration_debate__118779.html]
Obama has been playing a supporting role this week and he could use his position to push
progressive Democrats to compromise on more controversial elements such as border security and
worker visas. But his speech underscored the tightrope he is walking.¶ “The Gang of Eight folks are
looking for as much leeway as possible, so to the extent the president is talking about the importance
of reform and the major pieces , that’s great and only helps them, ” Erickson Hatalsky said. “But if the White
House is trying to dictate how each one of these smaller arguments about an amendment is going to play out . . . the harder it is for the gang to
do their job.Ӧ Unlike
recent White House events at which he has frequently poked Republicans in the eye,
Obama highlighted the bipartisan nature of the bill and warned those who might try to block or
inundate it with procedural tactics and amendments. Left unmentioned by the president -- but not unremembered by his
former Senate colleagues -- was that as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama cast the deciding vote for just such a “poison pill” amendment,
thereby sinking the 2007 reform bill.
Bully pulpit empirically matters in the context of immigration – analysts
Landler 6/11
[Mark, White House correspondent for The New York Times, B.S. International Affairs (Georgetown),
“Obama Backs Bill to Overhaul Immigration as Debate Is Set”, NYT, 6/11/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/with-senate-set-to-vote-obama-makes-immigrationpitch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0]
While Mr. Obama
speaks about the need to overhaul the immigration system at schools and factories across the
country, the East Room event was his most concerted push for it since he spoke in Las Vegas in January,
around the time a group of Republican and Democratic senators presented a draft framework for legislation.¶ That
speech, analysts
said, drew a positive response from some influential Republican lawmakers , and the White House
appeared to be trying to replicate the experience. But they warned not to overestimate Mr. Obama’s role in the debate
now .It propels it forward , but this has already got a lot of juice,” said Angela Maria Kelley, an expert on immigration at the Center for
American Progress. “In the Senate, there’s a lot of clarity about people’s positions.”
PC crucial to GOP votes – Obama’s careful balancing desired to calm fears and broker
a deal
Johnson 5/30
[Fawn, Immigration correspondent for the National Journal, “Will Obama Immigration Plan Make
History?” National Journal, 5/30/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/willobama-immigration-plan-make-history-20130128]
Everyone with a stake in the outcome fears that a misstep on the part of one political party will offend
the other party and blow up the deal. Two old hands at the debate, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Robert
Menendez, D-N.J., were extremely careful on ABC's This Week on Sunday talking about immigration. McCain said he wanted
Obama's help . Menendez said Obama would work with Republicans . Liberals fear that Obama will be too
If his tone isn’t deferential enough, it could alienate
Republicans whose support is needed for anything to pass. Conservatives fear that Democrats don’t
actually want an immigration reform bill and would rather make Republicans look bad by alienating
Hispanics.
dictatorial when he spells out his immigration reform plan.
PC key to utilize leverage and overcome fights
Landler 6/11
[Mark, White House correspondent for The New York Times, B.S. International Affairs (Georgetown),
“Obama Backs Bill to Overhaul Immigration as Debate Is Set”, NYT, 6/11/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/with-senate-set-to-vote-obama-makes-immigrationpitch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0]
As the Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to begin debating an overhaul of the nation’s immigrations laws, President Obama
offered
a wholehearted endorsement of the bipartisan proposal, which presents him with a chance to reach
the kind of landmark accord with Republicans that has eluded him on the budget and gun violence.¶ For
Mr. Obama, who has picked his shots in the immigration debate to avoid stirring partisan anger on
Capitol Hill, it was a moment of promise and peril. While he threw his weight behind the bill, he conceded that it
would not satisfy all sides and said he anticipated a bruising fight over issues like border security and the path to
citizenship.¶ The president, however, may have more leverage than in previous battles, not least because many
Republicans believe rewriting the immigration laws is critical for the long-term viability of their party given the nation’s
demographic shifts, even if doing so risks alienating parts of their base.
Obama sway key to compromise and wrangling dems
Johnson 5/30
[Fawn, Immigration correspondent for the National Journal, “Immigration: What to Expect for Obama
Term II” National Journal, 5/30/13,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/immigration-what-to-expect-for-obamaterm-ii-20121109]
Obama can’t rely on partisan maneuvers in Congress the way he did to pass health care reform, because some
conservative
Democrats are squeamish on immigration. He will need to offer compromises to Republicans, which
could come in the form of new guest-worker programs or an end to open sponsorship rights for U.S.
citizens to invite foreign family members into the country.¶ Still, Obama will need to make a better show of trying
than he did in his first term.
Back in
2008, he said that immigration was a top priority. Hispanics turned out in
droves to help him win, and then nothing happened. Earlier this year, he created a temporary deferral program for illegal youth to
shield them from deportation, but that is hardly the kind of sweeping change that Latinos and other Democrats are seeking.¶
Obama gets CIR past scandals
Fabian 5/17
[Jordan, Political editor for Univision, “Why Immigration Reform Will Survive Obama's Scandals”, ABC
News, 5/17/13, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reform-survive-presidentobamas-scandals/story?id=19203730#.UbJgKfnqnzw]
Supporters and opponents of the bill believe that the immigration reform effort can make it through
the scandal-obsessed environment in Washington.¶ "I think the conditions are ripe for the
[immigration] bill to make it through. The president's been very helpful. He's been there when we've
asked him to be, he's laid low when we ask him, and I've got no complaints about the president and I
think he can be very helpful getting it over the finish line, " Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of
the Gang of Eight, told Politico. The publication noted that he is one of "Obama's chief Benghazi critics."
Obama key – momentum and addressing opponents
Barrett 6/12
[Ted, CNN Senior Congressional producer, “Senate Immigration Bill Clears First Hurdle; Debate Begins,”
CNN, 6/12/13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/immigration-senate/index.html]
President Barack Obama
and Democrats want to fulfill a promise to Hispanic Americans, the nation's fastest-
growing demographic and a key voting bloc, to address the limbo of the 11 million immigrants living illegally in the country. ¶ A few hours
before Tuesday's vote, Obama tried to build momentum for the proposal at a White House event
Addressing concerns of the measure's opponents ,
Obama emphasized it would increase spending on border security and require undocumented
immigrants to pursue what could be a 13-year path to eventual citizenship.¶ "You have to pass background
where he called it a commonsense approach to fix a broken system.
checks, you have to learn English, you have to pay taxes and a penalty and then you have to go to the back of the line behind everybody who
has done things the right way and have tried to come here legally," Obama said.
Agenda Crowd Out Internal
Agenda crowd out link- 100% commitment to immigration deal now- can’t be seen as
deferential
Ronald Brownstein, a two-time finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of presidential campaigns,
is National Journal Group's Editorial Director 2-4-2013
http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/bush-s-immigration-failure-offersobama-a-lesson-20130204
Already many of the same dynamics are developing, with President
Obama stamping immigration reform as a top priority, a
bipartisan Senate coalition reassembling, a broad outside alliance of support groups coalescing—and most House Republicans rejecting
anything that hints at “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. Yet the contrasts between now and 2006, particularly in the political climate, are also significant.
Understanding both the similarities and the differences will be critical for reform advocates if they are to avoid replicating the disappointment they suffered under
Bush.¶ Presidential
interest was then, as it is now, critical in elevating immigration reform. Since his days as Texas governor,
Bush had courted Hispanics, and—even during the 2000 GOP presidential primary campaign—he strikingly defended illegal immigrants as “moms and dads” trying
to make a better life for their children. Together with his political “architect,” Karl Rove, Bush saw comprehensive reform that coupled a path to citizenship with
tougher enforcement as an opportunity to consolidate the beachhead that allowed him to capture more than 40 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2004 reelection. ¶
But Bush largely looked away when Republicans who controlled the House channeled that impulse in a very different direction. In December 2005, they passed an
enforcement-only bill drafted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, that, for the first time, designated all undocumented immigrants
as felons. (Previously, illegal presence in the U.S. had been a civil, not criminal, violation.) ¶ Initially, debate in the GOP-controlled Senate drifted. Majority Leader Bill
Frist, considering a 2008 presidential bid, pushed his own enforcement-only bill. But amid the backdrop of huge public rallies against Sensenbrenner’s proposal, Sen.
Arlen Specter unexpectedly joined with three other Republicans and all eight Judiciary Committee Democrats in late March to approve a comprehensive plan,
including a path to citizenship, that followed a blueprint negotiated by Sens. Edward Kennedy and John McCain. ¶ When broader Senate agreement teetered over
the terms of legalization, Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez devised a compromise that divided illegal immigrants into three categories, requiring
those here less than two years to leave but allowing those with deeper roots to eventually earn citizenship by paying fines and learning English. After Bush finally
delivered a national address on immigration, a bill embodying that plan cleared the Senate with 62 votes, including support from 23 Republicans.¶ House
Republicans immediately signaled their disinterest by refusing to appoint a conference committee and instead scheduled hearings in border communities to
highlight security lapses. “Border security reigned supreme,” recalls Ron Bonjean, the communications director for then-Speaker Dennis Hastert. “I remember being
in a meeting with … the leadership where pollsters came in and said border security was the key to our reelection.” ¶ Even in 2006, something like the Senate plan
likely could have attracted 218 votes in the House—but not a majority of Republicans. Faced with a collision between his two political imperatives—courting
Hispanics and mobilizing conservatives—Bush blinked, allowing House leaders to replace the Senate bill with enforcement-only legislation, which he signed that fall.
These choices began the GOP’s slide among Hispanics that continues unabated: Hispanic support for Republican House candidates plummeted from 44 percent in
2004 to just 29 percent in 2006, presaging Mitt Romney’s disastrous 27 percent showing among those voters in 2012. ¶ That slippage is one of the two most
important differences in the political environment around immigration between 2006 and today. Back then, as Bonjean notes, hardly any House Republicans argued
that the GOP needed to pass a plan attractive to minorities. But many GOP leaders now see that as self-preservation. “The political imperative has shifted the
tectonic plates,” says Frank Sharry, a key player in the 2006 debate who remains central as executive director of America’s Voice, which backs full citizenship for
immigrants. “Immigration was viewed as a wedge issue for Republicans in 2006. Now it’s viewed as a wedge issue for Democrats.”¶ The “Gang of Eight” proposal
released this week makes it likely that, as in 2006, the Senate will eventually pass a bipartisan immigration bill. Once again, there are probably 218 House votes for
such a plan, but not a majority of the majority Republicans. That raises another key
difference from 2006: Hastert faced little
pressure to consider the Senate bill, because Bush bit his tongue when the speaker buried it. If House Republicans shelve another bipartisan
Senate plan in 2013, they should expect much more public heat, because Obama won’t be as deferential.
Precarious agenda setting key to success- determines future Presidential push
MATTHEW ESHBAUGH-SOHA, T¶ EXAS¶ T¶ ECH¶ U¶ NIVERSITY, “The Politics of Presidential Agendas”
June 2005 http://www.psci.unt.edu/~EshbaughSoha/jun05prq.pdf
scholars have explored the determinants of the president's policy agenda. Light (1099) notes that information, expertise,
and political capital are a premium in the presidents agenda decisions, and that presidents have the most potential to shape
the legislative agenda early in their tenure. He shows how these factors influence the types of policies on the president's agenda, without confirming his inferences through
Two
hypothesis testing (see King 1993). Peterson (1990) also studies the president's agenda. He analyzes the contextual environment and its impact on whether presidents prefer large or small,
and new or old policies. Although he finds that the Congressional environment is important in the president's agenda decisions, seemingly relevant variables such as the federal budget deficit
are statistically insignificant. ¶ The underlying premise of agenda-setting research is that
the president should be able to package policy priorities so
to increase likelihood of their adoption
as
the
. Doing so may require presidents to assess the probability that a proposal will be successful depending on
contextual circumstances, such as Congressional makeup. Nevertheless. Peterson (1990: 20"-08) finds little impact of the contextual environment on presidential policies, bringing into
question the conventional wisdom that presidents can package their agendas strategically to increase their success in Congress (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Edwards 1989). With this in mind, I
rely on agenda-setting and anticipative reactions theories to argue that fiscal and
agenda
political factors should affect the content of the presidents yearly domestic
policy
from 1949-2000. Lacking any readily available data source to test this argument. I also advance a new policy typology that categorizes domestic policies across both time
and importance dimensions. 1 use the number of yearly policies for each policy type (.major, minor, incremental, and meteoric) as dependent variables in four separate analyses. To account
for the yearly changes in the political environment. I offer a time-series analysis of several hypotheses. I argue that
presidents seek to optimize their
domestic policy preferences , and because their success depends on broad legislative cooperation, presidents
anticipate the reaction of Congress and support or propose different policies accordingly in their yearly domestic policy
agendas.1
Controversy Internal
Empirics prove – it’s not just question of capital - forcing votes on highly a
controversial item means they won't be willing to on others - accesses structural
factors and anticipated voter reaction warrants
Katherine Ling and Katie Howell, E&E reporters, 11-2-2010 Katherine Ling and Katie Howell, E&E
reporters
After Obama was inaugurated as president in 2009, House Democrats unleashed a formidable agenda consisting of
a two-month blitz to pass a $787 billion stimulus bill, which passed in February 2009; four months of pushing the cap-and-trade climate bill,
which passed in June 2009; and, finally, an eight-month slog to pass a financial regulation reform bill in December 2009 and a health care
reform bill in February 2010. But
only the stimulus, h ealth c are reform and financial regulation bills made it
through the "wet cement" that is the Senate, as Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has described it. After months of talks,
Senate negotiations on climate came to a standstill this summer as partisan bickering kept the upper
chamber from passing even the smallest of energy bills. Many lawmakers have criticized House leadership
for forcing them to take a hard vote on a cap-and-trade bill without knowing whether Senate Democrats would also be
able to take up and pass the bill. "I frankly don't think the House gave it that much thought. I think they acted on what they thought was an
important initiative at a time when the perception was that the new president and the Democrats in Congress had a lot of momentum," said
Leon Billings, a retired lobbyist and former Democratic Senate staffer who helped write the Clean Air Act in 1970. "It was only later that the
leadership in the House began to realize ... that the Senate was going to become a cemetery rather than a maternity ward," Billings added. "It
took awhile, way too long, for the Democrats in the House, Senate and White House to realize the magnitude of the assault that was going to
be launched by the radical right and even longer to realize that it was going to take a real toll on the country." Frost also blasted Democrats'
costly political oversight, saying the
cap-and-trade vote was "much harder" than h ealth c are.
Delay internal/Now Key
Delay threatens immigration passage
Kelley 6 – 12 [Caroline Kelley, Swamp Land Staff, Can Congress Vote On Immigration Reform Before
Its Vacation?, http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/12/can-congress-pass-immigration-reform-beforeits-vacation/]
The clock is ticking for immigration reform. On Tuesday, President Obama urged Congress to move quickly on the
sweeping reform bill the Senate began debating this week. “There’s no reason Congress can’t get this done by the end of
the summer,” he said. The president’s urgency was reminiscent of the way President George W. Bush pushed for
his own immigration reform package in 2007. Six years ago this Wednesday, Bush visited Capitol Hill to “make a personal appeal” to
Republican senators on behalf of his plan, which included a goal that they vote before Congress’s July 4 recess—the same target recently set for
this year’s Senate reform effort by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.
The Senate couldn’t deliver a vote by July 4 in 2007, however, and Bush’s bill eventually died in the doldrums of summer. Proponents of this
year’s version hope for more success. But, they too face a calendar challenge. Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, says that he “wouldn’t bet a great deal of money on meeting the July 4th deadline” this year.
A significant delay in the Senate could make it harder for the House to vote on immigration reform
before Congress goes on vacation . The House is scheduled to be in session for just 16 days following the July 4 holiday before
lawmakers begin their month-long vacation on August 5th. House Speaker John Boehner has said he hopes the House can vote before then.
Reform advocates worry that if a bill isn’t passed before August, opponents might marshal intense
opposition to it in the media and at lawmakers’ town hall meetings, just as they did with Obama’s health care plan
in the summer of 2009, which threatened to derail that bill. Ornstein thinks immigration reform could survive Congress’s recess, but that the
delay would make passage more difficult.
A2: PC Bad
Obama balancing solves
James 6/11
[Frank, lead political analyst for NPR, “Obama's Immigration Dilemma: Leading While Following”, NPR,
6/11/13, http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/11/190698436/obamas-immigrationdilemma-leading-while-following]
If you want to observe
one of Washington's most delicate balancing acts , look no further than President
Obama's effort to assert leadership on immigration legislation without its coming to be identified as a
new Obamalaw.¶ Because they're keenly aware of how nearly any legislative effort that becomes known as the president's baby almost
immediately makes his political foes hellbent on stopping it and denying him a victory, Obama and other White House officials
have been committed to letting Congress take the lead on major legislation like immigration reform.¶
His challenge is to show just enough presidential leadership on an issue he campaigned on but not so much
that he fires up those opposed to him on general principle, the Senate immigration legislation or both.¶ That's why, at a Tuesday
event at the White House, he seemed to be using a style used to describe his approach to Libya —
leading from behind . The president emphasized that the legislation the Senate is considering isn't his
but the Senate's. True, he supports much that's in it. But he
was speaking not as an author of the legislation, but as a
fan .¶ With a bipartisan array of allies of an immigration overhaul behind him in the White House East Room, representing business,
organized labor and immigrant-rights activists, the president said:
Public sentiment trumps
Brown 6/11
[Carrie Budoff, syndicated political pundit, “President Obama Challenges Opponents on Immigration”,
Politico, 6/11/13, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-challenges-opponents-onimmigration-92576.html]
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told ABC News Monday that
Obama was the “biggest obstacle to passing common sense
immigration reform” because he is insisting on a path to citizenship, which he called “divisive.”¶ Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a
member of the Gang of Eight, rejected Cruz’s analysis Tuesday, saying the Republican has “Obamaphobia.”¶
“ This
is as about as bipartisan as it gets and so to try to make this an Obama-centric issue, this is
about solving a problem that the American people say is past time to fix ,” Menendez said on MSNBC.
No turn – only true pre-legislation
Pace 5/1
[Julie, White House correspondent for AP, “Obama Eyes Higher Profile Role on Immigration”, AP, 5/1,
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-eyes-higher-profile-role-immigration-064939490.html]
At the request of the Gang of Eight, Obama kept a low-profile as the Senate working group set about
the delicate task of crafting a draft bill earlier this year. The potential damage caused by White House involvement was
underscored when a copy of Obama's own draft bill was leaked in February, raising suspicions among
Republicans about his motivations and threatening to upend the effort. But now that the Gang of Eight bill is public and
is winning some Republican support, White House advisers say there's less risk in Obama taking on a
larger public role in the debate too.
Zero uniqueness – most poignant challenge yet
Brown 6/11
[Carrie Budoff, syndicated political pundit, “President Obama Challenges Opponents on Immigration”,
Politico, 6/11/13, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-challenges-opponents-onimmigration-92576.html]
President Barack Obama on Tuesday delivered
his most pointed remarks on immigration reform in months, urging
opponents of a bipartisan Senate bill to get on board with the overhaul effort — or get out of the way.¶ “There is no good
reason to play procedural games or to engage in obstruction just to block the best chance we’ve had in years to address this problem in a way
that’s fair to middle class families, to business owners, to legal immigrants,” Obama said from the White House, flanked by a broad coalition of
Obama made the rare public overture to Congress as the Senate prepared to formally
open debate on the bill Tuesday.¶ Lead negotiators from both parties have asked Obama to maintain a
low profile in the debate, arguing that his direct involvement would make it difficult for Republicans to continue working with Democrats.
Obama has largely complied with that request, steering clear of statements or events that would be perceived as partisan.¶ But
on Tuesday, he edged a little closer to the line , challenging Republicans — although not by name — who have
said that they can’t support the Senate bill because it’s weak on border security or it goes easy on
undocumented immigrants.
reform advocates.¶
PC Not Key
Both sides reeling after 2012 – need passage
Chadbourn 6/16
[Margaret, syndicated political columnist, “Key Republican Senator Says Still Backs Immigration Bill,”
Reuters, 6/16/13, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/us-usa-immigrationidUSBRE95F0CN20130616]
Republicans and Democrats are anxious to tackle immigration reform , after the increasingly
influential Latino vote turned out heavily in favor of President Barack Obama and his Democrats in the November 2012
election.¶ This has not been lost on some Republicans, including South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who
said the immigration bill would decide who wins the White House in 2016.¶ "If we don't pass
immigration reform, if we don't get it off the table in a reasonable practical way, it doesn't matter
who you (Republicans) run in 2016," Graham said on ABC's "This Week" program. "The only way we can get back in the
good graces of the Hispanic community, in my view, is to pass a comprehensive immigration reform."
PC not key – Momentum and 2016 fear
Shear 6/9
[Michael D, Syndicated White House correspondent, “Senate Digs In for Long Battle on Overhaul of
Immigration”, New York Times, 6/9/13, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/politics/immigrationbill-debate-nears-in-senate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]
“The process to date in the Senate and House has been marked by strong bipartisan cooperation ,” said
Denis McDonough, the president’s chief of staff. “Our
hope and expectation is that the momentum will carry over
onto the Senate floor to produce a bill with broad support.Ӧ Yet opposition to an overhaul has become increasingly
vocal. Members of the bipartisan group spent much of last week scrambling to try to shore up Republican support for the bill. Senator Lindsey
Graham, a South Carolina Republican and member of the group, quipped that he had spent much of his time “informing, begging, listening.”¶
The stakes for Republicans, Mr. Graham said, are too high not to try to push an overhaul through. “If
we’re not able to pass immigration reform in 2013 and it’s the Republican Party’s fault, we’re dead in
2016,” he said.
CIR inevitable – GOP interest
Parnes 5/12
[Amie, White House correspondent at The Hill, “White House Strategy for Winning Immigration Fight
Comes with Some Risks”, The Hill, 5/12/13, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-some-risks]
Unlike the recent battle over gun control, the White House is banking on the fact that Republicans
need an immigration win on the heels of the 2012 election.¶ Seventy-one percent of the Latino vote went for
Obama in the 2012 election, compared to 27 percent for Republican Mitt Romney. That’s the lowest percentage for a GOP
presidential candidate in the last three elections.¶ “ That’s what keeps this [issue] separate from the
debate over the fiscal cliff and guns,” said the administration official. “ It’s in their political incentive to get this
done.”¶ High profile Republicans like Jeb Bush—a contender for the 2016 presidential race—have said the GOP
needs a fundamental makeover on issues like immigration. “Way too many people believe Republicans
are anti-immigrant,” Bush declared at the Conservative Political Action Conference annual dinner in March.
Question of Boehner
Polman 6/12
[Dick, Award winning political columnist, “For Republicans, it's Diversify or Die” National Interest,
6/12/13, http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local//item/55960-for-republicans-its-diversify-or-die/]
But immigration
reform will never get to Obama's desk unless the House says yes . The problem is, most
Republicans in that chamber are cocooned in gerrymandered districts where their biggest worry is
being primaried from the right. So is there any way that reform can successfully escape that sinkhole?¶
Well, yes. Speaker John Boehner in theory could contrive to bring reform to a vote even if most of his troops
oppose it . A thin majority can be achieved if House Democrats are allowed to join forces with the
small cadre of rational Republicans. And Boehner seemed to hint at that possibility yesterday , in his
remarks on ABC News: " My job as speaker is to ensure that all members on both sides have a fair
shot ...We're gonna let the House work its will." That way, reform can pass and Republicans might be
saved from themselves.
PC Bad (IL T/)
Obama not pushing now and that allows progress – PC wrecks passage
Bolton 6/12
[Alex, Senate reporter for the Hill, “Senators Urge Obama to Stay on Sidelines of Immigration Debate”,
The Hill, 6/12/13, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/305033-backers-of-immigration-bill-urgeobama-to-stay-on-the-sidelines]
Authors of a Senate immigration reform bill say they do not want
President Obama
to play a more active
role in pushing the legislation.¶ ¶ Members of the Gang of Eight said they are content to have Obama keep his
distance as they scrounge for Republican votes. ¶ “I think he’s played the right role so far, the outside
cheerleader if you want to call it that, that’s been I think useful and effective,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of the bill’s authors,
told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. “As a Republican it would be more difficult were
he out front and pushing this issue.”¶ Obama has kept close tabs on the Senate bill’s progress, but he
has played a restrained role in putting public pressure on lawmakers to vote for it.¶ “He has called us, he
called me just a couple of days ago. He’s called other members going along, and frankly, I think he’s been helpful,” said Flake.¶
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), another member of the Gang of Eight, said Obama has been smart to let lawmakers
handle the negotiations over the bill.¶ “The president obviously wants to pass immigration reform. There’s no question about
he’s been constructive in this process, allowing us to see how far we can get on the
legislation, negotiating it together,” Bennet said. “ I expect us to continue to do that on the floor. If
things could continue the way they’ve been, that would be very positive.”
that. I think that
Full court press derails CIR
Parnes 5/12
[Amie, White House correspondent at The Hill, “White House Strategy for Winning Immigration Fight
Comes with Some Risks”, The Hill, 5/12/13, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-some-risks]
Still, Republicans
warn their party still includes many opponents to reform, and that Obama could pull a
defeat from the jaws of victory with too aggressive an approach.¶ “This battle is going to be won on
the Hill,” Mackowiak added. “The White House has no role to play in that.”¶ Cal Jillson, a professor of political science
at Southern Methodist University agreed, saying Obama has to keep a comfortable distance from the issue. ¶
“It’s a delicate thing because conservatives in the House are allergic to Obama,” Jillson said. “A full court
press might not serve him well so he’s got to figure out exactly what his posture will be.”
Obama push wrecks immigration – alienates GOP
Parnes 5/12
[Amie, White House correspondent at The Hill, “White House Strategy for Winning Immigration Fight
Comes with Some Risks”, The Hill, 5/12/13, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-some-risks]
This outside
pressure, however, comes with some risks for a president who governs over a divided
country.¶ If Obama wants to make progress, some Republicans suggest he should stay out of the immigration
debate
—at least for the time being.¶ “The president engaging is not helpful at this stage,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist.
“Ninety-five percent of Democrats will vote for this. This
is now about how many Republicans he can get. But the
president engaging on this will only make it harder for conservative Republicans to be for it. It’s the
exact reason why [Sen.] Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) hasn’t been going to the White House that much or locking
arms with the president.
History proves PC backfires
Quinton 5/30
[Sophie, staff reporter at National Journal, “The Bully Pulpit Won’t Help Obama Get a Grand Bargain”,
National Journal, 5/30, http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/the-bully-pulpit-won-t-helpobama-get-a-grand-bargain-20121029]
The Obama campaign believes in taking its message to the American people. But
history shows that, when it comes to the
tough issues, use of the bully pulpit can backfire . As Congress faces its toughest negotiating challenge yet, the next
president may want to consider keeping a low profile.¶ The bully pulpit can work when a president
takes advantage of a groundswell of public support that already exists. But when a president takes a
high-profile stance on a controversial issue, it makes it harder for the opposing party to support his
plan .¶ “When you raise the profile of the issues, you also raise the political stakes for members of Congress on
both sides of the aisle. It makes it harder for the members of your own party to oppose you, but it
makes it harder for members of the opposite party to support you,” said Frances Lee, professor of American politics
at the University of Maryland.¶ President George W. Bush launched his second term with a very public push for Social
Security privatization. He got nowhere. In fact, public support declined, Lee said.¶ “We determined that if we were
going to have a chance to get Social Security reformed it was not going to be the kind of thing that we
could just get done, quietly , in Congress,” said Tony Fratto, a partner at Hamilton Place Strategies and former communications
adviser in the Bush White House. The Bush team believed that the public first needed to learn why privatization made sense, Fratto said.¶ “My
instinct would always be to go out and try to educate more” when it comes to complicated issues, Fratto said. But he admitted that an
aggressive communications strategy on such issues hasn’t had the best track record.¶ President Clinton
campaigned all around
the country to try to raise support for his health care plan and failed . The Obama White House tried
everything from speeches and town hall meetings to blog posts and tweets to try to rally the public around health care
reform. The law—which was based on what were initially Republican ideas—was rammed through Congress on a party line
vote. Democrats love it. Republicans despise it.
PC Bad UQ
Just starting to use PC
Sink 6/11
[Justin, staff writer for the Hill, “Obama to Rally Support for Immigration Reform as Senate Weighs Bill,”
The Hill, 6/11/13, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/304609-obama-rallies-support-forimmigration-reform]
The White House has largely removed itself from the immigration debate , instead preferring to allow
congressional negotiators to handle the drafting of the bill. But the president has looked to build
momentum in recent days , as signs emerged that the Senate would soon open floor debate.
Perfect role now – increased pushes trash CIR chances
Fox 6/12
[Lauren, Staff writer specializing in Congressional Affairs, “'Gang of Eight' Pleased Obama Is Laying Low
on Immigration Reform”, 6/12/13, US News and World Reports,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/12/gang-of-eight-pleased-obama-is-laying-low-onimmigration-reform]
President Barack Obama's
legacy among Latino voters may well hinge on the success of the sweeping
immigration legislation before the Senate today. Notably absent , however, are the agenda-pushing tactics that
have become synonymous with his leadership style. The crowd-rousing stump speeches and crosscountry media tours that were staples of his push on gun control, sequestration and health care are
nowhere to be found.¶
Democrats. Even
Instead,
he's left the game-time decisions up to eight men , four Republicans and four
as hundreds of amendments are filed on the immigration bill, Obama has held his
tongue on many of them from border security triggers to provisions requiring immigrants to pay all
back taxes before they are eligible for legal status.¶ And that, the gang of eight says, is intentional, adding it is
his best bet if he wants an immigration bill on his desk before the clock runs out on his second term. "I
think he has played the right role so far, the outside cheerleader," Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told reporters
Tuesday during a breakfast at the Liaison Hotel. "That has been useful and effective. As a Republican it would be more difficult
if he were out front and pushing this issue."¶ Republicans in the gang of eight are finding it difficult
enough to court their GOP colleagues to support a bill that includes a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants who entered
the country illegally. The last thing they need is a Democratic president with few allies on Capitol Hill adding his
touch to a delicately forged deal.
He’s doing what he needs – GOP analysts
Fox 6/12
[Lauren, Staff writer specializing in Congressional Affairs, “'Gang of Eight' Pleased Obama Is Laying Low
on Immigration Reform”, 6/12/13, US News and World Reports,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/12/gang-of-eight-pleased-obama-is-laying-low-onimmigration-reform]
Republican strategists say the president has managed his role in the immigration debate with
political tact that has not always been evident in the Obama administration's governing strategy.¶ "H e has played
this very carefully . He knows that if he pushes for it, the bill will collapse and he will be blamed for it,"
says John Feehery, a GOP strategist and spokesman for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. "He know that if the gang of eight succeeds,
he succeeds."
PC Fails (IL D)
Too late for Obama’s sway
Parnes 5/12
[Amie, White House correspondent at The Hill, “White House Strategy for Winning Immigration Fight
Comes with Some Risks”, The Hill, 5/12/13, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-some-risks]
Even Republicans agree that Obama’s
efforts to reach across the aisle might help pass immigration. But it also might have
come a little too late .¶ “It’s probably leading to more fruitful discussions,” Mackowiak said. “But it’s one of those things
that probably should have happened in his first or second year. You have to plant those seeds, water
it and watch them grow .”
Zero credibility – checkered history
Fox 6/12
[Lauren, Staff writer specializing in Congressional Affairs, “'Gang of Eight' Pleased Obama Is Laying Low
on Immigration Reform”, 6/12/13, US News and World Reports,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/12/gang-of-eight-pleased-obama-is-laying-low-onimmigration-reform]
Complicating the politics for Obama is his checkered history on immigration reform. As a burgeoning young
senator, Obama worked alongside bipartisan immigration power couple Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., to craft a
sweeping immigration bill in 2007 under the direction of President George W. Bush. But he also voted
for an amendment to
weaken a guest worker program at the request of big labor groups during the floor debate. The move
made sense for a junior senator with political aspirations, but many say his vote ultimately killed the momentum all
together.¶ And while he had promised to make immigration reform a top priority of his first term, the
president, once in office, opted to tackle health care first to the chagrin of the Latino allies who had helped put him in
the Oval Office.¶ By the time he sought to legalize immigrants who came to the country as children under
the DREAM Act, he had already burned some of the key Republican bridges he needed to pass a bill for the
Hispanic community.¶ "There have certainly been other instances where he has not held back enough.
During the DREAM Act in his first term, some Republicans saw the bill as a Democratic bill that they
were there to vote against. And they did," says Brent Wilkes, the executive director of LULAC, a nonpartisan Latino group that is
pushing for comprehensive reform.¶ When Obama finally made progress on immigration reform, it was in the
heat of an election year. He issued an executive order to give deferred status to immigrants who entered the country illegally as kids,
angering Republican advocates for immigration reform like Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who was drafting his own plan
Many dismissed his move as pure election-year politicking and accused him of pandering
for Latino votes. But Latinos, put off by GOP nominee Mitt Romney's "self-deportation" rhetoric, came out in droves for Obama. He won
for DREAMers.
75 percent of the Hispanic vote.
Impacts – CIR Good
Turns Case – Mechanism
CIR Turns – Cuban Relations/Engagement
CIR crucial to economic engagement with Cuba – now key
Kayyem 13
[Juliette, columnist at The Boston Globe, writing national security and foreign affairs, “Immigration
Reform after Hugo Chavez,” New York Times News Service, Hawaii Tribune Herald, 3/10/13,
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/commentary/their-views/immigration-reform-after-hugochavez.html]
The United States, which is comprehensively reassessing its immigration policies, has the capacity to
change these hemispheric dynamics in its favor . Our efforts to strangle Cuba economically have served as a
lightning rod for anti-American sentiment, allowing leaders like the Castros and Chavez to mask their own
horrible records of corruption.¶ By eliminating the automatic refugee status granted to Cubans if they somehow reach U.S. soil, we
would stop tempting them to take to the seas in rickety boats and inner tubes on which many lose their lives. We would also put the whole
world on equal footing, determining which refugees are allowed to stay not by whether we like (or don’t like) their country’s leadership, but
whether they have valid reasons to stay, including a fear of political reprisals. It
is time we end a Cuba policy that has sowed
ill will among our southern neighbors and non-Cuban immigrant populations in the United States.¶ At
the same time, we can encourage more exchanges of people, and therefore commerce , between the two
nations. We could then assist Cuba in making the political and economic reforms that we have been
demanding for years. We shouldn’t punish Cuba for taking our advice. A healthier Cuba is only of benefit to the
United States: The U.S. intelligence community has not viewed Cuba as a direct threat to our national security since the 1970s.¶ President
Obama can have his own Berlin Wall moment . With Chavez gone, and Cuba so desperate, we can
shift the relationship between the United States and South America to one of strategic interests
rather than personalities. Chavez is dead. The Castros are exiting the stage. America should move on.
CIR Turns – Latin American Relations/Engagement
CIR is THE issue
Shifter 12
[Michael, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at
Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, “Remaking the Relationship,” Inter-American
Dialogue Policy Report, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
Still another advance
could come through US immigration reform. By better ¶ aligning the supply and demand
for workers in critical industries and opening new opportunities for millions of currently unauthorized
residents, a ¶ more pragmatic migration policy would significantly bolster the US economy . ¶ No other single policy measure would
more clearly demonstrate US commitment to cooperation with Latin America . The comprehensive
reform advocated by both the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations represents the best approach.
More modest
changes, however, could still be helpful
CIR shores up relations and allows extension of U.S. interests into Latin America
Meacham 13
[Carl, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , “U.S.
Immigration Reform: Good for the Americas?” CSIS, 6/13/13, http://csis.org/publication/usimmigration-reform-good-americas-0]
Q3: What
does immigration reform mean for U.S. standing in the region?¶ A3: Latin American people and
their governments are closely following the U.S. immigration debate. This should come as no great surprise, as its
outcome has the potential to affect millions of Latin Americans, their families, and their future
interactions with the United States .¶ C omprehensive i mmigration r eform would be positively received
among Latin American citizens and governments, especially in those countries from which the majority of the U.S.
immigrant population originates. First and foremost, a bill that provides legal status to the 11 million undocumented
immigrants living in the U nited S tates would help to reverse the region’s perception that the U.S.
government treats Hispanics as second-class citizens, acknowledging what many feel is their existing right to U.S.
residency and eventual citizenship.¶ Not unrelated is the effect comprehensive reform would have on the
region’s governments. Because passing the bill would demonstrate the U.S. government’s willingness
to work on issues important to its counterparts throughout the hemisphere—even when those issues stir up
conflict at home—immigration
reform could help redefine perceptions of the United States in the region;
passing the bill would send the message that the U.S. government recognizes the region’s and its
people’s importance in our own prosperity moving forward.¶ Conclusion: Though the political debate surrounding the
issue has been heated, perhaps that is inevitable given the far-reaching implications of reform.¶ And while much of that debate has focused on
border security and the U.S. economy, it is
imperative that we keep in mind the work immigration reform
would do in improving perceptions of the United States and advancing U.S. interests throughout the
hemisphere .
Key to establish a framework for trade and economic relations
Pecquet 13
[Julian, Foreign affairs reporter, “Obama: No 'Senior Partners' in Relationship with Latin America,” The
Hill, 5/4/13, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/297805-obama-no-senior-partners-in-usrelationship-with-latin-america#ixzz2WQkRan00]
“The main message I have is the
United States recognizes that our fates are tied up with your success,”
Obama said at a forum on Inclusive Economic Growth and Development in Costa Rica following his meeting with central American
government leaders. “We don't think there's senior partners or junior partners in that partnership. It's a partnership based on
equality and mutual respect and mutual interests.Ӧ Obama said his administration had two goals to
take full advantage of the growing trade ties between the United States and Latin America, a rapidly
growing region:
c omprehensive i mmigration r eform and joint border security infrastructure projects on both borders.¶ “One of the
arguments that we've made in pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform,” he said, “is that you
can't separate out the dangers or challenges or concerns of a border from the enormous
opportunities that a well-managed, well-regulated border represents."¶ “ Let's make sure we have a
sound system of immigration and customs and regulatory environment in cooperation with Canada and
Mexico. And as much as possible, eases the flow of goods and people and services that are
legitimate.”¶ Throughout his trip, Obama urged Congress to get immigration reform done “this year .” Reform
advocates hope a bipartisan Senate bill will get an overwhelming majority in the coming weeks, creating pressure on House GOP leaders to
bring the bill to a vote despite objections from some conservative Republicans who oppose a pathway to citizenship for the millions of
immigrants in the country illegally.
And its reverse causal – immigration hurts relations
Shifter 12
[Michael, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at
Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, “Remaking the Relationship,” Inter-American
Dialogue Policy Report, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
In the main, hemispheric relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and, ¶ happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred
relations in the past have subsided. But the US-Latin America relationship would profit from more vitality ¶ and
direction . Shared interests are not pursued as vigorously as they should ¶ be, and opportunities for
more fruitful engagement are being missed. Well-developed ideas for reversing these disappointing
trends are scarce . Some enduring problems stand squarely in the way of partnership and ¶ effective
cooperation . The inability of Washington to reform its broken ¶ immigration system is a constant
source of friction between the United ¶ States and nearly every other country in the Americas. Yet US
officials rarely ¶ refer to immigration as a foreign policy issue . Domestic policy debates on ¶ this issue disregard the
United States’ hemispheric agenda as well as the ¶ interests of other nations
A2: Bill Too Limited/Doesn’t Go Far Enough
( ) Even partial immigration reform solves US-Latin American ties.
Shifter ‘12
(Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the
Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
Washington’s failure to repair the United States’ broken immigration system is breeding resentment across the
region , nowhere more so than in the principal points of origin and transit: Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Latin Americans find the idea of building a wall on the USMexico border particularly offensive. Despite bitter political battles over immigration in the United States, there is general agreement about what
sensible reform would include. It combines effective border and employer enforcement, the adoption of a general worker program consistent with labor market
needs in the United States, and a path toward residence and citizenship for the estimated 12 million unauthorized residents living in the country. This package is similar to the reform effort
(unfortunately defeated in Congress) proposed under President George W. Bush. The complicated and divisive politics of the United States, compounded by the weakness of the US economy,
more limited measures such as the Dream Act, allowing children brought to the United States
would not only be welcomed in US Latino communities and in Latin
America, but it would demonstrate that the issue is being taken seriously and with a measure of
compassion in Washington.
have so far blocked this comprehensive approach. But
without appropriate documentation an opportunity to qualify for citizenship,
CIR Turns – Mexican Economic Engagement
CIR a pre-req to economic engagement with Mexico
Condon 13
[Stephanie, syndicated Washington correspondent, “Obama: Immigration Reform Can Help Trade With
Mexico,” CBS News, 5/2/13, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57582650/obama-immigrationreform-can-help-trade-with-mexico/]
Achieving immigration reform will help facilitate the growing economic relationship the U.S. has with
Mexico, President Obama said Thursday in Mexico City.¶ It is unwise "for us to get constantly bogged down on these
border issues," Mr. Obama said in a press conference with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, " instead of... making sure
legal immigration and legal trade and commerce is facilitated ."¶ Mr. Obama said he's "optimistic" immigration reform
will be passed in the United States. "If we're going to get that done, now is the time to do it," he said.¶ The U.S. president stressed, however,
that his three-day trip to Mexico and Costa Rica this week focuses on the critical economic ties between the two countries. The two leaders
today confirmed their commitment to concluding negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. They also established ways in which they can broaden the bilateral economic
partnership between the U.S. and Mexico.¶ ¶ Additionally, the two leaders announced the formation of a bilateral formation on higher
education, innovation and research. They also made commitments on energy security and international relations.¶ "As
Mexico works to
become more competitive, you've got a strong partner in the United States because our success is
shared ," Mr. Obama said, noting that annual trade between the two countries has surpassed $500
billion. Mexico is the second-largest market for U.S. exports, and the U.S. is Mexico's largest
customer.¶ The U.S. has an opportunity to boost Mexico's role on the world stage -- which would, in
turn, benefit the U.S. -- and Mr. Obama commended Pena Nieto for pursuing reforms in areas like energy and labor law.¶ "What I have
been impressed with is the president's boldness in his reform agenda," he said. "He's tackling big issues, and that's what the times demand. We
live in a world that's changing rapidly... We can't be flat-footed as the world advances."
It’s the necessary in-road
Marczak 13
[Jason, director of policy at Americas Society and Council of the Americas, “Immigration Reform Gets
U.S. in on Mexico's Boom,” CNN, 4/18, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/18/opinion/marczak-immigrationthe-new-mexico]
Mexico's future is bright, and tapping into this growth and economic prosperity is vital to U.S. competitiveness. But the U.S.
needs immigration reform to build on its huge bilateral trade with Mexico -- more than $1 billion in goods and
services each day, or $45 million an hour.¶ Mexico's President Enrique Peña Nieto has achieved in less than five months in office what eluded
previous administrations for six years. In the second half of 2013, he hopes to add energy to the improvements in education and
telecommunications that are sailing through under the umbrella of the Pact for Mexico political agreement.¶ Demographic
and
economic transformations in Mexico mean that the U.S. can expect the number of Mexicans coming
into the U.S. to slow to a trickle . Mexicans make up about 58% of the 11 million in the U.S. without authorization.¶ The Pew
Hispanic Center reports zero net migration from 2005 to 2010, with about 1.4 million Mexicans both entering and
leaving the United States. Pew demographers even raise the possibility that the return flow may be
exceeding the number of Mexicans coming north.¶ The reasons for the drop in Mexican migration are a combination of
changes in the "push" and "pull" factors that determine migratory patterns. The decline in the "pull" factor is all too well-known -- it's no longer
so desirable to migrate to the U.S. for jobs.¶ But Mexico's rise also means that going north is a less attractive option for getting ahead in life. Its
economy grew at more than double the rate of the U.S. last year, with a projected 3.5% growth in 2013. Between 2005 and 2008, as noted in
Americas Society and Council of the Americas "Get the Facts" series, the number of new Mexican businesses created each year increased by
27%, which is 2.5 times the G20 average.¶ Over the same period, the number of students in Mexico graduating from advanced university level
programs increased by 11%.¶ 'Guardedly optimistic' on immigration Is immigration overhaul in sight? Rubio all in on immigration plan¶ If the
February education reform, aimed at improving standards to boost the overall quality of education, is successful, more young Mexicans will
have the training to compete in the 21st century workforce. In the past decade, the Mexican middle class grew by 17%, and in just two
generations, the fertility rate dropped nearly 70% -- signaling the end of the youth bulge that contributed to the "push" to the United States.¶
Mexico is a hub of business activity. Despite the insecurity in certain parts of the country, Mexican entrepreneurs and foreign companies are
setting up shop.¶ Guadalajara is fast-becoming Mexico's Silicon Valley with tech entrepreneurs from across Mexico flocking to the capital of
Jalisco state. At the same time, as wages rise in China, firms are relocating their manufacturing options to Mexico, where wages remain
competitive and where products have easier access to the U.S. and Canadian markets through the North American Free Trade Agreement.¶
C omprehensive i mmigration r eform will open a gateway to one of Latin America's fastest-growing
economies. By providing a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants of Mexican
origin, reform will make it easier for laborers to cross borders, which will harness the competitiveness
of both countries. It would also show that the U.S. is a true economic partner with Mexico and the
rest of the Americas .¶ Legal status would open the door for these immigrants and their children to
further increase their contributions to the U.S. economy and to start small businesses that would capitalize
on their cross-border networks. This is a highly likely scenario as immigrants are more likely to start a business
than those born in the U.S., and Mexicans represent the greatest number of foreign-born smallbusiness owners.¶ At the same time, greater emphasis on a demand-driven visa system would create new
ways for workers to enter the U.S. who will be increasingly needed as baby boomers retire. ¶ Also
critical for increasing cross-border trade is improving efficiency at the border. Any new border security plan
should improve infrastructure and technology to reduce the congestion that delays trade. Improved trade means more U.S. jobs,
with 6 million, or 1 in 24 jobs, across 22 states attributed to bilateral commerce .¶ Undocumented immigration will
keep declining as more Mexicans find new opportunities at home. That means the big question for
Congress to consider should be how to ensure that our immigration system helps North American
competitiveness and prosperity , and how the U.S. can attract the workers -- including Mexicans-- it
will need.
CIR unlocks a massive trade and economic agenda
Woodruff 13
[Judy, News anchor and journalist for NPR, “Obama Talks Trade, Security, and Immigration on Trip to
Mexico, Latin America” NPR, 5/2, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/janjune13/mexico_05-02.html]
President Obama
arrived in Mexico City this afternoon to shore up the U.S. relationship with its southern
neighbor and second largest export market.¶ Immigration and security are also on the agenda , as the
president begins his three-day Latin American trip. Shortly after Air Force One touched down in Mexico City this afternoon, Mr. Obama joined
Mexico's new president, Enrique Pena Nieto.¶ PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We
can't lose sight of the larger relationship
between our peoples, including the promise of Mexico's economic progress. I believe we have got a
historic opportunity to foster even more cooperation, more trade, more jobs on both sides of the
border, and that's the focus of my visit.¶ JUDY WOODRUFF: U.S. immigration reform will be a central piece of their
agenda. President Obama wants Congress to approve a plan that would provide visas for seasonal
workers, as well as a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million people now living in the U.S. illegally.¶ More than half
are from Mexico, according to the Pew Research Center. At a November visit in Washington, then president-elect Pena
Nieto voiced support for those proposals. But a key issue for Republicans is stepped-up security along the 2,000-mile shared
border with Mexico and a stop to the flow of drugs, guns and crime.
CIR Turns – Mexican Economy
CIR key to set up clearer border crossings
Woodruff 13
[Judy, News anchor and journalist for NPR, “Obama Talks Trade, Security, and Immigration on Trip to
Mexico, Latin America” NPR, 5/2, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/janjune13/mexico_05-02.html]
JUDY WOODRUFF: But picking up on the economy, what can come out of this meet, Diana Negroponte, that would make things better?¶ DIANA
NEGROPONTE: I would hope that they could reach some private-public partnerships to build access roads on the border.¶ Now, the
border
matters to trade. The border sees trucks and vegetables passing through each day, as well as human beings. But the logjam, the
bottleneck is very bad. So if we can build with private money and public licenses some good access roads, we're going to facilitate
trade.¶ JUDY WOODRUFF: You mean because -- it's tough because of the immigration issues ?¶ DIANA NEGROPONTE: It's
tough because each of those trucks will be examined by the CBP, the Customs and Border Patrol. So that creates
bottlenecks, even though there are 53 points of entry. The volume of trade has quadrupled. We
haven't opened enough border crossings. We need private investment there.
Immigration bill helps even the field
Lees 13
[Kevin, syndicated immigration and politics journalist, “How U.S. Immigration Reform Might Affect
México,” Suffragio, 2/7/13, http://suffragio.org/2013/02/07/how-u-s-immigration-reform-might-affectmexico/]
the larger consequences of immigration reform , taken together with a strengthening Mexican
economy, the government’s enthusiasm for additional foreign direct investment in Pemex, the statecontrolled energy company, and the free trade zone established in 1994 by the North American Free Trade
Agreement among Canada, the United States and México, will be to bring standards of living in México into greater
But
parity with those in the United States .¶ When you think about what a 22nd century México looks like,
it’s not hard to envision a place that is less dissimilar to the United States, which itself will become increasingly
Latino and, especially ‘Mexican.’ In that sense, immigration reform would be one of several tools reducing the
barriers between the U.S. and Mexican culturally and economically.¶ With a GDP per capita of around $15,000 in
México to nearly $49,000 in the United States, it’s clear that México has some catching up to do. But the national
average disguises the relative poverty of the more indigenous southern part of México — parts of the
industrial north, the resort towns on the Caribbean and Pacific coasts, and the Distrito Federal all feature incomes and standards
of living much closer to U.S. standards than the mean figure indicates.
CIR Turns – Mexican Relations
CIR is a central focus
Woodruff 13
[Judy, News anchor and journalist for NPR, “Obama Talks Trade, Security, and Immigration on Trip to
Mexico, Latin America” NPR, 5/2, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/janjune13/mexico_05-02.html]
WOODRUFF: And picking up on that and picking up on the immigration point, Shannon O'Neill, we have seen reports in
the last few days that President Obama, seeing that there's more opposition to immigration reform, there may not be as many undocumented
¶ JUDY
immigrants in this country who -- for whom there will be a pathway to citizenship. How
much is that on the agenda of these
two presidents?¶ SHANNON O’NEIL: Well, they will be talking about this because it's an incredibly important
issue for Mexico .¶ Mexico has some 11 million citizens living in the United States, roughly six million
of those here without papers who are undocumented. And they care . They hope to improve the
rights and abilities of their citizens here. But I don't see the Mexican government wading into the politics here, because they
have seen before the failures of previous big comprehensive immigration reforms. And having the Mexican government or any foreign
government step in what is often seen as a domestic policy issue. We won't see any big public announcements on it.¶ JUDY WOODRUFF: So, do
you see them, Diana Negroponte, basically standing back and just watching with interest?¶ DIANA NEGROPONTE:
They watch very
closely. They follow our immigration debate in detail, but they do not want to interfere because they
have, as a principle, a concept of sovereign noninterference. So we shouldn't interfere in their energy debate.
Immigration reform is the defining issue
San Diego Union-Tribune, November 20, 2002, Wednesday, Pg. B-8
But Mexican President Vicente Fox
continues to bring up migrant reform. He considers it the defining issue in
relations between Mexico City and Washington. "The American side is apparently arguing that security reasons are what is
preventing them from moving forward on the issue," said Fox, in remarks carried by EFE, a news service. "But we think it is just the opposite.
That for security reasons it is a good idea to legalize those Mexicans who work efficiently and productively and contribute to the growth of the
American economy." Jeffrey
Davidow, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, warned last week that Mexico's
preoccupation with migrant reform risks damaging relations with its neighbor to the north. "I do think
that dwelling on the lack of progress is actually counterproductive," he said, in remarks to the Inter-American
Dialogue, a foreign policy group that focuses on issues concerning the Western hemisphere.
Guest worker is critical
Houston Chronicle ‘04
(11-22, Lexis)
The 21-nation summit focused on issues such as North Korea and Iraq, but Bush also sought to mend relations with Latin
America, a region he rarely visited during his first term and where much of the public and their governments have opposed
the U.S. presence in Iraq. Key to thawing relations with Mexico is a guest-worker plan that Fox has lobbied for since
Bush was first elected. Earlier this year, Bush outlined a plan that would allow 8 million undocumented
immigrants to be eligible for temporary legal status in the United States for at least six years, as long as they are
employed. The proposal has been stalled in Congress largely because of opposition from conservative Republicans who fear it
would end up a general amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Turns Case – Impacts
CIR Turns – Hard Power
Immigration reform spurs military tech advances --- key to precise weaponry.
Carafano 7 (James, Ph.D., Deputy Driector – Institute for International Studies and Director of the
Center for Foreign Policy Studies – Heritage Foundation, and Andrew Gudgel, “Nanotechnology and
National Security: Small Changes, Big Impact”, Heritage Backgrounder, 9-21,
http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/09/Nanotechnology -and-National-Security-Small-ChangesBig-Impact)
Nanotechnology is an emerging transformational technology that promises wide and dual-use applications in many fields, particularly national security. The
U nited S tates is the world's acknowledged leader in nanoscience, but stiff international competition is narrowing America's lead. Many other countries, specifically European nations and China, have large,
established nanotechnology initiatives. Most commercial applications of nanotechnology are still nascent. In the near term,
the most promising developments for national security will likely come from government research rather than from the application of commercial off-the-shelf
nanotechnologies. To meet national security needs in the near term, the U.S. government needs to adopt new legislative and policy innovations, including
promoting long-term research, distributing federal grants more widely, and promoting scientific travel and exchanges to maintain a supply of skilled experts.
Over the long term, the government should remove capital and regulatory barriers to lower the cost of
research and emerging technologies and should address safety and environmental issues. What Is Nanotechnology? "Nanotechnology" is derived from "nano," the Greek
word for dwarf. It involves manipulating and manufacturing particles at the microscopic and even atomic levels, between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers. By comparison, a human hair is
roughly 100,000 nanometers wide. Combining the ability to manipulate molecular structures with advances in genomics and other biological sciences has created a wealth of new research
opportunities. By putting these unique properties to work, scientists are developing highly beneficial dual-use products in medicine, electronics, and many other industries that will also
provide enormous defense and homeland security capabilities. These scientific developments are creating new industries. The market opportunities are so substantial that many government
and business leaders describe nanotechnology as "the next industrial revolution." Nanotechnology was incorporated into manufactured goods worth more than $30 billion in 2005, and this
figure is projected to reach $2.6 trillion by 2015.[1] However, since nanotechnology is relatively new, government research is critical for developing applications of this new technology, particularly in the field of national security. A Small Beginning The birth of nanotechnology can be traced to 1981, when Gerd Binning and Heinrich Rohrer, scientists at IBM Research, Zurich,
created the scanning tunneling microscope (STM). The STM was the first instrument capable of performing operations at the atomic scale, such as adding or removing individual electrons to or
from atoms and molecules. It gave researchers the unprecedented ability to change materials "from the bottom up." The two scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics for their invention in
1986.[2] Within a few years, scientists had demonstrated the capability to manufacture nanoparticles. The discovery of fullerines (isomers or molecules of pure carbon that can be manipulated
into unique structures, such as "buckyballs") in 1985 and carbon nanotubes (manufactured one-atom-thick sheets of carbon rolled into cylinders) in 1991 sparked further interest in
nanotechnology. These molecules have novel properties that make them potentially useful in a wide variety of applications, including electronics, optics, and other fields of material science.
They also exhibit extraordinary strength and unique electrical properties. Carbon nanotubes are 100 times stronger than steel at one-sixth the weight, while buckyballs are hollow, making
them well-suited for use as carriers of drugs or other materials.[3] Nanotechnology Today Current commercial nanotechnological products are limited to first-generation passive applications,
such as nanoparticles, coatings, catalysts, and nanocomposites (materials formed from organic and inorganic components at the nanoscale). Products include cosmetics, automobile parts,
clothing, and sports equipment. Research is quickly leading nanotechnology to converge with other fields, including biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science. Using
techniques commonly found in semiconductor manufacture, researchers have created adjustable "quantum dots" by making "wells" and "corrals" on silicon chips where individual electrons
can be trapped and held. The shell of electrons around every atom determines its properties, such as color and electrical conductivity. By filling these quantum corrals with differing numbers
of electrons, researchers can create artificial "atoms" that have the same properties as any element on- or beyond-the periodic table, although these "atoms" are temporary and lack nuclei.
Simply adding or subtracting electrons from these wells changes the type of "atom." Grids of quantum corrals built across the surface of a silicon semiconductor chip would allow the creation
of artificial molecules, which would theoretically allow the entire chip to have-at least on its surface-the physical properties of almost any material imaginable. Some aspects of current
nanotechnology also blur the line with biotechnology. For example, nanoparticles (clusters of tens to hundreds of individual atoms) have been used in medical research to fight diseases,
including cancer. Researchers are also exploring ways to manipulate the genetic code that have tremendous implications in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. A nanoparticle that
encapsulates medication with biomolecules could be designed to bind only to the cells that need the medicine. Such research could also affect other disease research and possibly change the
medical response to national catastrophic disaster.[4] Nanophotonics is another growing field of nanotechnology research. Photonics, which uses light, is the ability to control photons for the
purpose of carrying, processing, storing, or displaying information. Well-known applications of photonics include fiberoptic cable, television screens, computer displays, and laser and imaging
systems. In nanophotonics, scientists control the morphology of materials and, as a result, can now change how a material refracts light. Thus, nanophotonics is not simply the scaling-down of
existing systems, but utilizing physics, functionalities, and design strategies that are different from regular photonics to produce tiny waveguides, microscopes on a single chip, better optical
communications equipment, and chemical and biological sensors.[5] National Security Implications In 2000, the federal government established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to
promote nanotechnology research at the federal level. The NNI is managed by the Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology
Council, an interagency organization of 26 federal agencies that coordinates planning, budgeting, and program implementation among defense and national security stakeholders. This
structure is vital to disseminating information and fostering cross-disciplinary networks and partnerships. Both the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
are NNI members. In addition to funding research, federal support through the NNI provides crucial funds for the creation of nanotech support infrastructure, such as nanoscale research labs,
and for educational resources to develop a skilled workforce capable of advancing nanotechnology. These programs encourage business, including small business, to pursue nanotechnology
Military Applications. All branches of the U.S. military are currently conducting nanotechnology
research, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Army Research Office (ARO), and Air Force Office
opportunities.[6]
of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The Air Force is heavily involved in research of composite materials.[7] Among other projects, the Navy Research Laboratory's Institute for Nanoscience has
studied quantum dots for application in nanophotonics and identifying biological materials.[8] In May 2003, the Army and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened the Institute for
Soldier Nanotechnologies, a joint research collaboration to develop technologies to protect soldiers better.[9] Nanotechnology has numerous military applications. The most obvious are in
materials science. Carbon nanotubes and diamond films and fibers have higher strength-to-weight ratios than steel, which allows for lighter and stronger armor and parts for vehicles,
equipment, and aircraft. Such upgraded military Humvees would better protect soldiers from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and small-arms fire. In another application, adding nickel
nanostrands (ropes of material no wider than a few molecules), which can conduct electricity, could make aircraft more resistant to lightning strikes. The nickel strands also have magnetic
properties that may prove useful in filters and energy storage devices.[10] The U.S. Army is actively pursuing nanotechnology for use in soldiers' uniforms, equipment, and armor. As part of the
planned Objective Force Warrior Soldier Ensemble, the Army hopes to create a uniform that provides flexible armor protection for soldiers' limbs through the use of shear thickening liquids
that solidify when force is applied to them. This would greatly reduce the weight that a soldier must carry. (Current body armor weighs around 25 pounds.) Other features of the planned
uniform include medical sensors, medical treatment capabilities, communications, and individual environmental control for the soldier and integrated thermal, chemical, and biological sensing
Nanotechnology would allow for more precise control of fuel combustion and
detonation of explosives. Explosives and propellants could be constructed atom by atom to optimal particle
sizes and ratios of ingredients so that the materials approach their theoretical limits of energy release.
systems woven into the garment's fabric.[11]
This would lead to smaller, more powerful rockets, propellants, warheads, bombs, and other explosive devices. For slower release
of energy, nanotechnology would allow for more powerful batteries, fuel cells, photovoltaic panels, and perhaps even more exotic methods of generating electrical
power. Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology recently developed piezoelectric fibers, which someday may be used in fabrics that generate their own
electricity, completely eliminating the need for batteries.[12] In electronics, nanotechnology would allow the creation of ever-smaller computers and sensors, leading to integrated
packages that could sense, discriminate, decide, report information, and provide control input to other devices. For example, tires that sense the surface over which they are traveling could
automatically adjust tire pressure to maintain optimal traction. Smart sensors could be used in single-chip chemical and biological agent laboratories that would be smaller, faster, and more
accurate than current testing methods. They could also be attached to miniature disposable sensor platforms, allowing monitoring of a large battlespace at minimal cost, effort, and danger to
soldiers. In the more distant future, combining nanocomputers, sensors, and nanomechanical architectures into one system would make possible autonomously targeted and guided
projectiles, such as bullets and rockets. Nanotechnology could also improve communications and information processing, whether on the battlefield or with the Oval Office, through
microscopic computers, switches, lasers, mirrors, detectors, and other optical and electrical devices. The laws of physics and optics change fundamentally at the near-atomic level. Instead of
being masked by the manipulation of particles on the surface, materials can be changed at the optical electronic level. Materials that display one optical or electronic property at the macro
level may display a different property at the nanometer level. Remarkable mechanisms become possible, such as negatively refractive optics that bend light at angles and in directions
otherwise impossible.[13] Such devices could lead to the development of lenses that focus almost instantaneously and light-bending camouflage that changes as the solider or vehicle moves.
One theoretical and exotic use of nanophotonic materials would be fiberoptic waveguides that actually strengthen the light beams passing through them. These could be used for longdistance, strategic-level communications systems or high-power narrow-beam lasers. With nanophotonics, optical computing, data storage, and signal processing become possible. If the
Defense Department is to remain a leader in exploiting nanotechnology, the Pentagon must ensure that it adequately understands how nanotechnology could be exploited for U.S. security and
competitive advantage. Homeland Security Applications. Only 0.25 percent of the government's 2004 funding for nanotechnology goes to the Department of Homeland Security. This is
inadequate given that nanotechnology could play a major role in advancing the DHS capabilities. Nanomaterials could be used to create highly sensitive sensors capable of detecting hazardous
materials in the air. For example, carbon-based nanotubes are relatively inexpensive and consume minimal power. Other areas of nanotechnology pertinent to homeland security are
emergency responder devices. Lightweight communications systems that require almost no power and have a large contact radius would give rescuers more flexibility. Nanotech robots could
be used to disarm bombs and save trapped victims, reducing the risks to rescue workers. Enlisting the Private Sector In the United States, the commercial nanoscience industry is composed of
traditional industrial sectors, newly formed startups, Fortune 500 companies, and academic research institutions. These groups will play a significant role in future developments of
nanotechnology. The most recent analysis estimates that nanoscience will produce $2.6 trillion in economic output by 2015.[14] The U.S. is currently the global leader in nanotechnology. The
National Nanotechnology Initiative coordinates over $1 billion in annual federal research and grants. Total U.S. public and private spending on nanotechnology research and development
totals about $3 billion annually, or one-third of the estimated $9 billion that is spent worldwide.[15] Global competition in nanotechnology is fierce, and many countries are challenging the
U.S.'s supremacy, specifically in the European Union and Asia. The EU is strengthening its research and development capabilities by promoting partnerships among companies and universities
through its Nanosciences/Nanotechnology Action Plan for Europe. The Chinese government has implemented initiatives that employ over twice as many engineers as are working in nanotechnology in the U.S.[16] Thus, U.S. government-sponsored research is still vital if America is to remain a global leader in the national security applications of nanotechnology. Toward the
Future Congress and the Administration have done much to encourage the development of nanoscience. The challenge is to maintain this momentum, facilitating commercial innovation and
the application of new advances for national security purposes. A few key initiatives would bolster America's global leadership in the science of small things. Smarter Funding. In the near term,
government research and development funds will continue to play a critical role in jump-starting national security innovations in nanotechnology. Congress should continue to provide strong
support for nanoscience research programs in the Department of Defense and other federal agencies that support national security purposes. Big Industry is currently averse to risk and is not
providing the innovations needed for national security. In fact, investments in the private sector have been concentrated in just a few mature nanotech companies. In the first quarter of 2005,
almost all of the venture capital invested in the nanotech industry went to four companies: NanoTex ($33 millon), Nanomix ($17 million), Nantero ($17 million), and NanoOpto ($12
million).[17] The NNI needs to focus grants on the companies willing to pursue national security research. In doing so, however, it must walk a fine line between fostering cutting-edge
technology advances and establishing a form of corporate welfare. Funding of the private sector should be limited to projects with such prohibitive risk and entry costs that companies would
otherwise be unable to pursue them on their own. Interagency Coordination. The DOD recently cited maintaining a consistent vision and stable funding as critical to future nanotechnology
research and development.[18] Although federal agencies continue to coordinate through the NNI, each agency retains full control of its own budget decisions and sets its own research
priorities. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the "NNI is successfully establishing R&D programs with wider impact than could have been expected from separate agency
funding without coordination." Increased coordination within the NNI would produce a centralized list of priorities and leverage resources even more effectively.[19] Reform of Visa
Issuance and Management. Congress needs to promote policies that continue to bring the best and the brightest in nanotechnology to study and work in the United
States. Current
visa policies are making it increasingly difficult to recruit students and scientists and to hold
scientific conferences in the U nited S tates. The nation's security and competitiveness relies heavily on people's ability
to travel to the U nited S tates, but the current visa system is unnecessarily challenging, depriving the U nited
S tates of many of the world's best and brightest scientists, students, and entrepreneurs. Long wait times for
personal interviews are among the most frequently cited factors that make travel to the United States difficult.
CIR Turns – Heg
CIR key to heg- visas solve innovation for hard power and creates linkages that solve
soft power
Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence
Council, is University Professor at Harvard University, 12-10-2012, http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-byjoseph-s--nye#3lbxO0TM6Q8JpxEA.99
CommentsAs a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration
reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful
reform will be an important step in preventing
the decline of American power.¶ CommentsFears about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American
identity are not new. The nineteenth-century “Know Nothing” movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled out for
exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades.¶ CommentsDuring
the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the
American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various
opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored
allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008. ¶ CommentsBoth the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on
American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the population,
with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively. ¶ CommentsBut mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to
master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than
immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.¶
CommentsWhile too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term, immigration strengthens
US power. It is
countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to
keep their population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as
the century progresses, America is one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world
population.¶ CommentsFor example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years,
estimated that at least 83
which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49% over
the next four decades.¶ CommentsToday, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third (after only China and
India). This is highly relevant to economic power: whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation,
immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US. ¶ CommentsIn addition, though studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of
immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled
immigrants can be important to
particular sectors – and to long-term growth. There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for
skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of
Silicon Valley’s technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology
start-ups during the previous decade. Immigrants
or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010
Fortune 500 companies.¶ CommentsEqually important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power.
The fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is
attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet , and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part
because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between immigrants and their families and
friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US.¶ CommentsLikewise, because the
presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries , it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views
of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration
enhances both.¶
CommentsSingapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the
US as the leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of the world and melds them into a
diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lee’s view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the
US.¶ CommentsThat is a view that Americans should take to heart. If
Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he
will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
CIR Turns – Nuclear Deterrence
CIR vital internal link to STEM advances to solve nuclear deterrence
Lips and McNeil 9 (Dan and Jena Baker, Senior Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies
Department and Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for
Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation,”A New Approach to Improving Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math Education,” The Heritage Foundation, April 15,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/04/A-New-Approach-to-Improving-ScienceTechnology-Engineering-and-Math-Education)
Not Just Economics. The shortage of STEM workers is not only an economic problem. Amer
ica's ability to produce a STEMeducated workforce has a direct effect on national security. The U.S. has enjoyed its status as the
dominant scientific power for many decades. But as the economies of China and India have expanded, this position has
fallen dramatically. A 2005 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research indicated that China will produce more "scientific and
engineering doctorates than the U.S. by 2010."[9] The
decrease in America's STEM expertise was stressed in a
Defense Science Board report in 2008, which addressed the coming shortage of nuclear-deterrence knowhow. The report cited the importance of this knowledge, noting that "no threat can put the nation's existence at
risk as quickly and chillingly as nuclear weap ons." The report also emphasized that "a significant part of the
workforce in the national laboratories and production facilities are at or near retirement age"--and
that there simply are not enough stu dents going into STEM fields to fill the void.[10]
CIR Turns – Warming
Solving labor shortages is key to Climate Change R&D
Meija 9 (Robert, Employment Services Manager at South Bay Workforce Investment Board, City
University of New York-Baruch College , “What’s Old is New: Green Jobs & What America’s Federal
Workforce Investment System Can Do Now to Develop a Green Workforce”, 1/14/09,
www.southbayresource.net/articles/whatsoldisnew.pdf, tables, charts, and graphs omitted)
In addition to adaptation, science, technology and innovation may prove to be our greatest allies in
the battle to defeat global warming. A number of promising eco-tech solutions to our
environmental challenges are starting to emerge; they hinge on further r esearch and
d evelopment, access to capital, and accommodating government regulations. Innovations such as Bio-char
(a stable and rich charcoal produced from biomass) for carbon sequestration, improved soil fertility, sustainable (carbon-negative) energy
production, and poverty reduction; the use of algae as an alternative fuel source; and bio- organisms and nano devices that clean up toxic
spills and improve solar technology hold great potential for solving some of the world’s most difficult consumption challenges and
contamination problems. Sustained
advances and U.S. leadership in environmental technologies, not only in
terms of global warming, but in terms of competitiveness, will rely on an expansion of the nation’s knowledge
workforce, with a strong emphasis on green-centered science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Sadly, the U.S.
lags other developed countries in its preparation of technologists, scientists, engineers and
mathematicians. The U.S.’ share of the world’s scientists and engineers is projected to fall from 40 percent in 1975 to 15 percent in
2010.22 This trend must be reversed. As reported by the U.S. Department of Labor on January 15, 2008 in the Federal Register: There is
a broad consensus that the long-term key to continued U.S. competitiveness and growth in an
increasingly global economic environment is the adequate supply of qualified Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) workers capable of translating knowledge and skills into new processes,
products and services. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), scientific innovation has produced roughly half of all
U.S. economic growth in the last fifty years and the STEM disciplines, including those who work in them, are critical engines to that
innovation and growth--one recent estimate, while only five percent of the U.S. workforce is employed in STEM fields, the STEM workforce
accounts for more than fifty percent of the nation’s sustained growth (Babco 2004). The National Academy of Sciences study, Rising Above
the Gathering Storm (2006), argues that: Absent a serious and rapid response, the U.S. will lose quality jobs to other nations; lowering our
standard of living, reducing tax revenues, and weakening the domestic market for goods and services. Once this cycle accelerates, it will be
difficult to regain lost pre-eminence in technology-driven innovation and its economic benefits.23 In Thrive: The Skills Imperative, the
Council on Competitiveness states that: Looking ahead, skills for sustainability could become a key competitive differentiator. As Joseph
Stanislaw has noted: we
are at the very beginning of a global race to create dominant green
economies.(42) Global warming and competition for resources could very well change the ground
rules of globalization-at the very least, the need to reduce carbon footprints and achieve higher
resource productivity could alter corporate calculations about where and how to distribute
operations and assets globally.¶ America could get out in front of this paradigm shift. But it is not clear that the
U nited S tates will have enough talent with the right set of skills, or has even defined the path
forward on skills for sustainability.24¶ To defeat global warming, we must focus on developing
both the intellectual and physical infrastructure of our country. A national campaign to promote STEM education
in environmental technologies, with strong federal financing of community and public sector organizations to provide career and academic
support, will make a difference.
CIR Turns – WTO
Immigration liberalization solves WTO and trade- spills over
Rodrik 7 (Dani Rodrik, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. “How to Save Globalization
from its Cheerleaders”. The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 1 (2), Fall 2007: 1-33.
http://dev.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Rodrick_HowToSave.pdf)
The third paradox is that globalization
remains restricted in precisely those areas where further relaxation of
barriers would yield the greatest economic benefits. Barriers on labor mobility in particular are inordinately
higher than they are anywhere else. It is easy to show that even minor reductions in labor-market barriers
would generate gains that are vastly larger than those from the conventional areas under
negotiation in the WTO and elsewhere . Consider for example a temporary South-to-North labor mobility
scheme that would expand the industrialized countries’ labor force by about three percent (0.03). (The
existing share of immigrants and of foreign-born in advanced country labor markets is about ten percent on average.) Let’s use, as our estimate
of the earnings gap, the figure $17,500, which is Mark Rosenzweig’s estimate (in unpublished work) of the earning premium for a Mexican
worker in the United States. Given a Northern labor force of around half billion (0.5), the net gains generated for nationals of poor countries
would amount to $262.5 billion per annum (0.5 x 0.03 x 17,500). By contrast, current estimates of the gains to developing countries from the
completion of the Doha Round do not exceed $30 billion. The
disparity between these two numbers reflects the fact
that poor countries already have fairly good access to rich country markets where goods are
concerned, but are virtually shut out from Northern labor markets (with only a few exceptions). Many tears
have been shed about the recent demise of the Doha Round. Meanwhile multilateral negotiations on
reducing barriers to labor mobility are not even on the agenda. A recent proposal in the U nited
S tates Senate to institute a temporary guest worker program was eventually killed, alongside the
proposed immigration reform.
Aerospace
2NC
CIR solves aerospace crisis
Garn 13
[Jake, retired U.S. senator, “Welcome the Best and Brightest,” Salt Lake Tribune, 4/6/13,
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56094765-82/system-immigration-reform-america.html.csp]
“It’s no wonder that so many of the world’s best and brightest want in . But what is a wonder is that
we don’t welcome more of them. It’s like we’ve been given not just a single first-round draft pick, but virtually every pick in the
entire first round — yet we make it nonsensically hard for smart, skillful, and entrepreneurial people to come
here.¶ Faced with an immigration system that doesn’t make sense , many of them give up and stay in other
places, rather than bringing their talents to America. That’s not smart for us, and it’s not good for our
economy, especially at a time when we’re still looking for ways to spark growth. ¶ Talk about immigration
reform shouldn’t slip into stale stereotypes. We’re talking about fixing a system that’s keeping out aerospace
engineers and surgeons, architects and accountants, computer programers and microbiologists. We need to fix a system that’s
keeping us from welcoming more people who want to leave Europe because its banks are a mess, or
China because they want to speak their minds, or Russia because there’s more hope here.”
Aerospace decline causes global nuclear war
Pfaltzgraff 10 – Robert L, Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies at. The
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and President of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, et al.,
Final Report of the IFPA-Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy, “Air, Space, &
Cyberspace Power in the 21st-Century”, p. xiii-9
Deterrence Strategy
In stark contrast to the bipolar Cold War nuclear setting, today’s security environment includes multiple,
independent nuclear actors. Some of these independent nuclear weapons states are potential adversaries, some
are rivals, and some are friends, but the initial decision for action by any one of them may lie beyond U.S. control.
The U nited S tates may need to influence, signal, and restrain enemies, and it may need to continue to
provide security guarantees to non-nuclear friends and allies. America may also face catalytic warfare,
where, for example, a U.S. ally such as Israel or a third party such as China could initiate action that might
escalate to a nuclear exchange . Although the U nited S tates would not be a party to the nuclear escalation decision
process, it could be
drawn into the conflict . Compared to a bipolar world, very little is known about
strategic nuclear interaction and escalation in a multipolar world. The U.S. nuclear deterrent must restrain a
wider variety of actors today than during the Cold War. This requires a range of capabilities and the capacity to address specific
challenges. The deterrent must provide security guarantees and assurance sufficient to prevent the initiation of catalytic
warfare by an ally, while deterring an adversary from resorting to nuclear escalation. America may also need simultaneously to
deter more than one other nuclear state.
Deterrence requirements include four critical elements: early warning, C2, delivery systems, and weapons. The Air Force plays
an indispensable role in furnishing the U.S. early warning system in its entirety through satellites and radar networks. In
command and control, infrastructure is provided by the Air Force, including Milstar satellites and, in the future, advanced
extremely high frequency (AEHF) satellites. In the area of delivery systems and weapons, two-thirds of the strategic
triad – intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and bombers – is furnished by the Air Force and its Global Strike
Command.
U.S. Overseas Basing and the Anti-Access/Area-Denial Threat
The increased availability of anti-access/area-denial assets coupled with growing threats to the sea, air,
space, and cyberspace commons are challenging the power projection capabilities of the United States. These
threats, in the form of aircraft and long-range missiles carrying conventional or nuclear munitions, present problems for
our overseas bases. States such as North Korea, China, and Iran jeopardize the notion that forward-deployed
U.S. forces and bases will be safe from enemy attack. Consequently, the United States must create a more flexible basing
structure encompassing a passive and active defense posture that includes these features: dispersal, hardening, increased
U nited S tates must continue to develop long-range,
offensive systems such as low-observable manned and remotely piloted strike aircraft, precision missiles, and intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms to penetrate heavily defended A2/AD environments. This
approach will increase the survivability of U.S. forward-deployed assets and power projection capabilities
and thus bolster deterrence and U.S. guarantees to America’s allies and friends.
warning time of attack, and air defenses. Simultaneously, the
Asymmetric Challenges
The increasing number of actors gaining access to advanced and dual-use technologies augments the potential for asymmetric
attacks against the United States and its allies by those who are unable to match U.S. military capabilities. Those actors pose
increasing challenges to the ability of the United States to project power through the global commons. Such attacks could
target specific U.S. vulnerabilities, ranging from space assets to the financial, transportation,
communications, and/or energy infrastructures, and to the food and water supply, to mention only the
most obvious. Asymmetric attacks denying access to critical networks and capabilities may be the most cost-effective approach
to circumventing traditional U.S. force advantages. The USAF and DoD must develop systems and technologies that can
offset and defend against asymmetric capabilities. This will require a robust R&D program and enhanced
USAF cooperation with its sister services and international partners and allies.
Space Dominance
Space is increasingly a contested domain where U.S. dominance is no longer assured given the growing
number of actors in space and the potential for kinetic and non-kinetic attacks, including ASAT weapons, EMP, and
jamming. As a result, the U nited S tates must protect vital space-based platforms and networks by reducing
their vulnerability to attack or disruption and increasing the country’s
resilience if an attack does occur.
Required steps include hardening and incorporating stealth into next generation space systems and developing rapid
replenishment capacity (including micro-satellite technologies and systems and new launch capabilities). At the same time,
America must reduce its dependence on space capabilities with air-based substitutes such as high altitude, long endurance, and
penetrating ISR platforms. Increased cooperation among the services and with U.S. allies to develop such capabilities will also
be paramount.
Cyber Security
Cyber operations are vital to conducting USAF and joint land, sea, air, and space missions. Given the significance of the
cyber threat (private, public, and DoD cyber and information networks are routinely under attack), the U nited S tates is
attempting to construct a layered and robust capability to detect and mitigate cyber intrusions and
attacks. The USAF’s cyber operations must be capable of operating in a contested cyber domain to support vital land, sea, air,
and space missions. USAF cyberspace priorities include developing capabilities to protect essential military cyber systems and
to speed their recovery if an attack does occur; enhancing the Air Force’s capacity to provide USAF personnel with the
resolution of technical questions; and training/recruitment of personnel with cyber skills. In addition, the USAF and DoD need
to develop technologies that quickly and precisely attribute attacks in cyberspace. Cyber attacks can
spread quickly
among networks, making it extremely difficult to attribute their perpetrator, and therefore to develop a deterrence
strategy based on retaliation. In addition, some cyber issues are in the legal arena, including questions about civil liberties. It is likely that the trend of increased military support
to civil authorities (for example, in disaster relief operations) will develop in the cyber arena as well. These efforts will entail greater service, interagency, international, and private-sector
collaboration.
Organizational Change and Joint Force Operations
To address growing national security challenges and increasing fiscal constraints, and to become more effective, the joint force needs to adapt its organizations and processes to the exigencies
of the information age and the security setting of the second decade of the twenty-first century. This entails developing a strategy that places increased emphasis on joint operations in which
each service acts in greater concert with the others, leverages capacities across the services (two land services, three naval services, and five air services) without duplicating efforts, and
encourages interoperability. This would provide combatant commanders (CCDRs) with a greater range of capabilities, allowing heightened flexibility to use force. A good example of this
approach is the Air-Sea Battle concept being developed jointly by the Air Force and Navy, which envisions heightened cooperation between the two services and potentially with allies and
coalition partners.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capabilities
There is an increasing demand for ISR capabilities able to access and persist in contested airspace in order to track
a range of high-value mobile and hard-to-find targets, such as missile launchers and underground
bunkers. This increases the need for stealthy, survivable systems and the development of next-generation unmanned
platforms. The USAF must continue to emphasize precision targeting, both for strike and close-air-support missions.
High-fidelity target identification and discrimination enabled by advanced radars and directed-energy systems,
including the ability to find, track, and target individuals within a crowd, will provide battlefield commanders with
improved options and new opportunities for leveraging joint assets.
Engagement and International Security Cooperation
Allies and coalition partners bring important capabilities from which the USAF and other services have long benefited. For example, allies and coalition partners can
provide enhanced situational awareness and early warning of impending crises as well as assist in understanding the interests, motivations, traditions, and cultures
of potential adversaries and prospective coalition partners. Moreover, foreign partner engagement and outreach are an avenue to influence partner and adversary
perspectives, thus shaping the environment in ways favorable to U.S. national security interests. Engagement also may be a key to realizing another Air Force and
joint priority: to sustain or gain access to forward operating bases and logistical infrastructure. This is particularly important given the growing availability of A2/AD
assets and their ability to impede U.S. power projection capabilities.
Procurement Choices and Affordability
The USAF needs to field capabilities to support current operations and pressing missions while at the same time pursuing promising technologies to build the force
of the future. Affordability, effectiveness, time urgency, and industrial base issues inevitably shape procurement choices and reform. The Air Force must maintain
today’s critical assets while also allocating resources to meet future needs. Given the long lifespan anticipated for many weapon systems, planners need to make
the most reliable cost estimates and identify problems at the outset of a weapons system’s development phase so that they can be corrected as early and costeffectively as possible.
Support to Civil Authorities
As evidenced in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquakes in Haiti and Chile (the Chile earthquake hit after this conference), the
USAF has a vital role to play in the U.S. response to international relief operations and support to civil
authorities. In Haiti, the USAF reopened the airport and deployed contingency response elements, while also providing ISR
support for the joint forces in the theater. In Chile, USAF satellite communication capabilities were critical to the recovery and
relief efforts. USAF civil support roles are likely to grow to include greater use of the Reserve Components. Consequently, USAF
planners should reassess the active and reserve component mix of forces and capabilities to identify potential mobilization and requirement shortfalls.
CLOSING CONFERENCE THOUGHTS
A recurring conference theme was the need for the USAF to continue to examine specific issues of opportunity and vulnerability more closely. For example, a future initiative could include focused working groups that would
examine such questions and issues as:
• How can air, space, and cyberspace capabilities best support deterrence, preserve U.S. freedom of action, and support national objectives?
• How should the USAF leadership reconceptualize its vision, institutional identity, and force posture to align as closely as possible with the future national security setting?
• What is the appropriate balance between high-end and low-end air and space capabilities that will maximize military options for national decision makers, given emerging threats and fiscal constraints?
• What are the opportunities, options, and tradeoffs for investment and divestment in science and technology, infrastructure, and programmed capabilities?
• What are additional interdependent concepts, similar to Air-Sea Battle, that leverage cross-service investments to identify and foster the development of new joint capabilities?
• What are alternative approaches to officer accessions and development to support shifting and emerging Air Force missions, operations, and force structure, including cyber warfare?
• How can the USAF best interact with Congress to help preserve or refocus the defense-industrial base as well as to minimize mandates and restrictions that weigh on future Air Force investments?
Finally, the USAF must continue to be an organization that views debate, as the Chief of Staff of the Air Force put it in his opening conference address, “…as the whetstone upon which we sharpen our strategic thinking.” This
debate must also be used in pursuit of political support and to ensure that the USAF maintains and develops critical capabilities to support U.S. national security priorities. The 38th IFPA-Fletcher Conference on National Security
Strategy and Policy was conceived as a contribution to that debate.
Almost a century has passed since the advent of airpower and Billy Mitchell’s demonstration of its operational potential with the sinking of the Ostfriesland on July 21, 1921. For most of that time, the United States has benefitted
from the rapid development of air and space power projection capabilities, and, as a result, it has prevailed in successive conflicts, contributed to war deterrence and crisis management, and provided essential humanitarian relief
to allies and friends around the world. As we move into the second decade of the twenty-first century, the U.S. Air Force (USAF), like its service counterparts, is re-assessing strategies, operational concepts, and force structure.
Across the conflict spectrum, security challenges are evolving, and potential adversaries–state and non-state actors–are developing anti-access and other asymmetric capabilities, and irregular warfare challenges are becoming
more prevalent.
The potential exists for “hybrid” warfare in which state adversaries and/or non-state actors use a mix
of conventional and unconventional capabilities against the U nited S tates, a possibility made more feasible
by the diffusion of such capabilities to a larger number of actors. Furthermore, twenty-first-century security
challenges and threats may emanate from highly adaptive adversaries who ignore the Geneva Conventions of war and use
military and/or civilian technologies to offset our military superiority.
As it develops strategy and force structure in this global setting, the Air Force confronts constraints that will have
important implications for budget and procurement programs, basic research and development (R&D), and the
maintenance of critical skills, as well as recruitment, education, training, and retention. Given the dynamic
nature of the security setting and looming defense budget constraints, questions of where to assume risk will demand bold,
innovative, and decisive leadership. The imperative for joint operations and U.S. military-civilian partnerships is clear,
underscoring the need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach that encompasses international and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
THE UNITED STATES AS AN AEROSPACE NATION: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
In his address opening the conference, General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), pointed out how,
with its inherent characteristics of speed , range , and flexibility , airpower has forever changed
warfare. Its advent rendered land and maritime forces vulnerable from the air, thus adding an important new dimension to
warfare. Control of the air has become indispensable to national security because it allows the U nited
S tates and friendly forces to maneuver and operate free from enemy air attack. With control of the air
the U nited S tates can leverage the advantages of air and space as well as cyberspace. In these
interdependent domains the Air Force possesses unique capabilities for ensuring global mobility ,
long-range strike , and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ( ISR ). The benefits of airpower
extend beyond the air domain, and operations among the air, land, maritime, space, and cyber
domains are increasingly interdependent .
General Schwartz stated that the Air Force’s challenge is to succeed in a protracted struggle against elements of violent
extremism and irreconcilable actors while confronting peer and near-peer rivals. The Air Force must be able to operate with
great precision and lethality across a broad spectrum of conflict that has high and low ends but that defies an orderly
taxonomy. Warfare in the twenty-first century takes on a hybrid complexity, with regular and irregular elements using myriad
tools and tactics. Technology can be an enabler but can also create weaknesses: adversaries with increased access to space and
cyberspace can use emerging technologies against the United States and/or its allies. In addition, the
U nited S tates faces
the prospect of the proliferation of precision weapons, including ballistic and cruise missiles as well as
increasingly accurate mortars, rockets, and artillery, which will put U.S. and allied/coalition forces at
risk
. In response to mounting irregular warfare challenges American leaders have to adopt innovative and creative strategies. For its part, the USAF must develop airmen who have the creativity to anticipate and plan for this challenging environment. Leadership, intellectual
creativity, capacity, and ingenuity, together with innovative technology, will be crucial to addressing these challenges in a constrained fiscal environment.
System Versatility
In meeting the broad range of contingencies – high, low, regular, irregular, and hybrid – the Air Force must maintain and develop systems that are versatile, both functionally (including strike or ISR) and in terms of various employment modes, suc h as manned versus remotely piloted, and
penetrating versus stand-off systems. General Schwartz emphasized the need to be able to operate in conflict settings where there will be demands for persistent ISR systems able to gain access to, and then loiter in, contested or denied airspace. The targets to be identified and tracked
may be mobile or deeply buried, of high value, and difficult to locate without penetrating systems. General Schwartz also called attention to the need for what he described as a “family of systems” that could be deployed in multiple ways with maximum versatility depending on
requirements. Few systems will remain inherently single purpose. Indeed, he emphasized that the Air Force must purposefully design versatility into its new systems, with the majority of future systems being able to operate in various threat environments. As part of this effort further
joint integration and inter-service cooperation to achieve greater air-land and air-sea interoperability will continue to be a strategic necessity.
Space Access and Control
Space access, control, and situational awareness remain essential to U.S. national security. As potential rivals develop their own space programs, the United States faces challenges to its unrestricted access to space. Ensuring continuing access to the four global commons – maritime, air,
space, and cyberspace – will be a major challenge in which the USAF has a key role. The Air Force has long recognized the importance of space and is endeavoring to make certain that U.S. requirements in and for space are met and anticipated. Space situational awareness is vital to
America’s ability to help evaluate and attribute attacks. Attribution, of course, is essential to deterrence. The USAF is exploring options to reduce U.S. dependence on the Global Positioning System (GPS), which could become vulnerable to jamming. Promising new technologies, such as
“cold atoms,” pseudolites, and imaging inertial navigation systems that use laser radar are being investigated as means to reduc e our vulnerability.
Cyber Capabilities
The USAF continues to develop cyber capabilities to address opportunities and challenges. Cyber threats present challenges to homeland security and other national security interests. Key civilian and military networks are vulnerable to cyber attacks. Preparing for cyber warfare and
refining critical infrastructure protection and consequence management will require new capabilities, focused training, and greater interagency, international, and private sector collaboration.
Challenges for the Air Force
General Schwartz set forth a series of challenges for the Air Force, which he urged conference participants to address. They included:
• How can the Air Force better address the growing demand for real-time ISR from remotely piloted systems, which are providing unprecedented and unmatched situational awareness?
• How can the USAF better guarantee the credibility and viability of the nation’s nuclear forces for the complex and uncertain security environment of this century?
• What is the way ahead for the next generation of long-range strike and ISR platforms? What trade-offs, especially between manned and unmanned platforms, should the USAF consider? How can the USAF improve acquisition of such systems? How can the USAF better exploit the
advantage of low-observables?
• How can the Air Force better prepare itself to operate in an opposed network environment in which communications and data links will be challenged, including how to assure command and control (C2) in bandwidth-constrained environments?
• In counter-land operations, how can the USAF achieve improved target discrimination in high collateral damage situations?
• How should the USAF posture its overseas forces to ensure access? What basing structure, logistical considerations, andprotection measures are required to mitigate emerging anti-access threats?
• How can the Air Force reduce its reliance on GPS to ensure operations in a GPS-denied environment?
• How can the USAF lessen its vulnerability to petroleum shortages, rising energy prices, and resulting logistical and operational challenges?
• How can the Air Force enhance partnerships with its sister services and the interagency community? How can it better collaborate with allies and coalition partners to improve support of national security interests?
These issues were addressed in subsequent conference sessions. The opening session focused on the multidimensional and dynamic security setting in which the Air Force will operate in the years ahead. The session included a discussion of the need to prioritize necessary capabilities and
to gauge “acceptable risks.” Previous Quadrennial Defense Reviews (QDRs) rested on the basic assumption that the United States would be able to support operations simultaneously or nearly simultaneously in two major regional contingencies, with the additional capacity to respond to
smaller disaster-relief and/or stability operations missions. However, while the 2010 QDR1 maintains the need for U.S. forces to operate in two nearly simultaneous major wars, it places far greater emphasis on the need to address irregular warfare challenges. Its focus is maintaining and
rebalancing U.S. force structure to fight the wars in which the United States is engaged today while looking ahead to the emerging security setting. The
QDR further seeks to develop flexible and tailored capabilities to confront an array of smaller-scale contingencies, including natural disasters, perhaps simultaneously, as was the case with the war in Afghanistan, stability operations in Iraq, and the Haiti relief effort.
The 2010 QDR highlights important trends in the global security environment, especially unconventional threats and asymmetric challenges. It suggests that a conflict with a near-peer competitor such as China, or a conflict with Iran, would involve a mix, or hybrid, of capabilities that
would test U.S. forces in very different ways
. Although predicting the future security setting is a very difficult if not an impossible exercise, the 2010 QDR
outlines major challenges for the
U nited S tates and its allies, including technology proliferation and
diffusion; anti-access threats and the shrinking global basing infrastructure; the possibility of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) use against the U.S. homeland and/or against U.S. forces abroad; critical infrastructure protection
and the massed effects of a cyber or space attack ; unconventional warfare and irregular challenges; and
the emergence of new issue areas such as Arctic security , U.S. energy dependence , demographic
shifts and urbanization, the potential for resource wars (particularly over access to water ), and the
erosion or collapse of governance in weak or failing states .
TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION
Technology proliferation is accelerating. Compounding the problem is the reality that existing multilateral and/or
international export regimes and controls have not kept pace with technology, and efforts to constrain
access are complicated by dual-use technologies and chemical/ biological agents. The battlefields of the future are
likely to be more lethal as combatants take advantage of commercially based navigation aids for precision guidance and
advanced weapons systems and as global and theater boundaries disappear with longer-range missile systems becoming
more common in enemy arsenals. Non-state entities such as Hezbollah have already used more advanced missile systems to
target state adversaries. The proliferation of precision technologies and longer-range delivery platforms puts the United States
and its partners increasingly at risk. This proliferation also is likely to affect U.S. operations from forward operating locations,
placing additional constraints on American force deployments within the territories of allies. Moreover, as longer-range ballistic
and cruise missiles become more widespread, U.S. forces will find it increasingly difficult to operate in conflicts ranging from
irregular warfare to high-intensity combat. As highlighted throughout the conference, this will require that the United States
develop and field new-generation low-observable penetration assets and related capabilities to operate in non-permissive
environments.
PROLIFERATION TRENDS
The twenty-first-century security setting features several proliferation trends that were discussed in the opening session. These
trends, six of which were outlined by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., President of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and
Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, framed subsequent
discussions.
First, the number of actors–states and armed non-state groups–is growing, together with strategies
and capabilities based on more widely available technologies, including WMD and conventional weapons.
This is leading to a blurring of categories of warfare that may include state and non-state actors and encompass intra-state,
trans-state, and inter-state armed conflict as well as hybrid threats.
Second, some of these actors subscribe to ideologies and goals that welcome martyrdom. This raises many questions about
dissuasion and deterrence and the need to think of twenty-first-century deterrence based on offensive and defensive strategies
and capabilities.
Third, given the sheer numbers of actors capable of challenging the United States and their unprecedented capabilities, the
opportunity for asymmetric operations against the United States and its allies will grow. The United States will need to work to
reduce key areas of vulnerability, including its financial systems, transportation, communications, and energy infrastructures, its
food and water supply, and its space assets.
Fourth, the twenty-first-century world contains
flashpoints for state-to-state conflict. This includes
North Korea , which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iran , which is developing them. In addition,
China is developing an impressive array of weaponry which, as the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command stated in
congressional testimony, appears “designed to challenge U.S. freedom of action in the region and, if necessary,
enforce China’s influence over its neighbors – including our regional allies and partners’ weaponry.”2 These threats
include ballistic missiles, aircraft, naval forces, cyber capabilities, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, and other powerprojection capabilities. The global paradigm of the twenty-first century is further complicated by state actors who may supply
advanced arms to non-state actors and terrorist organizations.
Fifth, the potential for irregular warfare is
rising dramatically with the growth of armed non-state
actors. The proliferation of more lethal capabilities, including WMD, to armed non-state actors is a logical
projection of present trends. Substantial numbers of fractured, unstable, and ungoverned states serve as breeding grounds
of armed non-state actors who will resort to various forms of violence and coercion based on irregular tactics and formations
and who will increasingly have the capabilities to do so.
Sixth, the twenty-first-century security setting contains yet another obvious dimension: the permeability of the frontiers of the
nation state, rendering domestic populations highly vulnerable to destruction not only by states that can launch missiles but
also by terrorists and other transnational groups. As we have seen in recent years, these entities can attack U.S. information
systems, creating the possibility of a digital Pearl Harbor.
Taken together, these trends show an unprecedented proliferation of actors and advanced capabilities confronting the United
States; the resulting need to prepare for high-end and low-end conflict; and the requirement to think of a seamless web of
threats and other security challenges extending from overseas to domestic locales.
Another way to think about the twenty-first-century security setting, Dr. Pfaltzgraff pointed out, is to develop scenarios such
as the following, which are more illustrative than comprehensive:
•A
nuclear Iran that engages in or supports terrorist operations in a more assertive foreign policy
• An
unstable Pakistan that loses control of its nuclear weapons, which fall into the hands of
extremists
• A Taiwan Straits crisis that escalates to war
•A
nuclear North Korea that escalates tensions on the Korean peninsula
What all of these have in common is the indispensable role that airpower would play in U.S. strategy
and crisis management .
Brink Evidence
Even if aerospace high collapse looming
-Government cuts
-Changing demands
-Aging base
Painter 13
[Kristen Leigh, Economics journalist at the Denver Post and Reuters, “Brookings Institute Study Finds
Colorado Aerospace Ahead, but Changing”, 2/5, Denver Post,
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_22519683/brookings-institute-study-finds-coloradoaerospace-ahead-but]
The Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings
Institution released detailed findings Tuesday from a new study on
about "disruptive changes" on the
horizon that could threaten the state's dominance in the sector.¶ "We do feel it is a moment of urgency ,"
said Mark Muro, senior fellow and policy director at the Metropolitan Policy Program. "A lot of forces at work are going
to require new thinking and new business models and new ways of doing things."¶ While the report
affirms Colorado's strength as an aerospace center — with its 66,000 direct employees and $16 billion in sales in 2011 — it warns against
complacency.¶ The¶ study suggests that the state protect its base — which is predominantly military and civil
contracts, such as those from the U.S. government and NASA — while broadening its definition of aerospace to include
adjacent markets.¶ The disruptive changes are forecast to come from more nontraditional, privatesector sources. First, the industry will continue to see a changing customer base.¶ Colorado has been
acutely aware of the federal government's budget crisis and its impact on defense spending, but the
Colorado's aerospace economy — a study that applauds the state's strength but cautions
study suggests a flat-lined federal budget is the new normal .¶ A recent study by the Metro Denver Economic
Development Corp. found that the region has the strongest concentration of aerospace anywhere with 4.5 times the national average. But job
growth in this high-paying industry has seen a 3 .8 percent decline over the past five years, which officials
attribute to diminishing government funds.¶ The second disruptive market trend is changing
government preferences that lean toward more commercial business models, such as fixed-price,
product-based and customer-focused¶ approaches.¶ The third market shift relates to an aging
workforce that is expected to leave a skills gap at a time when rapid innovation is increasingly
crucial .
There’s a demographic crisis– now key to reverse it
Lombardo 13
[David A., Undergraduate and graduate degrees in aerospace education from the University of Illinois,
syndicated author on aviation and aerospace, “Industry To Address Looming Technician Shortage”, 1/30,
AIN Online, http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainmxreports/2013-01-30/industry-addresslooming-technician-shortage]
As the economy slowly improves, the industry is again experiencing a shortage of technical
personnel, and many MROs are finding that the demand for service exceeds their capacity to provide it.
Chicago-based AAR has gone on the road recruiting for 200 technical positions in the Duluth, Minn. facility, and Premier Aviation of TroisRivieres, Canada, is also feeling the pinch.¶ ¶ “It’s a challenge for the aviation industry these days. Everybody’s advertising for people and the
pool is getting smaller and smaller ,” said Dave Diggle, Premier Aviation vice president of marketing, sales and service. “We’re
not looking for [just] a handful of people. Given the opportunity to take on a significant number of people, we would hire them.Ӧ
Concerned about the lack of technical talent in aviation, from pilots to mechanics, Aviation Workforce Development (AWD)
and the Professional Aircraft Maintenance Association will host the Aviation Workforce Think Tank. Both AWD and PAMA believe
that the U.S. aviation and aerospace industries must act now to retain their leadership positions on
the world stage . As older workers move toward retirement or into different fields, new workers
search to develop their careers, and incumbent populations hope to regain employment.
Sequestration wrecks aerospace
-Already spurred uncertainty
-Stifles investment
-Loss of revenue
Bellamy 13
[Woodrow, syndicated aerospace columnist, “Sequestration Delayed, Aerospace Industry Awaits Next
Congressional Action”, 1/4, Avionics Today,
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/Sequestration-Delayed-Aerospace-Industry-Awaits-NextCongressional-Action_78171.html#.USbVbqWTxTI]
President Barack Obama signed the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 into law Wednesday, raising taxes on top earning
Americans and avoiding the worst effects of the “fiscal cliff.” But the bill provided no final action on sequestration, and the
cuts would have even more impact if they do start in March because they would have to be squeezed
into a shorter time period.¶ ¶ The aerospace and defense industry is still left with a feeling of
uncertainty going forward, especially because of the potential of the cuts to delay NextGen, the
modernization of the nation’s air transportation system that so many aerospace stakeholders have an
interest in.¶ ¶ “If sequestration is not solved in the next 57 days, it would be an abdication of responsibility by the leaders of this country,”
said Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) President and CEO Marion Blakey, reacting to the delay of sequestration. “According to reports,
the Pentagon will be forced to send furlough notices to its 800,000 civilian employees if Congress fails
to deal with this ill-conceived policy. Those notices will inevitably become layoff notices if nothing is
done.”¶ ¶ Lockheed Martin CEO Marilyn Hewson recently echoed Blakey’s position, saying the delay of sequestration “ stifles
investment in plant, equipment, people and future research and development essential to the
future health of our industry .”¶ ¶ The aerospace industry had warned in the last few months of the year that the
fiscal cliff and sequestration
could have a devastating impact on the industry
IL – CIR K2 Aerospace
Visas must fill the gap in aerospace industry
Redorbit 8 (Science, Tech, and Space News Agency, “Aerospace Industry Faces Coming Worker
Shortage”, 3-4,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1281235/aerospace_industry_faces_coming_worker_shortage/)
As the large baby boom generation retires over the next decade , the aerospace and defense industries will be
particularly hard hit, and industry officials worry there are not enough qualified young Americans to take the place of
these retiring Cold War scientists and engineers. As of last year, nearly 60 percent of U.S. aerospace workers were 45 or older,
according to an Associated Press report. The problem could carry national security implications , and significantly reduce the
number of commercial product developments that begin with military technology. Although there are two-and-a-half times the number of
engineering, math and computer science graduates as there were 40 years ago, there is also more competition for these graduates. Defense
companies must now compete with leading technology companies such as Google, Microsoft and Verizon. "It's about choices," said Rich
Hartnett, director of global staffing at Boeing Co., in an Associated Press interview. "There are so many more options today with a proliferation
in the kinds of degrees and career paths that people can follow." But despite the industry’s efforts to emphasize the appeal and growing
importance of careers involved in national defense, Aerospace Industries Association Chief Executive Marion Blakey is concerned the U.S.
could be facing a "wake-up call," similar to the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik, the world's first satellite. Blakey said China's
recent success in shooting down one of its own satellites last year, combined with the upcoming retirement of the U.S. space shuttle fleet,
demonstrate that the U.S. can no longer afford to take its technological and military superiority for granted. Blakey
formerly served as head of the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition to fierce competition for a limited number of technical experts from
all corners of corporate America, contractors working on classified government projects are further held back due to
restrictions on hiring foreigners or off-shoring work to other countries. "The ability to attract and retain individuals with
technical skills is a lifeblood issue for us," said Ian Ziskin, corporate vice president and chief human resources and administrative
officer for Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp. Ziskin told AP that he estimates roughly half of Northrop Grumman's 122,000 workers
will be eligible to retire in the next five to 10 years. Similar trends exist at Lockheed Martin Corp., of Bethesda, Md., which could lose
up to half of its 140,000 workers to retirement over the next decade.
IL – Aerospace K2 Airpower
Strong aerospace industry key to airpower
-Designs
-Transportation
-Repairs
Lexington Institute 13
[Public policy think tank, “America Is A Superpower Because It Is An Air Power”, 1/24,
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/142016/air-power-makes-america-asuperpower.html]
Finally, the
U.S. is the dominant air power in the world because of its aerospace industrial base.
Whether it is designing and producing fifth-generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35, providing an
advanced tanker like the new KC-46 or inventing high-flying unmanned aerial systems like the Global
Hawk, the U.S. aerospace industry continues to set the bar . In addition, the private and public parts of
the aerospace industrial base, often working together based on collaborative arrangements such as performance-based
logistics contracts, is able to move aircraft, weapons and systems through the nationwide system of depots, Air
Logistics Centers and other facilities at a rate unmatched by any other nation. The ability to rapidly repair or overhaul
aircraft is itself a force multiplier , providing more aircraft on the flight line to support the
warfighters.
Libya proves strong aerospace industry crucial – Allows diversity
AIA 13
[Aerospace Industries Association, “New Deadline for Sequestration”, Second to None,
http://secondtonone.org/category/fighters]
As the Libyan air conflict runs into its fourth month, U.S. airpower remains crucial to the fight. According to one expert, “without significant U.S.
assistance, NATO would not have been able to initiate the air campaign and the Alliance’s air armada would be grounded today.” According to the New York Times,
“the
United States is supplying much more firepower than any other country.Ӧ This is because U.S.
aerospace defense capabilities are so varied and unique. While fighter jets like the F-16 and the Navy’s EA-18G growlers often
grab the headlines, the Libyan operation has also employed B-1B and B-2 Spirit bombers, A-10 and AC-130
attack planes, and a barrage of jammers, refueling tankers, and manned and unmanned
reconnaissance aircraft – even the venerable U-2 has made an appearance in the conflict. Armed drones
have also joined the fight, allowing even the most heavily guarded targets to be reached without risk to U.S. or NATO pilots, and the opening salvo in
the operation was an onslaught of roughly 200 cruise missiles, all but 7 supplied by the United States .¶ As Washington debates significant
cuts to our aerospace defense budget, the diversity and potency of U.S. air power at work in Libya is
a compelling reminder of what is at stake .
A2: Resiliency
No resiliency – cuts are piling up
Tiron 11
[Roxana, economics reporter for Bloomberg, “Aerospace Association Chief Says Defense Industry Is
Fragile”, 9/14, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/aerospace-industries-says-defenseindustry-is-fragile.html]
The head of the Aerospace Industries Association described the U.S. defense industry as “ fragile ” as
it heads into a period of tighter budgets .¶ AIA Chief Executive Officer Marion Blakey, speaking in Washington, said Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta has a “very clear” focus on protecting the defense industry.¶ The trade group, which represents manufacturers such as
Boeing Co. (BA), United Technologies Corp. (UTX) and Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), has launched a campaign to stave off cuts in the national
security budget as a special congressional committee seeks to find $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction throughout the federal government.
Company executives met with Panetta yesterday.¶ Blakey
said she expects about $460 billion in cuts to the Pentagon
budget over the next decade. Her calculations include $78 billion already planned by the previous defense secretary, Robert Gates,
and expected national security cuts from $350 billion mandated under the Budget Control Act to as much as $400 billion found through a
Pentagon review.¶ “That
is simply more than we can sustain ,” Blakey said today at an industry conference
in Washington. “ Defense has already cut to the bone ” under the pending efforts to reduce the
deficit, she said.
No reversibility
Hess 12
[David P., president of Pratt & Whitney, “The Aerospace Industry Under Sequestration:
Bracing for Cuts, Seeking Long-Term Commitments”, 7/19, Remarks for House Aerospace Caucus,
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/Hess_Remarks_House_Aerospace_Caucus_AS_DELIVERED.pdf]
Everyone seems to agree that sequestration is a bad idea, but someone still has to figure out how to defend the country after it takes effect.¶
We will continue to ask the Air Force, for example, to project forces over great distances. This is ¶ a
resource-intensive strategy, yet the resources simply won’t be there. In response, Air Force ¶ leaders have said they
will be forced to fly fewer missions.¶ In the event of a major security threat, the Administration says we can just reverse
course and ¶ regenerate the capabilities that have been lost to budget cuts. ¶ The only problem is that
there is no mechanism for short-term “reversibility” on the industry¶ side. In an industrial base
already made fragile by years of steep cutbacks , that if you add ¶ sequestration re-hiring, reinvesting, re-tooling and realigning resources becomes so daunting ¶ that it challenges the defense
infrastructure that has provided a foundation for American ¶ security since World War II.¶ Reversing
the impact of sequestration will take years, not months . We shouldn’t put ourselves ¶ in a situation where we are trying
to come from behind in terms of the resources we need to ¶ execute our national security strategy.¶ Air Force Secretary Michael
Donley says the approach of simultaneously fighting a hot war, ¶ reducing spending and preserving the
industrial base is something that “hasn’t been tried ¶ before.” ¶ Hey, I’m all for trying new and interesting ideas, but
maybe this is one approach we shouldn’t ¶ try at all.¶ The industrial base under sequestration will be less capable of
supporting our national security ¶ strategy, will create fewer jobs and contribute less to the country’s economic prosperity.
Accumulation of setbacks means this times’ different
Rodriguez 12
[Arsenin, director of Business Consulting Extended Solutions, EMEA, at Infor, “Aerospace and defence”,
9/24, Business Excellence, http://www.bus-ex.com/article/aerospace-and-defence]
The aerospace and defence sector is typically very resilient to economic downturns. Long product
development and production programmes, and an often predictable order pipeline, help the industry maintain a more stable business when
compared with other discrete manufacturing sectors.¶ But
a number of factors , including increased variability in civil
aviation orders, budget cuts in government defence spending, the rise of new competitors from
emerging markets, and new regulations governing materials and energy efficiency, are threatening
the resilience of the sector. A combination of these challenges are leading aerospace and defence
companies to rethink their business strategies in the light of better business efficiency, rationalisation, and performance.
A2: Native Workers Solves
Native workers won’t fill the skill gap left by worker shortages – visas key
Nguyen 8 (Dr. Bao, Consultant in the Technology Service Area – Deloitte Consulting, “Tomorrow's
workforce: the needs for immigrant workers and strategies to retain them”, Entrepreneur, Summer,
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/180402412.html)
In addition, a recent report on the aerospace industry indicated that 26% of aerospace workers will be eligible
to retire in 2008. (19) The average aerospace production worker is 53 years old, and the average aerospace
engineer is 54 years of age. According to another report, there were seven working-age people for every
person 65 and older in the United States in 1950. Currently the ratio of workers to retirees is five to one,
and by 2030 it will be three to one. Moreover, in about 15-20 years the working age native population
will actually begin to decline to a lower number than that of the current work force. (20) Lack of Skilled
Workers To make the matter worse, prospects for replacing retiring workers with younger individuals who
have equal and greater skills do not look promising . As global competition continues to intensify, American
workers will increasingly need to acquire new skills and aptitudes. America faces a crisis in the workplace as the
gap widens between the inadequate skill level of the nation's emerging workforce and the higher-skill needs of
the changing workplace. Based on his own review of the literature, Chell reported that 60% of the new jobs
in the early 21st century will require skills that are today possessed by only 20% of workers. Making up this skills
gap will be a big challenge for American workers and employers. Chell also predicted that by 2010, as many
as 300,000 jobs will be taken abroad because of the lack of appropriately skilled workers in this country.
Moreover, Chell mentioned that the National Association of Manufacturers, along with the Center for
Workforce Success, had released survey results showing that 60% of manufacturers typically reject
between one-half and all applicants as unqualified, 62% manufacturers reported that job applicants
have inadequate technical skills, and one-third reported that job applicants have inadequate reading or
writing skills. (21) Although businesses and industries have been sounding the alarm for years, young
people in America are still leaving high school and college without the basic skills they need to become viable
new employees. Now, many of them are further handicapped because they do not know how to learn
whatever new skills their jobs may require in the future. (22) The rise of new industries has also meant
the rise of new jobs. Knowledge-based jobs requiring postsecondary, vocational, or higher education
have grown as a share of total employment. Atkinson pointed out that there were fewer than 5,000
computer programmers in America in 1960 and more than 1.3 million in 1999. Managerial and
professional jobs have increased as a share of total employment from 22% in 1979 to 28.4% in 1995.
Overall, there is an increasing realization across the nation that firms in a wide range of industries face
serious problems hiring workers with needed skills. Education and skills are increasingly becoming the
ticket to upward mobility and increased earnings. (23) The Need for Immigrant Workers Companies rely on
immigrants to meet the need for skilled workers. (24) By definition, immigrants can be classified into two
major groups: legal and undocumented. This article is limited to a discussion of the former group, which
itself can be divided into smaller groups of foreign-born people who have U.S. citizenship and of those
who are not citizens but hold visas that permit them to live and work in this country legally. Ramsey has
pointed to immigrants as a pool of talent that could to be tapped to meet the workforce challenges. Most
leading supervisors also support the trend because foreign workers bring many valuable traits to the
workforce such as skills, work ethic, pride, ambition, new ideas, and loyalty. (25) According to Potter,
not only have immigrants workers provided willing labor to fill the gaps at the lowest skill level, they have
also provided an important resource to meet the growing demand for highly skilled, college-educated managers,
technical specialists, and professionals. For instance, in March 2000, foreign-born workers accounted for a
total of 4.4 million (36.5%) of the 12 million persons in the labor force who were age 25 and older and
who had less than a high school diploma. In the same period, foreign-born college graduates accounted
for 12.3% of the 37.5 million college graduates in the U.S. workforce. (26)
Air Power Good – Econ
Aerospace key to heg
Lexington Institute 13
[Public policy think tank, “America Is A Superpower Because It Is An Air Power”, 1/24,
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/142016/air-power-makes-america-asuperpower.html]
There is no question that the United States has the best military in the world . The United States is
unique in its ability to project military power to multiple regions of the world simultaneously, conduct
multiple major combined and joint operations at a time and both defend the homeland and provide ongoing support to civil agencies. ¶
Europe, which spends about sixty percent of the U.S. defense budget and actually has more men and women in uniform, was
unable without significant U.S. support to conduct a single, modest campaign in Libya. The U.S. military
continues to set the world standard with respect to most major military systems: nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, large deck amphibious warfare ships, nuclear
attack submarines, strategic bombers, fifth-generation fighters, air and missile defenses, tanks and armored fighting vehicles and space and airborne ISR. Even
though we don’t talk much about it the military’s cyber warfare capabilities are truly impressive. ¶ While the U.S. has the best ground, naval and amphibious forces
in the world,
one thing makes it a 21st Century superpower: its dominance as an air power. The United
States alone is capable of deploying its aerial assets anywhere in the world. U.S. air power can hold at risk
any target set in any country and can do so from multiple directions. The U.S. Air Force is the only one capable of
delivering specially-designed conventional bombs large enough to destroy deeply buried and
hardened structures. ¶ Over the past two decades, the U.S. military has repeatedly demonstrated that it
can destroy an adversary’s air force and air defenses in a matter of weeks . After that, hostile ground units
were toast. The ability to rapidly seize control of the air means that no soldier has died in an air
attack since 1953 . Over a decade of wars, American air power from the land and sea provided continual responsive
fire support for tactical units on the ground. ¶ Other nations have fighters and bombers, although America’s are the best . The U.S.
also has the largest and most capable fleets of air transports, refueling aircraft and airborne ISR
assets in the world. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Air Force flew soldiers and heavy armor deep into Iraq to seize a critical target, the Haditha Dam. Since
2001, the Air Force has maintained a continuous air bridge to Afghanistan, more than 8,000 miles from CONUS. U.S. C-17 transports are today flying French troops
and equipment into Mali. ¶ The
U.S. Navy has a fleet of fixed wing transports, the C-2 Greyhounds, specifically for the
purpose of moving parts and people to and from its aircraft carriers. The United States has crafted an
ISR and strategic warning capability based on a sophisticated array of satellites, manned platforms
and unmanned aerial systems. ¶ Dominant air power is about much more than just platforms and
weapons. It requires also the trained people and processes to plan and manage air operations, process,
exploit and disseminate intelligence, identify targets and plan attacks, move supplies and route transports and repair and maintain complex systems. The U.S.
had to send hundreds of targeteers to NATO to support the Libyan operation. Over decades, the U.S.
military has developed an unequalled training establishment and set of ranges that ensure the
highest quality pilots and other personnel. ¶ Finally, the U.S. is the dominant air power in the world because of its aerospace industrial
base. Whether it is designing and producing fifth-generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35, providing an advanced tanker like the new KC-46 or inventing highflying unmanned aerial systems like the Global Hawk, the U.S. aerospace industry continues to set the bar. In addition, the private and public parts of the aerospace
industrial base, often working together based on collaborative arrangements such as performance-based logistics contracts, is able to move aircraft, weapons and
systems through the nationwide system of depots, Air Logistics Centers and other facilities at a rate unmatched by any other nation. The ability to rapidly repair or
overhaul aircraft is itself a force multiplier, providing more aircraft on the flight line to support the warfighters. ¶ The
U.S. military can go where
it is ordered, respond rapidly to the crisis of the moment, move men, equipment and supplies around
the world and dominate any place on the face of the earth as long as it desires because it is dominant
in the air. As the Pentagon, Congress and the White House struggle with budget issues that could well require deep cuts to the military, they would be well
advised to remember that it is air dominance that enables this country to remain a superpower .
Solves global nuclear wars
Arbatov 7 (Alexei, Member – Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor – Russia in Global Affairs, “Is a
New Cold War Imminent?”, Russia in Global Affairs, 5(3), July / September,
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html)
However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in reality)
difficulties
and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage to both parties and
international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many
Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are supported by NATO. Another flash point
involves Ukraine. In the event of Kiev’s sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently sanctioned by the U.S. Congress), such a
move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the West to refrain from interfering.
Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to withdraw from the INF Treaty and
resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar missiles in Europe, which would
dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russia’s strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This could make the stage for nuclear
confrontation even tenser. Other “centers of power” would immediately derive benefit from the growing Russia-West standoff, using it in their
more advantageous positions in its economic and
political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf
own interests. China would receive an opportunity to occupy even
region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would
hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear
Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will
jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used
in a regional conflict will increase
significantly . International Islamic extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents
the reverse side of globalization. The situation in Afghanistan , Central Asia , the Middle East , and
North and East Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant separatism, trans-border crime and
terrorism will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving disarmament
treaties (the N on- P roliferation T reaty, the C onventional Armed F orces in E urope Treaty, and the
C omprehensive Nuclear T est B an T reaty) will collapse. In a worst-case scenario, there is the chance
that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch against territories or space satellites of one or several great
powers with a view to triggering an exchange of nuclear strikes between them . Another high probability is
the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one or several major capitals of the world.
Air Power Good – Iran Prolif
Air power collapse causes Iranian prolif
Bartels 9
[Clay, Major, USAF, “How The USAF Can Lose The Next War Losing Air Superiority,”
Aprilhttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a540193.pdf]
Iran is another hot spot that could require intervention by the United States. Though Iran currently flies
antiquated western aircraft with a mix of Russian technology, reports have been confirmed that Iran has contracted for
the advanced SA-20 SAM system.72 With a potentially strong oil market and the desire to assert
regional power, Iran is likely to continue upgrading their military defense capabilities throughout the
timeframe of the air superiority gap. If Iran obtained a nuclear weapon or if acquiring it was
imminent, the international community would require action. For the U.S. in particular, nuclear proliferation is
not acceptable because of its destabilizing effect. Depending on the timing of this scenario, it is possible that the U.S. Navy
would have the preponderance of firepower in the region. Additionally , it is likely that a more independent Iraq would not
allow attacks from their country on neighboring Iran. The fixed wing strike aircraft for the USN consists entirely of F-18
Hornet variants. It does, however, have additional capability via the Tomahawk cruise missile. The issue in this situation becomes
that the Navy does not have a true LO strike aircraft until the F-35 is operational. Thus, the potential
joint task force could run into the same access issues discussed in the Georgia example. The easy answer to this problem is to
utilize Air Force assets, but these land-based forces require basing or over flight assistance. If this is denied, the mobile USN might
have to go it alone. Again, this air superiority scenario could end with significant aircraft losses and
eventual defeat for the United States.
Global nuclear war
Sokolsky 3
[Henry, Exec Dir – Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Policy Review, 10-1, Lexis]
If nothing is done to shore up U.S. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states and with
Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt, Iran's acquisition of even a nuclear weapons breakout capability could prompt one or more
of these states to try to acquire a nuclear weapons option of their own. Similarly, if the U.S. fails to hold Pyongyang
accountable for its violation of the NPT or lets Pyongyang hold on to one or more nuclear weapons while appearing to reward
its violation with a new deal--one that heeds North Korea's demand for a nonaggression pact and continued construction of the
two light water reactors--South Korea and Japan (and later, perhaps, Taiwan) will have powerful cause to question
Washington's security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. In such a world, Washington's worries
would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile, nuclear, or near-nuclear-armed
nations. In addition, it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear friends. Washington
might still be able to assemble coalitions, but with more nations like France, with nuclear options of their own, it would be
much, much more iffy. The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily exceed what our
diplomats and leaders could manage or track. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing another Vietnam,
Washington and its very closest allies are more likely to grow weary of working closely with others and view military options
through the rosy lens of their relatively quick victories in Desert Storm, Kosovo, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Just Cause. This
would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would be spring-loaded to go
nuclear
Air Power Good – Korea
U.S. Airpower prevents Korean conflict
Bechtol 5
[Bruce, assistant professor of national security studies at Air Command and staff college, “The Future of
U.S. airpower on the Korean Peninsula,” September 1st http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/air
chronicles/apj/apj05/fal05/bechtol.html#bechtol ]
US military support to the Republic of Korea (ROK) remains critical to peace and stability. The author details
constraints faced by the army of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in any attempt to invade the ROK. Although much of
the surface-based defense capability in the South is transitioning to the ROK army, a strong US airpower
presence demonstrates US commitment to Korean security, counterbalances the DPRK’s offensive
systems, and deters war.) Since the summer of 1950, US airpower has remained one of the dominant
military forces on the Korean Peninsula. Through the Korean War, the Cold War, the uncertain post–Cold War era that has
existed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the transition of power in North Korea from Kim Il Sung to his son, Kim Jong Il, the ability of
US airpower to serve as a key pillar of deterrence to forces that threaten the stability and security of
the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the ROK-US alliance has remained unquestioned. In a transforming
geopolitical landscape and a rapidly evolving region, this is unlikely to change in the future.
Extinction
Chol 2
[Director Center for Korean American Peace, 10-24, http://nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html]
Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange
between a tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely
populated Metropolitan U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After
scenario-type nightmare. The New York Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: "North Korea runs a more advanced
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing
missiles that could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong
Il. If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with never gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a
million people." The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should opt for either of the scenarios,
that would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue with. The Americans would realize too late that the
North Korean
mean what they say. The North Koreans will use all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale
nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of mankind. A nuclear-armed North Korea would be
most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the eyes of the Americans. They would end up finding
themselves reduced to a second-class nuclear power.
Air Power Good – Russian Expansionism
Air superiority checks Russian expansionism
Bartels 9
[Clay, Major, USAF, “How The USAF Can Lose The Next War Losing Air Superiority,”
Aprilhttp://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a540193.pdf]
A resurgent Russia flexed her muscles in 2008 by invading a nation friendly to America, Georgia. The
conflict was airpower intensive from the beginning. Russia utilized TU-22 bombers and Su-25 attack aircraft under
the support of air-to-air Su-27s to rout the Georgian forces.70 Control of the air was not completely undisputed,
however, as the Georgian air defenses did down several Russian aircraft.71 Under different political
circumstances such as ethnic cleansing or genocide, the United States could have elected to intervene on behalf
of 22 Georgia against the Russian forces. In such a situation, air superiority would have been strongly
contested. Russia could have moved advanced mobile SAMs such as the SA-12 or fixed SAMs like the SA-20 to
the edge of its border. Such an IADS would have effectively covered the entirety of the nation of
Georgia. Against this type of a robust system, legacy aircraft such as the F-15 or F-16 would be
completely ineffective. The only survivable systems against this defense are the LO F-22 and B-2. To complicate the
problem, there would be significant political constraints involved that would most likely not allow
attacking systems inside Russia’s borders. In this case, it is practically impossible to gain air
superiority. The F-22 could destroy enemy aircraft, but advanced SEAD and self-support jamming
would be essential for legacy aircraft and their robust air-to-ground capability to enter the fight.
Unfortunately, the USAF and even the USN do not have such a capability. Thus, if the United States
truly wants to project airpower in this scenario aircraft and human losses would have to occur.
Furthermore, the Army would be denied key pieces of maneuver and firepower in their helicopter
fleet. In the age of the “CNN Effect”, it is doubtful that the American people would stand for a parade of
POWs on Moscow TV or dead bodies in the street. It is a relatively direct train of logic to see how this situation
could result in the United States military withdrawing and not accomplishing national objectives.
Extinction
Israelyan 98
[Victor, Soviet Ambassador and Arms Control Negotiator, Washington Quarterly, Winter, Lexis]
The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this option would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia,"
radically change domestic and foreign policies. Many
would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps to
mobilize the people against the outside "enemy." Such steps would include Russia's denunciation of the
commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and
the Chemical Weapons Convention; denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force,
including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as medium- and short-range missiles such as the SS-20.
Some of these measures will demand substantial financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties, would, according to
proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario, Russia's military planners
would shift Western
countries from the category of strategic partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security. This will
revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds against the expanded NATO, Russia will place new emphasis
on the first-use of nuclear weapons, a trend that is underway already. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy
toward the CIS countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the
means at its disposal, including economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as to have an influence
on other issues. Of those means, even the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Some will object that this scenario is implausible
because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin,
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert Makashov, who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this path to
save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240 Duma members. One cannot help but remember that when
Weimar Germany was isolated, exhausted, and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his
country. It took the former corporal only a few years to plunge the world into a second world war that cost humanity more than 50 million lives. I do not believe
that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong
either. Thus, I am afraid that economics will not deter the power scenario's would-be authors from attempting it. Baburin, for example, warned that any
political leader who would "dare to encroach upon Russia" would be decisively repulsed by the Russian Federation
"by all measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear weapons." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian
ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western
listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe. n11 Former Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times
that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could become uncontrollable. In this context, one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -- and
tensions -- Russia and the United States remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. I cannot but agree with Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be, therefore,
that with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble on, until we all fall down together." n12
Air Power Good – Terrorism
Air power is critical to an effective war on terrorism
RAND 3 (Project Air Force Annual Report,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/annual_reports/2005/AR7089.pdf)
Counterterrorism Will Require a Mix of Air Force Capabilities and Long-Term, Sustained Effort The war on terrorism is more likely
to be a long-term effort in which the use of force, at least by U.S. military personnel, is only sporadic and successful military operations will
resemble counterinsurgency operations. The primary role of U.S. military forces will often be indirect and supportive. U.S. forces will be
called upon to train, equip, advise, and assist host-country forces in rooting out terrorist groups; forge strong relationships with
host-country personnel; show great discretion in their conduct of operations; and maintain a low profile in the host country. They will be able
to react swiftly and effectively when promising targets arise. The Air Force, then, should expect sustained heavy demand to
provide important capabilities, assets, and skill sets to support counterterrorism operations abroad . Chief contributions
will include surveillance platforms, operators, and analysts; language-qualified personnel to help train and advise host-country forces and to
analyze human intelligence; security police and other force protection assets; base operating support personnel and equipment to provide
communications, housing, and transportation; heliborne insertion and extraction capabilities; and humanitarian relief assets. In some cases,
U.S. airpower may be called upon to strike terrorists in base camps, hideouts, vehicles, and other locations.
Bioweapons
2NC General
Expanding high skilled immigration key to stop bioterror attack
Goldberg et al 2004 (Joseph E., Dorsey, Harry, Bartone, Paul, Ortman, Bill, Ashcraft, Paul, Burlingame,
Stan, Carter, Anna L., Cofer, Robin D., Elwood, John, Guerts, Jim, Industry Studies 2004: Biotechnology,
The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University)
Biotechnology has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of our daily of life over the next two decades, in much the same way information technology did during
the previous two decades. Biotechnology
is still an immature industry that has yet to reach its full potential, but it
is already an important driver for the U.S. economy overall. It presents the U.S. with a tremendous
opportunity to address many of the country’s most pressing defense, health, and economic issues. It also
holds promise for improvement in global health and welfare but only to the degree that other nations are willing to utilize the technology and are successful in their
respective biotechnology initiatives. Biotechnology is greatly affected by government investment in basic science, government regulation, and the government
product approval processes. These factors drive a unique business model. The synergy between U.S. government policies and funding, academia, and the industrial
base provides the U.S. with a unique competitive advantage and is a primary reason the U.S. has been able to quickly become the global leader in biotechnology.
While the recent recession temporarily cooled the rapid growth of biotech industry, it did not stifle long-term growth in revenues or sales, nor prevent sustained
long-term growth. Demographics and a geometric expansion of biotech applications will fuel the biotech market well into the coming century. The
U.S. is
the world leader in the biotechnology industry in all aspects – the number of companies, size of the
research base, number of products and patents, and level of revenue. While the U.S. is the dominant
player in today’s biotechnology market, other countries in general, and Asia in particular, are actively
investing in government sponsored programs to increase their market share and reduce the US
dominance overall. The U.S.’ future lead in biotechnology is threatened by a potential shortage of U.S.
scientists and engineers, an increasing global demand for scientists, fewer U.S. college graduates in
math and science, and tighter U.S. visa restrictions on foreign students and scientists. Unfortunately,
biotechnology’s potential for improving the quality of life in the U.S. and the rest of the world is
tempered by the risk of enemy or terrorist use of bioagents and/or bioweapons against the US or its
allies. The potential dual use of biotechnology complicates the effort to craft effective non-proliferation policies and mitigate bio-weapons threats. As
biotechnology continues to mature as a technology and industrial sector, policy makers at the U.S. and
global level must continue to refine global non-proliferation and counter-proliferation regimes to ensure
biotechnology’s potential for mis-use does not outweigh its ability to address the world’s most pressing
needs.
A bioweapons attack threatens human survival
Carpenter and Bishop 2009 (P. A., P. C., July 10, Graduate Program in Studies of the Future, School of
Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston, TX, USA, Graduate
Program in Futures Studies, College of Technology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. A review of
previous mass extinctions and historic catastrophic events, ScienceDirect)
The flu of 1890, 1918–1919 Spanish flu, 1957 Asian flu, 1968 Hong Kong flu, and 1977 Russian flu all led to mass deaths. Pandemics such as these remain major
threats to human health that could lead to extremely high death rates. The 1918 pandemic is believed to have killed 50 million people [27]. AIDS (HIV) has killed an
estimated 23 million people from 1978 to 2001 [15]. And
there have been numerous other incidents of diseases such as
cholera, dysentery, influenza, scurvy, smallpox, typhus, and plague that have caused the deaths of many
millions throughout history. Clearly, these biological diseases are much greater threats to human
survival than other natural or environmental disasters. Because bacterium and viral strains experience
antigenic shifts (which are small changes in the virus that happen continually over time, eventually producing new virus strains that might not be
recognized by the body’s immune system), another devastating pandemic could appear at any time. It should also be noted that
the threat from biological weapons is quite real. In fact, scientists from the former Soviet Union’s
bioweapons program claim to have developed an antibiotic-resistant strain of the plague [26].
Extinction
Trewavas 00 [Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology – University of Edinburgh, “GM Is the
Best Option We Have”, AgBioWorld, 6-5, http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotechart/best_option.html]
But these are foreign examples; global warming is the problem that requires the UK to develop GM technology. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand
years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate and be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been predicted to halt the Gulf
Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters. There are already worrying signs of salinity
changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We
would not have much warning. Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade.
Even if the climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the consequence. GM
technology can enable new
crops to be constructed in months and to be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM offers. The UK populace needs to
much more positive about GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D. a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of
200 million Hiroshima A bombs. The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun that for at least
two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops here and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere failed completely. The population
survived by hunting a rapidly vanishing population of edible animals. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But the
planet recovered. Such examples of benign nature's wisdom, in full flood as it were, dwarf and make miniscule the tiny modifications we make upon our
environment. There are apparently 100
such volcanoes round the world that could at any time unleash forces as great. And
even smaller volcanic explosions change our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply. Our hold on this
planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation . Only those
with agricultural technology sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival . Colliding asteroids are
another problem that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that technological advance may be the only buffer
between us and annihilation.
2NC Russia
Expanding visas key to bioweapons security --- checks use of engineers pathogens
Brumfiel 3 (Geoff, Physical Science Correspondent – Nature Magazine, “Russia’s Bioweapons Labs: Still
Out in the Cold”, Science, 423, 6-23)
Collaborations between Western researchers and former Soviet bioweapons scientists could benefit both
parties. But mistrust and bureaucracy are getting in the way, says Geoff Brumfiel. In autumn 2001, three American researchers sped
down a deserted two-lane road that cuts through the forests south of Moscow. They were travelling to Obolensk, once a secret city and home to one of the former
Soviet Union's largest bioweapons research complexes — the State Research Center for Applied Microbiology. The researchers were part of a programme, funded
by the Pentagon, that aims to keep Russia's former bioweapons scientists gainfully employed on useful projects. Despite the dilapidated surroundings in Obolensk,
the visitors were enthused by the opportunities for collaboration. The crumbling concrete buildings "looked almost like a ghetto", recalls Rebecca Morton, a
veterinary scientist at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. But after two weeks, she had hatched a plan to work with Obolensk researcher Vitaly Pavlov on
endemic Eurasian strains of Francisella tularensis. This bacterium causes tularaemia, a potentially fatal and extremely infectious disease that affects the liver,
spleen, lungs and lymph nodes, which was studied at Obolensk because of its bioweapons potential. Morton's project, which would study the surface proteins on
different strains of the bacterium in an
effort to develop strain-specific diagnostic tests, is exactly the sort of initiative that
the programme is designed to support. But almost 18 months down the line, she is no nearer to getting the project under way.
Although her proposal has had positive peer review, the funding request is still winding its way through the Pentagon's bureaucracy. "I haven't spoken to Vitaly for a
while, because I don't have much to tell him," says Morton. "It's a little embarrassing." Obstacle course Other researchers who hope to set up collaborations at the
Obolensk centre and its sister facility, the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology, known as Vector, at Koltsovo near Novosibirsk in Siberia, are
experiencing similar delays. Cultural differences, mistrust between Russia and the United States, and bureaucratic
obstacles on both sides are all
conspiring to stall promising avenues of research. After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, US funds flowed rapidly to former nuclear
scientists and rocket engineers, with the goal of preventing them from accepting lucrative offers from countries eager to acquire an arsenal of ballistic nuclear
weapons. But bioweaponeers were left out in the cold. The reason, according to Amy Smithson, a senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center — a securitypolicy think-tank in Washington DC — was that US officials lacked contacts inside the super-secret Soviet bioweapons network. "The
biological nonproliferation programme literally had to be started from scratch," she says. As a result, more than half of the staff at Obolensk and
Vector melted away during the 1990s — to where, no one knows for sure. Obolensk and Vector were two research powerhouses in a network of facilities spread
throughout the
Soviet Union, known collectively as 'Biopreparat'. This network weaponized diseases such as plague, anthrax, tularaemia,
smallpox, behind the façade of a state-run pharmaceutical enterprise. Scientists at Obolensk and Vector even genetically
engineered bacteria to resist antibiotics. In addition to the staff's expertise, the centres have containment labs for working on dangerous
brucellosis and
pathogens — the provision of which is currently a limiting factor in US plans to ramp up biodefence research. With Russia now suffering epidemics of diseases such
as tuberculosis and AIDS, it stands to benefit from projects that would redirect the expertise at Obolensk and Vector to these problems. "Russia is a time bomb right
now," says Ann Harrington, who studies options for reducing the threat of bioweapons at the National Defense University in Washington DC. "It has an enormous
need for facilities that can support public health, and that can monitor and identify disease." In her former job as acting director of the US state department's Office
of Proliferation Threat Reduction, Harrington helped to set up the programme that took Morton and her colleagues to Obolensk. The modus operandi of this
scheme, funded by the US Department of Defense and administered by the US National Academies, is to build partnerships between Western academics and the
former Soviet bioweapons establishment. A sister programme, run by the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), a non-proliferation organization in
Moscow funded in most part by the European Union, Japan and the United States, aims to pay for more extended visits by foreign scientists to former Soviet
bioweapons labs (see 'Blazing the trail'). Take your partners Under the National Academies scheme, researchers are paid to travel to Obolensk or Vector for up to
two weeks in search of partnerships. If they find a Russian to work with, they draw up a proposal, which is reviewed by the US academies' National Research
Council, and can win up to $10,000. The idea is that participants will then apply for further grants from the Pentagon, the ISTC or other non-proliferation bodies.
Researchers selected for the first round of visits went to Russia in autumn 2001. "I had this idea that I could essentially extend my lab and also switch to interesting
organisms that I wouldn't be able to study in the United States," says Konstantin Severinov, a microbiologist of Russian extraction who now works at Rutgers
University in New Jersey. But so far, little progress has been made towards realizing the programme's potential. At a National Academies meeting in Washington DC
last December, Severinov and Gregory Ebel, an immunologist with the New York State Department of Health in Slingerlands, expressed their frustration. Severinov,
who studies viruses called phages that infect bacteria, said that his research at Obolensk has slowed to a crawl, and Ebel explained that both US and Russian
customs officials were blocking transport of even the most simple equipment. The problems have several causes, but many stem from the secretive culture of
Biopreparat. For decades, the network's scientists were cut off from the outside world, other Russian researchers and even each other. Unsurprisingly, they are not
familiar with the grant writing, publication and peer review that underpins mainstream science. At higher levels, trust continues to be an issue. Many senior
managers at Obolensk and Vector are veterans from the Soviet era and have a deep mistrust of the United States. They have almost absolute authority over their
labs — determining what can flow to the West, and having an obligation to the Russian state to protect classified research. "Scientists may be convicted for giving
state secrets to foreigners," says Ken Alibek, who served as deputy director of Biopreparat for five years before defecting to the United States in 1992. As a result of
these attitudes, some US politicians complain that the Russian labs are simply trying to take cash handouts without opening themselves up to proper scrutiny. "We
must ensure that the investment can be directly traced to an actual tangible reduction in military threats," the chair of the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee, Duncan Hunter (Republican, California), said at a hearing in January. Suspicions about the new schemes are heightened by the experience of earlier
non-proliferation programmes established in the former Soviet Union, which have been plagued by corruption: lab administrators have been known to take a cut
from each research grant at their facility. Today, financial checks are in place to prevent such abuses, but these also slow research. Following a congressional
crackdown, for instance, there are now strict limits on how much of the funding can be spent by US researchers on projects in Russia. "We have some money for
travel," says Bruce Scharf, a veterinary scientist at the State University of New York's Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, who is setting up a project to study
rabies at Vector under the National Academies programme. "But I'm not paid a cent." Closed borders Perhaps the
most serious problems are those
caused by customs and immigration restrictions. Especially since the terrorist outrages of 11 September 2001, and the anthrax attacks
that followed, the US customs service has enforced strict controls on the import of biological material. As a result, Scharf has been unable to
get the rabies samples he is studying at Vector into the United States. Similarly tough regulations on both the US and Russian sides are preventing
Sergey Morzunov, a Russian-born microbiologist at the University of Nevada at Reno, from sending even basic materials, such as
reagents for a DNA sequencing kit, to Vector. "The expiry date for my sequencing kit is May 2003, but it is still sitting on a shelf in the warehouse," Morzunov
complains. New
immigration regulations have also stopped Russian partners in the programme from visiting the U nited
S tates to build links with their new Western colleagues, adds Vladimir Volkov, deputy director of the Obolensk facility. "Getting a visa
for a business trip to the States may now take over three months," he says. Given the litany of problems, Alibek doubts whether
the programmes will do much to further the cause of non-proliferation — especially as so many Obolensk and Vector staff drifted
away in the 1990s. But other experts point to the vast expertise on biological warfare still present at the centres, and argue that it must be worth harnessing this
knowledge. "I think the programme is still very much in its infancy," says Glenn Schweitzer, its coordinator at the US National Academies.
Russian bioweapons cause extinction
Maartens 6 (Dr. Willie, Ph.D. – Business Economics and Management, Mapping Reality: A Critical
Perspective on Science and Religion, p. 251-252)
The scientists are the ‘high priests of today’ and their beliefs, dogmas, et cetera, will influence the politicians, and other decision-makers more
than most. This situation might be the trigger to human extinction , and more horribly the extinction of other innocent species
as well. When human civilisation’s radio signals eventually reach the nearest star at the speed of light, our civilization might have
extinguished itself by that time already. When it happens, it could happen very, very quickly. You just have to contemplate the
mass of biological weapons that the former USSR has developed and stored on an Island in the Aral Sea to become extremely
scared. Super-strains of Anthrax, that can even survive an atomic explosion, is but one of the known deadly strains.
A2: No Bioterror
Huge risk of extinction – “Garage Biology” eliminated tech barriers
Gottlieb 13
[Dr. Scott, practicing physician and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “Ricin And
The Risk Of Bioterror: Are We Prepared?” Forbes, 4/17,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/04/17/ricin-domestic-bioterrorism-and-the-lessonslearned-after-9-11-are-we-safer-today-than-we-were-ten-years-ago/2/]
the bigger threat may come from the deliberate misuse of engineered organisms. These are
biological agents that can be engineered to spread from person to person, like a deadly form of flu or
a re-engineered version of smallpox.¶ As I noted in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal, DNA synthesizers for making
weaponized bugs are small, cheap and easy to procure . The technical means for harnessing these tools is
In the future,
relatively straightforward . The instruction sets for making these kinds of deadly organisms can be found on the
Internet.¶ Rogue regimes and lone villains could exploit these scientific methods for deadly aims . In the
extreme, such an attack could play like the creepy plot of the 1995 film “Twelve Monkeys,” where a wicked scientist engineers a virus that nearly
drives mankind to extinction .¶ With the advent of what some have called “garage biology,” such
scenarios are no longer wildly implausible . The most recent attacks only serve to reinforce the
existence of evil motives that continue to search for these means of wicked ends.
Cyber Security
2NC
Increasing green cards generates an effective base of IT experts- solves cybersecurity
McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President – McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and
Task Force Co-Chair, “U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force”, 7-8,
http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)
We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of
those are IT firms. And as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used
in this country is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's developed overseas by scientists and
engineers who were educated here in the United States.
We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security, certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's
becoming an increasingly dominant set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense,
but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands.
Was there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security
things about what can be done to try to generate a more effective group of IT experts here in the U nited
S tates, many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often
returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive disadvantage going forward.
MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we have less
talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students studying in other countries
that are gifted, talented, really have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and scientific
advances , we're going to be put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of
like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as
they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen , I think, our system, our security needs .
Cyberterrorism will cause accidental launch that triggers the Dead Hand and nuclear
war
Fritz 9 (Jason, BS – St. Cloud, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control”, Study Commissioned on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament,
July, www.icnnd.org/Documents/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc)
Direct control of launch
The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of security in nuclear affairs. Under this rule two authorized personnel must be present
and in agreement during critical stages of nuclear command and control. The President must jointly issue a launch order with the Secretary of
Defense; Minuteman missile operators must agree that the launch order is valid; and on a submarine, both the commanding officer and
executive officer must agree that the order to launch is valid. In the US, in order to execute a nuclear launch, an Emergency Action Message
(EAM) is needed. This is a preformatted message that directs nuclear forces to execute a specific attack. The contents of an EAM change daily
and consist of a complex code read by a human voice. Regular monitoring by shortwave listeners and videos posted to YouTube provide insight
into how these work. These are issued from the NMCC, or in the event of destruction, from the designated hierarchy of command and control
centres. Once a command centre has confirmed the EAM, using the two-man rule, the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes are entered to arm
the weapons and the message is sent out. These messages are sent in digital format via the secure Automatic Digital Network and then relayed
to aircraft via single-sideband radio transmitters of the High Frequency Global Communications System, and, at least in the past, sent to nuclear
capable submarines via Very Low Frequency (Greenemeier 2008, Hardisty 1985). The technical details of VLF submarine communication
methods can be found online, including PC-based VLF reception. Some reports have noted a Pentagon review, which showed a
potential “electronic back door into the US Navy’s system for broadcasting nuclear launch orders to
Trident submarines” (Peterson 2004). The investigation showed that cyber terrorists could potentially infiltrate this
network and insert false orders for launch. The investigation led to “elaborate new instructions for validating launch orders”
(Blair 2003). Adding further to the concern of cyber terrorists seizing control over submarine launched nuclear missiles; The Royal Navy
announced in 2008 that it would be installing a Microsoft Windows operating system on its nuclear submarines (Page 2008). The choice of
operating system, apparently based on Windows XP, is not as alarming as the advertising of such a system is. This
may attract hackers
and narrow the necessary reconnaissance to learning its details and potential exploits. It is unlikely that the
operating system would play a direct role in the signal to launch, although this is far from certain. Knowledge of the operating
system may lead to the insertion of malicious code, which could be used to gain accelerating privileges,
tracking, valuable information, and deception that could subsequently be used to initiate a launch.
Remember from Chapter 2 that the UK’s nuclear submarines have the authority to launch if they believe the central command has been
Attempts by cyber terrorists to create the illusion of a decapitating strike could also be used to
engage fail-deadly systems. Open source knowledge is scarce as to whether Russia continues to operate
such a system. However evidence suggests that they have in the past. Perimetr, also known as Dead Hand, was an automated
system set to launch a mass scale nuclear attack in the event of a decapitation strike against Soviet
destroyed.
leadership and military. In a crisis, military officials would send a coded message to the bunkers, switching on the dead hand. If nearby
ground-level sensors detected a nuclear attack on Moscow, and if a break was detected in communications links with top military commanders,
the system would send low-frequency signals over underground antennas to special rockets. Flying high over missile fields and other military
sites, these rockets in turn would broadcast attack orders to missiles, bombers and, via radio relays, submarines at sea. Contrary to some
Western beliefs, Dr. Blair says, many of Russia's nuclear-armed missiles in underground silos and on mobile launchers can be fired
automatically. (Broad 1993) Assuming such a system is still active, cyber terrorists would need to create a crisis situation in order to activate
Perimetr, and then fool it into believing a decapitating strike had taken place. While this is not an easy task, the information age makes it easier.
Cyber reconnaissance could help locate the machine and learn its inner workings. This could be done by targeting the computers high of level
official’s—anyone who has reportedly worked on such a project, or individuals involved in military operations at underground facilities, such as
those reported to be located at Yamantau and Kosvinksy mountains in the central southern Urals (Rosenbaum 2007, Blair 2008) Indirect
Control of Launch Cyber terrorists could cause incorrect information to be transmitted, received, or displayed at nuclear command and control
centres, or shut down these centres’ computer networks completely. In 1995, a Norwegian scientific sounding rocket was mistaken by Russian
early warning systems as a nuclear missile launched from a US submarine. A radar operator used Krokus to notify a general on duty who
decided to alert the highest levels. Kavkaz was implemented, all three chegets activated, and the countdown for a nuclear decision began. It
took eight minutes before the missile was properly identified—a considerable amount of time considering the speed with which a nuclear
response must be decided upon (Aftergood 2000). Creating a false signal in these early warning systems would be relatively easy using
computer network operations. The real difficulty would be gaining access to these systems as they are most likely on a closed network.
However, if they are transmitting wirelessly, that may provide an entry point, and information gained through the internet may reveal the
details, such as passwords and software, for gaining entrance to the closed network. If access was obtained, a false alarm could be followed by
something like a DDoS attack, so the operators believe an attack may be imminent, yet they can no longer verify it. This
could add
pressure to the decision making process, and if coordinated precisely, could appear as a first round EMP
burst. Terrorist groups could also attempt to launch a non-nuclear missile, such as the one used by Norway, in an
attempt to fool the system. The number of states who possess such technology is far greater than the number of states who possess
nuclear weapons. Obtaining them would be considerably easier, especially when enhancing operations through computer network operations.
Combining traditional terrorist methods with cyber techniques opens opportunities neither could
accomplish on their own. For example, radar stations might be more vulnerable to a computer attack, while
satellites are more vulnerable to jamming from a laser beam, thus together they deny dual
phenomenology. Mapping communications networks through cyber reconnaissance may expose weaknesses, and automated scanning
devices created by more experienced hackers can be readily found on the internet. Intercepting or spoofing communications is a highly
complex science. These systems are designed to protect against the world’s most powerful and well funded militaries. Yet, there are recurring
gaffes, and the very nature of asymmetric warfare is to bypass complexities by finding simple loopholes. For example, commercially available
software for voice-morphing could be used to capture voice commands within the command and control structure, cut these sound bytes into
phonemes, and splice it back together in order to issue false voice commands (Andersen 2001, Chapter 16). Spoofing could also be used to
escalate a volatile situation in the hopes of starting a nuclear war. “ **[they cut off the paragraph]** “In June 1998, a group of international
hackers calling themselves Milw0rm hacked the web site of India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) and put up a spoofed web page
showing a mushroom cloud and the text “If a nuclear war does start, you will be the first to scream” (Denning 1999). Hacker web-page
defacements like these are often derided by critics of cyber terrorism as simply being a nuisance which causes no significant harm. However,
web-page defacements are becoming more common, and they point towards alarming possibilities in subversion. During the 2007 cyber attacks
against Estonia, a counterfeit letter of apology from Prime Minister Andrus Ansip was planted on his political party website (Grant 2007). This
took place amid the confusion of mass DDoS attacks, real world protests, and accusations between governments.
IL – HSW Key
U.S. cyberdefenses are failing because of a lack of skilled workers --- employer
demand outstrips supply
Gjelten 10 (Tom, Correspondent – NPR, “Cyberwarrior Shortage Threatens U.S. Security”, NPR, 7-19,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128574055)
There may be no country on the planet more vulnerable to a massive cyberattack than the U nited S tates,
where financial, transportation, telecommunications and even military operations are now deeply
dependent on data networking. What's worse: U.S. security officials say the country's cyberdefenses are
not up to the challenge. In part, it's due to a severe shortage of computer security specialists and engineers
with the skills and knowledge necessary to do battle against would-be adversaries. The protection of U.S.
computer systems essentially requires an army of cyberwarriors, but the recruitment of that force is
suffering . "We don't have sufficiently bright people moving into this field to support those national
security objectives as we move forward in time," says James Gosler, a veteran cybersecurity specialist
who has worked at the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Energy Department. If U.S.
cyberdefenses are to be improved, more people like Gosler will be needed on the front lines. Gosler, 58,
works at the Energy Department's Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M., where he focuses
on ways to counter efforts to penetrate U.S. data networks. It's an ever-increasing challenge. "You can
have vulnerabilities in the fundamentals of the technology, you can have vulnerabilities introduced
based on how that technology is implemented, and you can have vulnerabilities introduced through the
artificial applications that are built on that fundamental technology," Gosler says. "It takes a very skilled
person to operate at that level, and we don't have enough of them." CSIS Report On Cybersecurity Gosler
estimates there are now only 1,000 people in the entire U nited S tates with the sophisticated skills needed for
the most demanding cyberdefense tasks. To meet the computer security needs of U.S. government
agencies and large corporations, he says, a force of 20,000 to 30,000 similarly skilled specialists is
needed. Some are currently being trained at the nonprofit SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security)
Institute outside Washington, D.C., but the demand for qualified cybersecurity specialists far exceeds the
supply. "You go looking for those people, but everybody else is looking for the same thousand people,"
says SANS Research Director Alan Paller. "So they're just being pushed around from NSA to CIA to DHS
to Boeing. It's a mess." The Center for Strategic and International Studies highlights the problem in a
forthcoming report, "A Human Capital Crisis in Cybersecurity." According to the report, a key element of
a "robust" cybersecurity strategy is "having the right people at every level to identify, build and staff the
defenses and responses." The CSIS report highlights a "desperate shortage" of people with the skills to
"design secure systems, write safe computer code, and create the ever more sophisticated tools needed to
prevent, detect, mitigate and reconstitute from damage due to system failures and malicious acts."
Turns Case – Heg
Cyberattacks crush heg
Schmitt 99 (Michael, Prof Int’l Law, European Center Security Studies, Visiting scholar @ yale law,
retired air force judge advocate, columbia journal transnational law)
*Note – CNA = Computer Network Attacks
Facing these realities, a lesser-advantaged state hoping to seriously harm a dominant adversary must
inevitably compete asymmetrically. It must seek to counter the strengths of the opponent not head-on,
but rather, circuitously, employing unorthodox means to strike at centers of gravity. For instance,
possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can offset conventional military weakness. This is
precisely why the United Nations Security Council takes the UNSCOM effort to deprive Iraq of WMD so
seriously. Iraq cannot possibly hope to successfully confront the U.S. and its allies on the battlefield, but
a credible threat to employ chemical or biological weapons in pursuit of national objectives would give it
disproportionate (and malevolent) influence on the world scene. Similarly, asymmetry also under girds
most state or state-sponsored very visible, yet relatively cost-free manner.31 CNA offers analogous
asymmetrical benefits. In the first place, and as will be explored infra, in many cases a computer
network attack will either not merit a response involving the use of force, or the legality of such a
response will be debatable (even if the victim is able to accurately identify the fact, much less the
source, of attack). Thus, because of the potentially grave impact of CNA on a state’s infrastructure, it can
prove a high gain, low risk option for a state outclassed militarily or economically. Moreover, to the
extent that an opponent is militarily and economically advantaged, it is probably
technologicallydependent, and, therefore, teeming with tempting CNA targets. To further complicate
matters, the knowledge and equipment necessary to mount a computer network attack are widely
available; CNA is quite literally “war on the cheap.” One expert has asserted that with one million dollars
and twenty individuals, he can “bring the U.S. to its knees.” 32 Another maintains that the defense
information infrastructure (DII) can be disrupted for weeks by ten individuals with $10,000, while still
others claim that for $30,000,000, one hundred individuals could so corrupt the country’s entire
information infrastructure that recovery would take years.33 To place these figures into context, a single
F-16 aircraft cost $26,000,000 in fiscal year 1997.34 Unfortunately, the ability to conduct such
operations is widespread. The President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection has projected
that by the year 2002, some nineteen million individuals will have the know-how to launch cyber
attacks.35 Today, over 120 countries are in the process of establishing information operations
competence.36 In particular, the Chinese have discovered information warfare, and organized research
in the subject proceeds apace.37 So too, not surprisingly, has the United States. Each of the armed
services, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, currently operates an information operations
center.38
Turns Case – Meltdowns
Cyberattacks cause meltdowns
Pascrell 5 (Bill, US representative, FDCH, 10-5 Lexis)
We know that there are vulnerabilities within these systems and we know that these vulnerabilities are
abundant and we know that the threat of a terrorist attack against these systems is real. Those things
we know, we agree on. So the Congress, it would seem to me, needs to engage in a robust analysis and
oversight in this realm, Mr. Chairman. We need to help ensure the security of the various control
systems that are used in critical infrastructure. And I'm heartened that today two homeland security
subcommittees are leading the charge. A cyber attack on one of New Jersey's four nuclear power plants
or 100 chemical sites, for example, has the potential to be absolutely devastating, not only in terms
of lives lost but also in the regional and national economic structure it could bring forth. That's
very serious, very serious business..
Deficit
2NC Farms
Increasing high skilled immigrants solves the budget deficit
Holen 9 (Arlene, Senior Fellow – Technology Policy Institute, “The Budgetary Effects of High-Skilled
Immigration Reform”, March,
http://www.techpolicyinstitute.org/files/the%20budgetary%20effects%20of%20high-skilled%20i
mmigration%20reform.pdf)
Estimates of the Fiscal Effects of High-Skilled Immigration Restrictions ¶ The estimates in this paper show significant positive fiscal
effects from loosening entry constraints on the admission of high-skilled workers to the U nited S tates. They are
based on data that come from a number of sources . In some cases they present ranges associated with various scenarios. The
estimates are designed to give policy makers, interest groups, and the public relevant information on the economic and budget ramifications of
current and potential policies that affect immigration of high-skilled workers to the United States. The estimates are not precise—they rest on
very simple assumptions and counterfactuals—but they provide an indication of the magnitudes involved. ¶ The results for various legislative
scenarios are meant to be illustrative. Official budget estimates that are used in the Congressional budget process rest on the precise wording
and interpretation of legislative language. The translation of legislative provisions into expected numbers of new entrants to the country,
especially those that would make major changes to current law is highly uncertain, as explained above. This paper makes the general
assumption that the projected earnings of new immigrants contribute an equivalent amount to GDP. Some factors that underlie that
assumption may bias the resulting estimates upward—for example, adjustments are not made for unemployment among added workers or for
negative effects they may have on the employment and earnings of existing workers. The literature suggests these effects are likely to be small.
10 Other factors, which are likely to be larger, may bias the estimates downward. For example, adjustments are not made for labor
complementarities, filling jobs that alleviate labor market shortages, or for factors that serve to increase the productivity of existing workers
and therefore raise their wages. These are positive effects that one would expect from an increase in highly trained workers, particularly those
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Nor are adjustments made for additional investments that would be induced by
attracting more capital investment. Labor substitution and complementarities are examined in the empirical studies cited above as are the
effects of induced incremental investment. Further, the added work of spouses and dependents of green-card holders, which are not taken into
account here, would serve to raise GDP. The estimates take into account expected emigration. The net effects of simplifying assumptions
should be that the estimates are conservative. The major findings are summarized below. Appendix B, together with the tables, explains in
detail the methodology used to derive the results. ¶ STEM graduates of U.S. colleges and universities ¶ These results broadly describe how the
federal budget and the economy are affected by caps on employment-based green cards and H-1B visas that keep foreign STEM graduates of
American colleges and universities from remaining in the United States. See Table 1, Foreign Graduates in STEM Fields. Over the five years
2003-2007, 143,391 bachelor’s degrees, 255,267 master’s degrees, and 49,532 doctoral degrees were granted to non-resident aliens in STEM
fields by U.S. colleges and universities in the United States. Roughly 193,000 foreign STEM graduates would have remained in the United States
in the absence of employment-based entry constraints over the period 2003-2007. Adjusting for annual emigration, roughly 182,000 would
have been in the U.S. labor force in 2008. 11 Those STEM graduates would have earned roughly $13.6 billion in 2008 and the GDP would have
been that much greater if those graduates had not been excluded from the U.S. labor force. The loss to federal revenues resulting from the
exclusion of those foreign STEM graduates was approximately $2.7 to $3.8 billion. Because those foreign graduates are young, self-
selected, highly educated, and have excellent employment opportunities, the likelihood they would receive
federal benefits such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, or other health or income-related benefits is extremely low in the near
term. ¶ \Temporary high-skilled workers These results broadly describe how the federal budget and the economy are affected by green card
caps that limit the adjustment of H-1B visa holders to permanent residence status. In the absence of green card constraints, many H-1Bs would
remain in the U.S. labor force after their temporary status expires. See Table 2, H-1B Estimates. About 330,000 H-1B visa-holders whose
temporary work authorizations ran out during 2003-2007 would have been working in the United States in 2008 had they been able to get
green cards and become permanent legal residents. Adjusting for annual emigration, roughly 300,000 of them would have been in the U.S.
labor force in 2008. Those H-1Bs would have earned roughly $23 billion in 2008 and the GDP would have been that much greater had they been
able to get green cards and become permanent legal residents. The loss to federal revenues in 2008 resulting from those H-1B workers
excluded by green card constraints was approximately $4.5 to $6.2 billion. This group is highly unlikely to receive federal benefits such as
Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, or other health or income-related benefits in the near term. 12 Using estimating parameters over a wider
range, the loss to federal revenues in 2008 was $2.3 to $11.1 billion. ¶ Legislation to raise caps on green cards ¶ These results, presented in the
format of CBO cost estimates, broadly describe how the federal budget and the economy would be affected by several legislative
scenarios to raise green card caps. See Table 3, Budget Effects of Increasing Employment-Based Green Card Caps. Scenario IA is the
increase under S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The act called for increasing the green card cap to 650,000 plus
any unused employment-based visas from the previous six years. The new cap would apply to both workers and their dependents; the unused
visas from prior years would apply only to workers. The act also expanded the types of individuals no longer subject to annual limits on legal
immigrants. ¶ Based on CBO’s estimates of cumulative new green card holders, S. 2611 would have led to increased
labor earnings and increased GDP of almost $180 billion over the ten years following enactment and by almost $34 billion in the
tenth year. ¶ Federal revenues from added green card workers would have increased by roughly $35 to $47 billion over
ten years and federal costs for programs such as Medicaid and student loans would have risen by less than $1 billion. ¶ The
net positive
budgetary effect of the green card provisions of S. 2611 over ten years would have been approximately $34 to $47 billion.
Farm conservation programs will be cut without addressing budget concerns
Winter 10 (Allison, E&E Reporter, “Conservation Program Stands in Crossfire with Budget Cuts”,
Greenwire, 11-12, Lexis)
A new farmland conservation program that environmental advocates have pointed to as the future for green payments in agriculture
could be on the chopping block as federal budget hawks look to reduce spending. President Obama's bipartisan debtreduction commission recommended cutting the Conservation Stewardship Program in its draft recommendations for deficit reduction released
this week. The draft plan calls for reducing farm subsidies by $3 billion per year, including crop subsidies like direct payments and the
conservation program. The proposed cuts came as a blow to farmland conservation advocates, who expected to see some
cuts in agriculture but say it is unfair to single out the Conservation Stewardship Program, which functions differently from other farm
payments. "The chairs' draft report unfortunately confuses production subsidies with conservation incentives," said Ferd Hoefner of the
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. The recommendations could also indicate an uphill battle for the fledgling conservation program as
lawmakers begin to debate the next farm bill, which will set mandatory spending levels for it and other farm programs. The current farm bill is
due to expire in 2012. Agriculture leaders in the House and Senate have said a tight budget will be the biggest challenge in drafting
the bill. And farm programs may come under fire from other lawmakers. Crop subsidies and conservation payments have
been the target of budget-cutting efforts in the past. For instance, the 2005 budget reconciliation effort in Congress had $3.7
billion in cuts to agriculture funding as part of its overall cuts of $39.7 billion over the act's five-year budget span. Most of those blows came to
farm conservation programs.
The debt-reduction commission singles out one conservation program for cuts: the C onservation
S ecurity P rogram, now known as the Conservation Stewardship Program. Congress created the framework for the new Conservation
Stewardship Program in the 2008 farm bill after revamping the Conservation Security Program, which was created in the 2002 farm bill and was
limited by lack of money and regulations that focused on certain watersheds. The debt commission's recommended cuts list the "Conservation
Security Program," but an aide for the commission said they intended it to refer to both the older and newer versions of the program. The only
Conservation Security Program payments that are still being made are to farmers who signed up several years ago for five- and 10-year
contracts. Lawmakers and environmental advocates intended the new Conservation Stewardship Program to be a model for a new kind of
"green payments" that reward farmers for strong overall efforts to protect natural resources. The $1 billion program contrasts
sharply with crop subsidies and other USDA conservation programs that pay farmers to idle cropland or offer cost assistance for landowners
who build fences, terraces or other structures to improve resource protections. To participate in the program, landowners must submit overall
conservation plans that outline methods of animal management, fertilizer use and water management. USDA awards five-year contracts to
farms with the best overall plans, based on scores set by the department. Payments rise or fall with scores. Some environmental groups hope
that green payments could eventually supplant other farm subsidies, so farmers could still get federal assistance but offer soil and water
conservation or carbon sequestration in return. The program was slow to advance after its creation in the 2002 farm bill. As a
new
program without a strong constituency yet on farms, it was a frequent target for some lawmakers looking to divert
its funding to other programs. But conservation advocates say that is changing now as the program expands.
Conservation cuts crush biodiversity and causes extinction --- and causes pesticide use
Clark 6 (Dana, Adjunct Professor – The American University's Washington College of Law, & David
Downes, Senior Trade Advisor in the Office of the Secretary of the United States Department of the
Interior, adjunct faculty of the American University's Washington College of Law, 12-29,
http://www.ciel.org/Publications/summary.html)
Biodiversity is the diversity of life on earth, on which we depend for our sur vival. The variability of and
within species and ecosystems helps provide some of our basic needs: food, shelter, and medicine, as
well as recreational, cultural, spiritual and aesthetic benefits. Diverse ecosystems create the air we
breathe, enrich the soil we till and purify the water we drink. Ecosystems also regulate local and global climate. No one
can seriously argue that biodiversity is not valuable. Nor can anyone seriously argue that biodiversity is not at risk. There are over 900 domestic
species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and 4,000 additional species are candidates for listing. We are
losing species as a result of human activities at hundreds of times the natural rate of extinction. The current rate of extinction is the highest
since the mass extinction of species that wiped out the dinosaurs millions of years ago. The Economics of Biodiversity Conservation The
question which engenders serious controversy is whether society can afford the costs associated with saving biodiversity. Opponents of
biodiversity conservation argue that the costs of protecting endangered species are too high. They complain that the regulatory burden on
private landowners is too heavy, and that conservation measures impede development. They seek to override scientific determinations with
economic considerations, and to impose cost/benefit analyses on biodiversity policy making. An equally important question, however, is
whether we can afford not to save biodiversity. The consequences of losing this critical resource could be devastating. As
we destroy
species and habitat, we endanger food supplies (such as crop varieties that impart resistance to disease,
or the loss of spawning grounds for fish and shellfish); we lose the opportunity to develop new
medicines or other chemicals; and we impair critical ecosystem functions that protect our water
supplies, create the air we breathe, regulate climate and shelter us from storms. We lose creatures of cultural
importance - the bald eagle is an example of the cultural significance of biodiversity and also of the need for strong regulations to protect species from
extinction. And, we lose the opportunity for mental or spiritual rejuvenation through contact with nature. There are many other costs associated with the
loss of biodiversity, and other values associated with its preservation. Researchers are finding that protection of ecosystems rich in biodiversity can
strengthen and diversify regional economies. For example, the estimated economic value of intact natural forests for recreation, production of fish and
wildlife, and other benefits, is one-third to three times as much as their value for timber alone, according to the World Resources Institute. These are
significant costs and benefits which should be included in any economic analysis of biodiversity conservation. Much of the current controversy stems
from private landowners who resent government regulation of their lands. Government regulation is necessary to protect a critical public resource from
private destruction. However, individual citizens should not bear the full cost of protecting biodiversity, since their actions benefit society at large. Within
the context of a strong regulatory framework with defined conservation goals, economic incentives can help defuse political controversy by providing
increased flexibility and rewarding private sector conservation efforts. Conservation strategies must be developed that make private landowners willing
partners in biodiversity conservation. This is particularly important given that seventy percent of U.S. land outside of Alaska is privately owned. Even
more significantly, more than fifty percent of species listed under the Endangered Species Act are found only on private lands, and many more have
substantial parts of their remaining range on private property. In many cases, reforms to benefit biodiversity will require the revision of existing
incentives offered to the private sector by government policies. In many cases, economic policies send signals which conflict with the goal of species
conservation. If
biodiversity considerations are linked to the economic incentive, the signal sent to the
private sector is harmonized rather than conflicting. Private landowners benefit from public assistance in many ways. These
benefits include subsidized access to vital resources like water and roadways, price supports, and tax breaks, all of which increase the value of
property. For example, the American Farm Bureau Federation has estimated that farm support payments have increased the value of farmland
in this country by $250 billion. Public support could be conditioned upon requiring recipients to comply with existing laws and to implement
management practices that embody sound principles of land stewardship. In order to fully integrate economic and environmental policy, we
must also examine the biodiversity impact of government subsidies. Government subsidies often stimulate or encourage activities that damage
biodiversity. Tax breaks for extractive industries are a prime example of this problem. In addition, agricultural policies have a dramatic effect on
land use in the United States. As
currently structured, farm support programs provide perverse incentives that
contribute to soil erosion, overuse of agricultural chemicals, and loss of wildlife habitat . Commodity price
support programs are tied to production levels. At the same time, acreage reduction programs restrict the amount of acreage that can be
planted. These policies work together to encourage intensive cropping and high levels of chemical inputs on land that is planted, in order to
boost production and maximize the government subsidy. These negative
effects of agriculture policy could be
ameliorated by removing the perverse incentives, linking support to best management practices and
purchasing conservation easements to keep certain lands out of agricultural production.
2NC Federalism
Skilled migration is crucial to sustain state budgets --- current brain drain will collapse
them
Herbst 9 (Moira, “Skilled Immigrants on Why They're Leaving the U.S.”, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 726, http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2009/db20090724_178761.htm)
Lured by the prospect of climbing to the top of his field, New Delhi native Swaroop Ganguly came to the U.S. 10 years ago and earned a PhD in
electrical and computer engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 2005. He became an expert in an emerging technology called
spintronics, used to power semiconductors, and worked at several chip companies, including Freescale Semiconductor. But Ganguly, now 32,
is moving back to India this summer. Although he has been doing postdoctoral work at the University of Texas, he figures his prospects
for research and professional development are probably better in his home country. "I feel quite excited about going back," he says. ¶ Ganguly
has already accepted a job as a professor of electrical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. The position will pay a fraction
of the salary he had been earning in the private sector—about $15,000 compared with $100,000—but it will offer considerably more job
security and the freedom to do the exploratory research he wants to do. "The real lure of being in the U.S. is to do really innovative work, but
the space for that seems to be shrinking," he says. "The Indian government is putting a huge amount of funding into science and technology, so
even if they can't pay high salaries, it's an attractive prospect." ¶ Ganguly is one of a number of highly skilled immigrants preparing to leave the
U.S. as the nation's economy slows. With the U.S. unemployment rate approaching double digits, job opportunities are diminishing and calls to
restrict immigration have gotten louder. Those who favor tightening the rules argue that U.S. citizens should get first priority for jobs. ¶ A Blow
to Prospects for Economic Recovery¶ But the issue is tricky when it comes to the most educated and skilled immigrants—
people like Ganguly. When well-paid individuals leave the country, that
cuts into already depleted tax revenues for
state and local governments . The departure of top talent in technology and science may also undercut the
prospects for a recovery in the U.S., many economists say. These immigrants often start companies and come up with
technological breakthroughs, creating new job opportunities for all.
That causes a Fed bailout
Paul 9 (Rob, US Representative – Texas and Founder – Campaign for Liberty, “California Bailout,
Impossible or Inevitable?”, New York Times Blog, 6-21,
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/california-bailout-reckless-orinevitable/?pagemode=print)
In 2003, California recalled Gov. Gray Davis because voters saw his administration as corrupt and devoted to big-government schemes, such as raising the
dreaded car tax. New leadership promised to abolish that tax and to end unsustainable deficit spending. Instead, leaders in Sacramento have signed high-deficit
budgets and continually championed gigantic bond initiatives, paying for today by writing checks on behalf of future generations. There have been major
spending increases in education, transportation, law-enforcement, infrastructure, and social programs. The budget has gone from about $100 billion to $145
billion in five years. Despite multiple tax increases, the deficit has persisted at an unmanageable size. If you live beyond your means, you’ll one day have to live
beneath your means, as our soaring national debt and widespread state budget troubles illustrate. Californians know they are overtaxed, which is why they
decisively the recent series of initiatives designed to close the state deficit, largely through tax increases. Yet, they want to maintain high public spending.
Unlike the states, Washington can temporarily delay budget woes by firing up the printing presses. But we can no
longer ignore economic reality. The financial crisis came from too much shortsighted borrowing and spending, and it
cannot be solved with more of the same. It would be unconstitutional, and irresponsible, for Congress to enable California’s
fiscally reckless ways. A decision by Washington to loan billions more it does not have will further increase our
national debt, devalue our dollar, and foster the moral hazard created by its previous interventions, thereby
increasing the burden felt by all Americans. Instead of seeking federal aid, California should cut spending, rethink some
of its unsustainable public pension programs, tame down the expensive and failed drug war, and repeal regulations
that discourage economic growth. According to a 2008 piece by The Independent Institute’s William Shughart, the state owns more
than 20,000 buildings and 6.7 million acres of land, a portion of which is “surplus” property that could be sold to private owners. The federal
government can best aid California, and all other states, by setting a fiscally responsible example and easing the load it places on taxpayers. It is
time to end the unconstitutional federal mandates that force the states to subsidize programs they can’t afford, to reduce taxes and give
Americans more of their own money back, and to stop the inflationary monetary policy that is destroying the dollar and fueling the boom-bust
cycle that has pummeled California and the entire nation.
Crushes federalism
McArdle 9 (Megan, MBA – University of Chicago and Writer – The Economist, “The Moral Hazard of a
State Bailout”, 5-20,
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_moral_hazard_of_a_state_ba.php)
If the government does bail out the muni bond market, how should it go about things? The initial assumption is that they'll only
guarantee existing debt. Otherwise, it would be like handing the keys to the treasury to every mayor, county board, and state
legislature, and telling them to go to town . But once the treasury has bailed out a single state, there will be a strongly implied guarantee
on all such debt. So you don't give them the keys to the vaults, but you do leave a window open, point out where the money's kept, and
casually mention that you've given the armed guards the week off. I don't see how the government can make a credible committment not to
bail out various localities who overspend, if it's already done so. And if that's the case, there's no way to avoid the moral hazard, so
we might as well go ahead and offer the explicit guarantee in exchange for some sort of say in how the money is procured
and spent. Farewell, Federalism . . . we hardly knew ye
Global war --- and collapses trade
Calabresi 95 (Steven G., Assistant Prof – Northwestern U., Michigan Law Review, Lexis)
First, the rules of constitutional federalism should be enforced because federalism is a good thing, and it is the best and
most important structural feature of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the political branches cannot be relied upon to enforce constitutional
federalism, notwithstanding the contrary writings of Professor Jesse Choper. Third, the Supreme Court is institutionally competent
to enforce constitutional federalism. Fourth, the Court is at least as qualified to act in this area as it is in the Fourteenth Amendment
area. And, fifth, the doctrine of stare [*831] decisis does not pose a barrier to the creation of any new, prospectively applicable Commerce
Clause case law. The conventional wisdom is that Lopez is nothing more than a flash in the pan. 232 Elite opinion holds that the future of
American constitutional law will involve the continuing elaboration of the Court's national codes on matters like abortion regulation,
pornography, rules on holiday displays, and rules on how the states should conduct their own criminal investigations and trials. Public choice
theory suggests many reasons why it is likely that the Court will continue to pick on the states and give Congress a free ride. But, it would be a
very good thing for this country if the Court decided to surprise us and continued on its way down the Lopez path. Those of us who comment
on the Court's work, whether in the law reviews or in the newspapers, should encourage the Court to follow the path on which it has now
embarked. The country and the world would be a better place if it did. We have seen that a desire for both international and devolutionary
federalism has swept across the world in recent years. To a significant extent, this is due to global fascination with and
emulation of our own American federalism success story. The global trend toward federalism is an enormously
positive development that greatly increases the likelihood of future peace, free trade, economic growth,
respect for social and cultural diversity, and protection of individual human rights. It depends for its success on the
willingness of sovereign nations to strike federalism deals in the belief that those deals will be kept. 233 The U.S.
Supreme Court can do its part to encourage the future striking of such deals by enforcing vigorously our own
American federalism deal. Lopez could be a first step in that proces s, if only the Justices and the legal academy would wake up
to the importance of what is at stake.
Deficit IL – Immigration Key
Only skilled immigrants solve. No other measure is effective.
Gresser 10 (Edward, President – Democratic Leadership Council, “Testimony to Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform”, 6-30, http://www.dlc.org/documents/Gresser-testimony-0610.pdf)
We cannot rely solely on tax increases, discretionary spending cuts or combinations of these options to meet this challenge.
They can reduce any annual deficit and delay the growth of the debt burden. But if the demographic facts driving the long-term deficit do not
change, the fiscal challenge will not go away. Rather, we will see the tax burden steadily increase while the government’s ability to provide the
essential services funded by discretionary spending – military readiness, road safety, environmental protection and education – declines. Nor
can we rely solely on cuts in entitlement spending. Medicare and Social Security are part of a national commitment to provide older men and
women a reasonable degree of security in retirement, to which retirees have made their own contribution, through payroll tax payments made
throughout their working lives. If cuts in these programs simply reduce security in old age, a relatively smaller working population will need to
make up the difference. In that case, government’s books will improve, but the fundamental economic health of the nation will not. An
effective response, therefore, begins with the principle that nothing is off the table. No tax measure , spending cut, entitlement
reform, budget-process rule or other option should be rejected at the outset. All these options should play some part in solving our
challenge. But at bottom, our long-term fiscal challenge is the result of facts about demography and health costs, and the consequences of
these facts. Therefore our policy measures need to be combined with an effort to change the facts: to provide more workers and
entrepreneurs despite slower population growth, to have fewer retirees despite an aging population, to reduce health inflation despite new
medical technologies, and to promote faster growth in GDP despite slower growth in the workforce. To achieve this, we suggest the following
measures: - Tight and permanent budget process reforms: If we set clear rules for budgeting, applying not only to discretionary spending but to
revenue policy and entitlements, we will more effectively control the budget as a whole. In addition to the pay-as-you-go rules and
discretionary caps, we should consider long-run targets for entitlement spending and tax expenditures. If unexpected events or changes in
trends push spending or tax expenditures above these targets, automatic triggers could be used to slow spending growth, increase revenues, or
some combination of the two. - Pay for Wars: If we end the habit developed since the Vietnam War of financing wars wholly through deficits,
we will encounter fewer emergency-driven deficit spikes and foster an ethic of citizenship and shared sacrifice. War’s human cost falls on
soldiers in the field and their families at home. Governments which ask this of them should also be willing to ask the people on the home front
to make smaller sacrifices; and civilians should be willing to share in the burden of war, as they did in all wars until recently, through paying a
large part of the cost through taxation. - Reform taxation: If we create a tax system simpler than today’s, with a broader and fairer base and
incentives that do more for growth, efficiency and savings than our current thickets of credits, exclusions and deductions, we will have a fairer
tax system and ensure that as much of our additional revenue as possible comes from closing loopholes rather than raising rates. When we do
raise rates, if possible we should do so in ways that discourage behavior which drives up federal spending and costs – the “Cadillac tax”
imposed on high-cost health plans in this year’s national health reform bill is a good example – or serves some other major policy goal such as
energy conservation. - Reinvent government: If we reform government to increase efficiency, we preserve services and reduce spending. Health
services can draw on the experience of state governments like Pennsylvania’s, which have saved money by relying more heavily on care by
nurses, rigorously preventing expensive hospital-acquired illnesses, and reducing overhead by computerizing records. Military spending can
focus more directly on national security by closing unneeded bases and rethinking spending on commitments in Europe. More generally, David
Osborne’s concept of “budgeting for outcomes,” in which agencies annually or semiannually rank their top priorities and direct spending to
them and away from lower priorities, will help agencies shift away from a ‘baseline’ mentality which protects dated or less effective programs
while preventing investments in areas of higher priority or greater return. - Support Growth: If we find policies that promote higher rates of
growth, we raise the growth of revenue and shrink the budget gap. One would be to speed up trade liberalization that opens export markets
abroad, and creates more efficient markets at home by removing tariffs and business subsidies. Another would be to preserve and in some
cases strengthen public investments and tax incentives which have clear links to growth and competitiveness: examples include infrastructure
improvements, government support for scientific research and education, and tax incentives for private-sector research and development. Encourage Faster Work-Force Growth, Innovation and Business Formation: If we increase the number of active workers, inventors
and entrepreneurs, we raise the growth rate and increase the flow of tax revenue into the Treasury. Sharp and
immediate increases in highskilled immigration are an easy option, penalizing nobody and rewarding many by
adding the high-wage workers, inventors and entrepreneurs who raise national productivity, invent new
products and start new businesses.
DREAM
2NC
DREAM Act is key to prevent shortages in military recruitment --- solves escalation in
Iraq and Afghanistan
Mian 5 (Zia, Ph.D. and Physicist with the Program on Science and Global Security – Princeton
University, “The Unraveling of the US Military”, AntiWar, 9-14,
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/mian.php?articleid=7258)
Newspapers describe the U.S. Army as "facing one of the greatest recruiting
challenges in its history." The U.S. military is deeply worried. General Barry McCaffrey, now a professor at the
West Point, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. is in a "race against time" in Iraq because of the strains on the military – the military is "starting to
unravel." He argues that, "The U.S. Army and the Marines are too under-manned and underresourced to sustain this security policy beyond next fall." The consequences are
great. For McCaffrey, the U.S. military in Iraq is "the crown jewel of our national security guarantee to the American people in the war on terror." This threatens
the future of the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as McCaffrey puts it, "Failure
would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and economic interests for the next 20
years." Sending in more troops, the American solution year after year in the Vietnam War, does not seem to be an option. President Bush has said that he would send more troops to
Iraq if the military commanders in the field asked for them. He claims that they have not done so. But others suggest a more serious obstacle. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate minority
leader, has said that U.S. military commanders in Iraq have told him that they need more troops but they know none are available. Reed has said, "The conclusion I reach is that they know the
soldiers aren't there, so why ask for something you know doesn't exist?" A recent study by the RAND Corporation, a military think-tank, "Stretched Thin: Army Forces for Sustained Operations"
the troop shortage in the Army is so severe that it calls into question the Pentagon's policy
of being able to fight two major regional wars at the same time while also having
sufficient soldiers for the war on terrorism and providing security in America. A recent meeting of the
found that
National Governors' Association, which brings together the governors of the states, registered the governors' concern that deployment of National Guard soldiers in Iraq was leaving their
states unable to deal with possible natural disasters and other emergencies, with one governor exclaiming that "we don't have personnel – whether it is full time or part time – to take care of
the U.S. Army is reported to be 40
percent short of its recruitment target. The Army has failed to meet its monthly recruiting goals in each of the preceding four months. In midall the needs and concerns of Americans." Recruitment Problems Little of this seems to resonate with the public. So far this year,
July, the U.S. military reported that the Army National Guard, which makes up more than one-third of the U.S. soldiers in Iraq, had missed its recruiting goal for the ninth straight month. This
was an understatement of the larger trend. The Army National Guard has apparently missed its recruiting targets for at least 17 of the last 18 months. U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Peter
Schoomaker told the Senate "We've got enormous challenges" when it comes to recruitment of new soldiers. The Army's goal of 80,000 new recruits for this year "is at serious risk," and next
year "may be the toughest recruiting environment ever." These recruiting problems, he believes, are likely to stretch "well into the future." These problems are despite the enormous
incentives now being offered to join the military. There is a joining bonus of $90,000 paid over three years, of which $20,000 is in cash and $70,000 in benefits, along with a canceling of the
loans many a young American must take to afford to go to college. There are reports also that people almost 40 years old are now eligible to join the military, and that the physical and
intellectual standards for recruits have been lowered. The fall in recruitment is strongest in the African-American community (12 percent of the U.S. population) and among women. AfricanAmericans made up almost a quarter of Army recruits in 2000, now their numbers have fallen to less than 14 percent. The number of women Army recruits has dropped from 22 percent in
2000 to about 17 percent. Women make up about 15 percent of the military in total. The Military Path to Citizenship About 7 percent of the U.S. military are not citizens. There are about
30,000 foreign soldiers in the U.S. military from more than 100 countries; more than a third are Hispanic. To encourage recruitment, in 2002 the Bush administration made it easier for foreignborn U.S. troops to become naturalized citizens. Now, any legal resident who joins the military can immediately petition for citizenship rather than wait the five years required for civilians to
start this process. They do not even have to pay the several hundred dollar fee for this process. As an added incentive, if a foreign-born soldier who is a U.S. citizen dies in the line of duty, the
foreign-born members of his or her family can now seek citizenship, even if they are not legal residents. It is also possible for soldiers to be made citizens after they have died in service and for
their families to then become eligible for citizenship. Despite all this, the numbers of non-citizens joining the military is falling fast. The number has fallen by 20 percent since 2001. It is not
slowing down, as much of the decline came last year. It is not just those would be foot soldiers who are staying away. Those with the most to defend are less willing to do so. Army's Reserve
Officers' Training Corps, which trains and commissions more than 60 percent of the new Army officers each year, has been facing similar problems. It now has the fewest participants in nearly
a decade, with recruitment having fallen by more than 16 percent over the past two years. In a recent article in Harpers, Lewis Lapham pointed out that there is a longer-term process at work
here, noting that almost half of the 1956 graduating class from Princeton University went into the military (400 out of a total of 900 students), but from the class of 2004, there were only nine
students who joined out of a class of 1,100. The children of America's elite see no future for themselves in the military. And there are some soldiers who see this. The story is told of a U.S.
Marine who returned to California after a tour of duty in Iraq and was invited to speak at a "gated community" in Malibu as a war hero. He told his audience "I am not a hero. … Guys like me
are just a necessary part of things. To maintain this way of life in a fine community like this, you need psychos like us to go and drop a bomb on somebody's house." In its efforts to find out
why there are now such problems with recruitment, the Army called in the research company Millward Brown to do a study. It found that the resistance was due to popular objection to the
war in Iraq, the casualties, and media coverage of the torture at Abu Ghraib. The study reportedly concluded that, "Reasons for not considering military service are increasingly based on
objections to the Iraq situation and aversion to the military." In short, the Bush administration has failed to make its case for the war in Iraq. Now, people see and read about what really
happens in war, and towns and cities are facing the reality of the 1,900 or so American military deaths and well over 14,000 wounded so far in Iraq. A June 2005 Gallup poll found that in the
past five years the proportion of Americans who said they would support their child's entering the military has fallen from two-thirds to about half. This has not all happened spontaneously.
Across the U.S., there is a growing campaign against military recruitment that is bringing parents, teachers, and peace activists to protect students from military recruiters. Retention Also a
Problem It is not just recruitment. The military has been having problems keeping its soldiers. Almost 30 percent of new recruits leave within six months. Some of this is at least due to the vast
gap between the day-to-day experiences of young people before they join up and the life of a recruit during training. Stories talk of recruits who "can't eat, they literally vomit every time they
put a spoon in their mouths, they're having nightmares." Bonuses are being offered to encourage soldiers to re-enlist once their service is over. It is reported that re-enlistment bonuses can be
as high as $150,000, depending on the specialty and length of re-enlistment. Some reports suggest the Army has started to lower its standards for soldier performance, and so reduce losses.
The Wall Street Journal has reported a military memo directing commanders not to dismiss soldiers for poor fitness, unsatisfactory performance, or even for pregnancy, alcoholism, and drug
abuse. There are problems with desertion. The Pentagon has admitted that more than 5,500 soldiers have deserted since the start of the Iraq war. In comparison, 1,509 deserted in 1995. The
cases that have become public have said that they did so because they are opposed to the war. A telephone hotline to help soldiers who want to leave the military has reported that the
Boot, a prominent military
has offered his solution for the
problem of finding people to fight America's wars. In a recent article, Boot proposed that the path to a bigger American Army
number of calls it is receiving is now double of what it was in 2001 – the hotline answered 33,000 calls last year. A New Army of Mercenaries? Max
commentator, named among "the 500 most influential people in the United States in the field of foreign policy,"
Boot has proposed that the U.S. should look beyond
just U.S. citizens and permanent, legal residents for soldiers to fight in its military. He has proposed
a "Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act," a DREAM Act, as he puts it, that would offer legal status to the
children of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. and eligibility for citizenship if
they can meet a number of conditions, including graduating from high school, and if they go to college or choose to serve in the military. A bill to this
lay in offering a new deal, "Defend America, Become American."
effect was introduced in the U.S. Senate but has not been voted on yet.
Global nuclear war
Morgan 7 (Stephen J., Political Writer and Former Member of the British Labour Party Executive
Committee, “Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?”, 9-23,
http://www.freearticlesarchive
.com/article/_Better_another_Taliban_Afghanistan__than_a_Taliban_NUCLEAR_Pakistan___/99961/0/)
However events may prove him sorely wrong. Indeed, his policy could completely backfire upon him. As the war intensifies, he has no
guarantees that the current autonomy may yet burgeon into a separatist movement. Appetite comes with eating, as they say.
Moreover, should the Taliban fail to re-conquer al of Afghanistan, as looks likely, but captures at least half of the country, then a Taliban
Pashtun caliphate could be established which would act as a magnet to separatist Pashtuns in Pakistan. Then, the likely break
up of Afghanistan along ethnic lines, could, indeed, lead the way to the break up of Pakistan, as well. Strong centrifugal forces
have always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan, and, in the context of the new world situation, the country could be faced with
civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a military-fundamentalist coup d’état. Fundamentalism is
deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children born that year was
“Osama” (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition parties,
conditions would be ripe for a coup d’état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power.
Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be likely. Although,
even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with
nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on
gothic proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an
arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to south
Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast.
Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes,
terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and possibly nuclear war , between Pakistan and
India could no be ruled out. Atomic Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda
influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a “Pandora's box” for the region and the world. With the
possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against
India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan
would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in
the tectonic plates of global relations. It could
usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia pitted against the US.
IL – DREAM K2 Recruitment
Recruitment is at a breaking point --- DREAM Act key to solve
Foley 10 (Elise, Journalist – Medill News Service, “The DREAM Act and National Security”, Washington
Independent, 9/162010, Lexis)
Some senators balked at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reids decision to attach the DREAM Act, a measure that would help some students
become legal residents, to the defense authorization bill. It may have been a political move, but the DREAM Act does have something to do
with defense: Because
undocumented students can gain legal status with two years of
military service, it would likely be a boon for military recruitment. The military is
behind the DREAM Act, Think Progress pointed out yesterday. The Department of Defenses FY2010-12 Strategic Plan
specifically mentions the DREAM Act as a way to help the military œ shape and maintain a missionready All Volunteer Force. Military recruitment would benefit hugely from the DREAM
Act, bill sponsor Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Army Times in 2007. œLargely due to the war in Iraq, the Army is
struggling to meet its recruitment goals, he said. œUnder the DREAM Act, tens of
thousands of well-qualified potential recruits would become eligible for military service for the first
time. They are eager to serve in the armed forces during a time of war. Of course, some in the immigrants rights community
question the inclusion of the DREAM Acts military provisions altogether. The bill originally required students to attend college or do two years
of community service, but the latter option was replaced with a military service option with pressure from the Pentagon. Part of this decision
has to do with fairness ” after all, it seems wrong to ask undocumented immigrants to risk their lives for the country and then deport them ”
but some argue the bills language will push more low-income young people into the military. The site Change.org, for instance, started a
petition asking Congress to reinstate the community service provision to the bill.
Boosts the size and quality of U.S. forces
Bender 7 (Bryan, Washington Bureau Chief – Jane's Defence Weekly, “Immigration Bill Proposal: Join
Military, Become Legal”, San Diego Union Tribune, 6/17,
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070617/news_1n17 dream.html)
A little-noticed provision in the proposed immigration bill would grant instant legal
status and ultimately full citizenship to illegal
immigrants if they enlist in the U.S. military, an idea the Pentagon and military analysts say would boost
the Pentagon's flagging efforts to find and recruit qualified soldiers. The Development,
Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, is part of the stalled package of proposals that many in Congress want to resurrect.
The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is applicable to an estimated 750,000 undocumented residents of military age. It
stipulates that those who arrived in the United States before age 16, graduated from high school and meet other qualifications could
immediately enter the path to citizenship in exchange for at least two years' service in the armed forces. Although the overall immigration bill
was sidetracked this month amid bitter infighting on Capitol Hill, the prospect of using military service as one pathway to citizenship appeals
both to lawmakers who side with immigration-rights advocates and those who want tougher immigration laws and tighter borders. The DREAM
Act is among a series of proposals that make up the immigration bill, the subject of high-stakes negotiations between President Bush and
congressional lawmakers from both parties. Proponents urged Bush to use his influence to get it passed, and he predicted the controversial
changes would succeed, despite lingering opposition from some in his own party. Bill Carr,
the Pentagon's acting
deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy, said the measure
should become law because it would be “good for readiness” – particularly at a
time when the military, under pressure from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is
struggling to attract high-quality recruits. At the same time, the Army and Marine Corps want to increase their
ranks by nearly 100,000 over the next five years. The DREAM Act has had various incarnations since it was introduced in Congress in 2001 but
never gained the momentum needed for passage. A 2003 version would have allowed immigrant students who graduated from a U.S. high
school and who showed good moral character to qualify for “conditional lawful permanent resident” status. During the conditional period, the
immigrant would be required to go to college, join the military or work a significant number of hours of community service as a precondition of
obtaining permanent legal status. The prospect of recruiting foreigners to defend the United States has been a charged issue in the past. The
Pentagon has opposed several proposals from leading defense specialists to recruit troops overseas – a move critics liken to hiring mercenaries.
Using the military service option for select illegal immigrants, however, appears to have widespread support as one way to deal with the
burgeoning illegal immigration problem. There are about 35,000 noncitizens serving in the U.S. military and about 8,000 join each year to take
advantage of an accelerated path to citizenship, according to Pentagon statistics. The government wants to further speed the process; about
4,000 immigrants serving in uniform became citizens in 2005, compared with 750 in 2001. Under
current law, only
citizens and noncitizens who are legal residents and hold green cards qualify to
serve in the armed forces. By allowing undocumented residents to serve, the
DREAM Act would make hundreds of thousands more young people eligible. Those
who enlist under the provision could apply for a so-called Z visa, granting them conditional status as a legal resident – the first step toward full
citizenship. Upon enlistment, they would become eligible for federal student loans and other benefits they are denied as undocumented
immigrants. A summary of the provision says those who would qualify for military service include high school graduates who are “honor roll
students, star athletes, talented artists, aspiring teachers, and doctors.” “The DREAM Act provisions would enable a group of highly qualified,
ambitious young people to contribute to our society by pursuing higher education or serving in the US Army,” the summary says. The
pool of qualified young people would be significant: The government estimates
there are at least 750,000 undocumented youths of military age in the United
States. Only some of them would meet the standards of the DREAM Act, but even 10 percent would equal a
typical full year's worth of new recruits. The Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, estimates that
as many as 280,000 illegal immigrants between ages 18 and 24 would qualify for
the program. “A significant share . . . may join the military as it offers college tuition and job training
benefits, as well as for patriotic reasons,” according to a policy paper drafted by the institute. Choosing military service could also bring
expedited citizenship for family members of undocumented residents, according to the institute. “It's
a substantial pool of
people and I think it's crazy we are not tapping it,” said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations. Boot has previously suggested that the United States go a step further by recruiting
foreigners overseas to serve in the military. Josh Bernstein, director of federal policy at the National Immigration Law Center, which advocates
for low-income immigrants, said most
illegal immigrants who would be eligible for military
service under the proposal come from a demographic group predisposed toward
voluntary military service. For example, a 2004 survey by the RAND Corp. think tank in Santa Monica found that 45 percent
of Hispanic males and 31 percent of Hispanic females between ages 16 and 21 reported they were “very likely” to serve on active duty in the
next few years, compared with 24 percent for white men and 10 percent for white women. “Many of them would naturally otherwise go into
it,” Bernstein said. Because the bill makes eligible only illegal immigrants considered high quality – high achievers with no criminal histories –
the provision has supporters among even those who oppose the overall immigration package and criticize it as “amnesty.” “It is not perfect, but
it is far better than some of the ways they are talking about to grant illegals new status here,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas
McInerney, a conservative commentator and military analyst. McInerney said those
eligible would likely be of a higher caliber than some of the recruits now joining
the Army, because education and other standards have been lowered in recent
years to meet recruiting goals. And they would be making the ultimate demonstration of loyalty to their adopted
country, he said, putting their lives on the line.
Future recruitment will decline --- DREAM Act key
Stock 6 (Margaret, Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the U.S. Military
Academy, West Point, Lieutenant Colonel in the Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve, attorney in
Anchorage, Alaska, November, Immigration Policy In Focus 5:9, “Essential to the Fight,”
www.mygreencard.com/downloads.php?file=ImmigrantsAndMilitary.pdf)
passage
of the bill would be highly beneficial to the U.S. military. At a time when several military
services are experiencing difficulties recruiting eligible enlisted soldiers and therefore
have been lowering the qualifying standards for military service, passage of this bill
could substantially reduce the armed forces’ enlisted recruiting woes while also
providing a new source of soldiers with foreign language qualifications. In March 2005, the
Although opponents of the DREAM Act have argued that it is a “sugar-coated amnesty” rewarding those who have violated U.S. immigration laws,
Army reported missing its enlistment goals for the first time in five years and the Marine Corps reported similar troubles. Five of the six military reserve components
Over the coming years, it will become
increasingly difficult for the armed forces to attract enough qualified recruits.41 The
did not meet their recruiting goals during the first four months of FY 2005.
Armed Forces did meet their recruitment goals for FY 2006, in part by accepting more applicants with extremely low scores on standardized aptitude tests and by
The DREAM Act requires no change to military rules for enlisting recruits and allows
the military to tap an overlooked pool of home-grown talent. The Migration Policy Institute has estimated
raising the maximum allowable age for recruits.42
that “if the act is signed into law in 2006, about 279,000 unauthorized youth would be newly eligible persons for college enrollment or the U.S. military.”43 Under
current immigration law, they have no means of legalizing their status. Despite having attracted more than 200 cosponsors from both sides of the political aisle,
DREAM Act bills have repeatedly failed to pass in both the House and Senate since first being introduced in 2003. One version of the bill passed the Senate in May
2006, but its counterpart did not pass in the House.44 The Pentagon already has statutory authority under its new enlistment statute to implement the provisions
contained in the DREAM Act, but has apparently chosen not to do so.45
IL – Recruitment K2 Heg
Recruitment is key to overall hard power
Goure 6 (Daniel, Ph.D., Vice President – Lexington Institute, Presentation at the Heritage Foundation,
“Avoiding A Hollow Military”, 3-27, www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense.asp?aid=757)
This is the second in a series of seminars organized by the Heritage Foundation to address a very important and deceptively simple question: does the U.S. military
The force has
been shrinking for more than 20 years. The secular trend is for costs to rise faster than increases in defense spending. Efforts to reduce costs
have adequate resources to maintain a trained and combat-ready force? The simple answer is no. The evidence is staring us in the face.
have, by in large, failed. One of the few areas where it is bearing fruit is logistics and support. This is because of increased reliance on the private sector; on
Yes, the effectiveness of U.S. forces has increased over this same
period, measured in conventional terms. This increase in effectiveness has supported decisions by
Administrations, past and present, to reduce the overall size of the military. What this process has obscured is a defense "death
companies such as UPS, Maersk, Honeywell and Caterpillar.
spiral." Not only have the Armed Forces been getting smaller, they have also been getting older. Even as the military deploys powerful new capabilities such as the
F-22, V-22, Virginia-class SSN and the Stryker Combat Vehicle, it has been forced to tolerate the aging of its overall fleets of fighters, bombers, tankers, submarines,
armored fighting vehicles and helicopters. It is increasingly clear that the Armed
Forces are not only too old but also too small. The
overall size of the Armed Forces was a less important metric of capability during the Cold War because
of the existence of nuclear weapons and the deft construction of an escalation mechanism that made it
all but certain that a conventional war between east and west would result in nuclear devastation to
both. Present circumstances dictate the need for a larger and different military. Larger, simply because
the demands are on the rise, the distances are increasing and the complexity of contingencies continue
to grow. One lesson from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) is that
there is the danger of breaking the all- volunteer military if it is overextended in campaigns of choice
rather than necessity. This means forces must be rotated relatively frequently with all the attendant costs and disruptions. The military must
be larger also because at its present size, even the loss of a relatively small number of units could have
catastrophic consequences for overall U.S. military power. This is particularly significant if the future is
one marked by proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Recruitment Good – Afghan Impact – South Asia
Afghani instability sparks South Asia nuclear war --- goes global
Kavanagh ‘07
(Trevor, Former Political Editor – The Sun, 1-22, Lexis)
If we allow them to fail, the price will be incalculable. A return to Taliban rule in Afghanistan would almost
certainly put the skids under Pakistan's "moderate" President Musharraf. That could set the stage for the first nuclear war between Pakistan and India - dragging in China and the USA. We are at a dangerous crossroads. Western security services
are under no illusion that fanatics are radicalising young men at an alarming pace. At home and abroad we are competing for the hearts and minds of sensible,
decent Muslims who are being bullied and intimidated in the name of extreme Islam. In many ways we are in their hands. Only they can stand in the way of a
virulent spread of terror. They must decide whether they want peace -or simply to be left in peace. Because, as the Romans said: "If you want peace, you have to be
ready to fight for it."
Extinction
Fai 1
(Ghulam Nabi, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Washington Times, 7-8)
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with
a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a
disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and
Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear
volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no
idiosyncratic view. The director of central intelligence, the Defense Department, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries.
Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite
widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated
an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. The
boiling witches' brew in Kashmir should propel the
United States to assertive facilitation or mediation of Kashmir negotiations. The impending July 14-16 summit in New
Delhi between President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee featuring Kashmir on the agenda does not justify complacency.
Recruitment Good – Afghan Impact – Heg
Afghani failure crushes U.S. global credibility
Wisner 3
(Frank III, Co-Chair – Independent Study Group Report on Afghanistan, CFR, 6-23,
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6069)
The Afghanistan report says that the U nited S tates should lend more support to Karzai’s transitional government and that more
vigorous military, diplomatic, and economic measures are needed to bolster the government’s hand. Can these proposals be implemented?
These are proposals that the United States can, but more importantly, must accomplish. If Afghanistan goes badly, if the Karzai regime
fails, if the constitutional preparations don’t go forward, if the elections are not held in 2004, it
is a huge black eye for the U nited
S tates. Moreover, if the country re-descends into anarchy and drug [production], we will pay a major price. What price? It will
be measured in terms of our credibility as a peacekeeper in a very troubled age, our ability to build coalitions in the war against
terror, our ability to act as a force for stability and a mobilizer of sympathetic international attention. It’s going to be a
major setback for NATO, if [the peacekeeping mission, which NATO will assume command of in August,] fails. [U.S.] failure in
Afghanistan will mean it will be even harder to exit Iraq because the United States will be stalked by the ghost of failure in Afghanistan. And
[Afghanistan’s] descent into chaos would mean real questions of stability in a troubled region; failure in Afghanistan is
going to mean an outbreak of unsettling rivalries that will affect the U nited S tates.
Recruitment Good – Afghan Impact – Economy
Afghani instability risks terrorism that collapses the global economy
Colucci 7
(Craig, Captain – U.S. Army, Military Review, 5-1, www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1163680156.html)
Importance of a Stable Afghanistan If, as some say, winning is no longer a possibility in Iraq, then a
loss in Afghanistan in which the Taliban
gains its old training grounds back to stage future terrorist attacks would mean the U nited S tates has lost the War on
Terrorism. (39) Such a failure would embolden and empower Al-Qaeda, and the staggering costs of attacks similar to that of 11
September 2001, plus the increased security measures to prevent further attacks, would lead to direct costs and indirect effects that influence the U.S. economy.
Before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda were in the country working closely with Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban. The August 1998
U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, and the 11 September 2001 attacks were all planned in Afgha nistan. (40) Now,
once again, the Taliban is operating in some areas of Afghanistan. If Al-Qaeda is not there already, it soon will be. A
failed Afghan state or even one with a
weak government would allow Al-Qaeda to establish planning, operations, training, and recruiting nodes in the country .
Military historian Stephen Tanner claims that it would be dangerous for the United States to abandon Afghanistan. He writes, "Instant global communication with its
consequent accessibility to weapons technology can make even the poorest or most remote nation a threat to the world ... After a half-century of cold war, the
United States suffered the greatest foreign attack in its history not from the gigantic armaments of Russia or China, but at the hands of a small group based on
Afghan soil." (41) Besides the loss of life, the economic costs resulting from the 11 September 2001 attacks were astounding. The Institute
for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) estimates that the property damage and lost production of goods and services was over $100 billion. Moreover, "including
the loss in stock market wealth--the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility-the price tag approaches $2 trillion." (42) The $2 trillion estimate is 166 times greater than the $12 billion proposed for Afghanistan R&S aid from FY 2007 to FY
2010. According to New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., the attacks cost up to $95 billion and caused the loss of 146,000 jobs to the city alone. (43)
On the conservative side, the economic cost of one day of a coordinated terrorist attack planned in Afghanistan, $95 billion, is almost 8 times the proposed R&S
amount. Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff asserts that "another
atrocity on the scale of September 11 would wreak havoc on energy prices,
stock markets, and consumer confidence, slamming the brakes on today's global economic recovery." (44) The
economic impact of antiterrorism efforts can have a significant negative effect on the American and global
economy. The hindered free flow of goods, services, and individuals across international borders can slow economic growth. U.S.
immigration restrictions imposed after 9/11 are a case in point, for they prevent the influx of science and engineering knowledge from abroad. Innovation through
science and research leads to U.S. economic growth and global competitiveness. When you consider that foreign-born immigrants account for more than one-fifth
of America's scientists and engineers, you can understand the impact immigration restrictions may have on the Nation's growth. In addition, over 43 percent of
America's Ph.D.'s are foreign born. First-time international student enrollment in graduate level science and engineering programs dropped by 13 percent from
2001 to 2003 (the latest year statistics were available). This decline may be the result of immigration restrictions. (45) If Rogoff is right that, "the U.S. economy
grows in no small part by skimming the cream off of the rest of the world's workforce," the hidden costs of anti-terror efforts are great indeed. (46) Another
example of antiterrorism measures slowing growth would be increased scrutiny of goods at American and international ports. As trade and the pace of goods
through ports slow, costs will skyrocket and product innovation will be stifled. Rogoff sums up the effects thusly: "Any abatement of the competitive pressures of
globalization or any reduction in the free
sharply at your local Wal-Mart." (47)
movement of people and ideas would surely undercut growth--not to mention raise prices
Recruitment Good – Iraq Impact – Stability
And --- recruitment is key to Iraq stability --- that’s 1NC Mian --- global nuclear war
Corsi 7 (Jerome, "War with Iran is imminent," Phd in Poly Sci @ Harvard, author, + staff reporter @
World Net Daily, 1-8, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669)
If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into
the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time
before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The Iraq war could quickly spin into a
regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on Iran that
could include tactical nuclear weapons.
With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to
wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai
Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider
regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq, China may have their moment to
go after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war, much as
World Wars I and II began.
Recruitment Good – China Impact – Asia
Low strength perception collapses deterrence of China --- sparking Asian conflicts
Plate 98 (Tom, Professor of Political Science – UCLA, “China’s Dangerous Perception Error; If the
People’s Liberation Army Misjudges U.S. Behavior in Iraq, It May be Less Hesitant to Act in Korea or
Taiwan”, Los Angeles Times, 2-24, Lexis)
Crisis and conflict can occur as much through misunderstanding and miscalculation as through
conscious decision and calculation. If recent studies of the Chinese military mentality have got it right, then one unintended result of the
patchwork diplomatic settlement for the Iraq standoff may be to reinforce Beijing's instinct that America is soft, its will shaky and its military capabilities somehow
less than advertised. The U.S. record in the Persian Gulf in 1991 offers the Chinese the most recent major example of what this nation and its military can do when
the mission is clear and the American people are united behind the president. But where much of the world saw a massive, well-organized use of superior force and
technology, many in China's military saw something less. That, at least, is the concern of China specialist and Rand consultant James Mulvenon, who recently
studied the senior Chinese officer corps for Rand's National Defense Research Institute. While he gives Beijing high marks for its efforts to improve the
professionalism of its sprawling People's Liberation Army, Mulvenon feels strongly that its understanding of the United States is still deficient: "There are people in
the PLA that believe we could only kill all those Iraqi tanks because no one was in them. They think: 'You use smart weapons too much, you have no stomach for
fighting.'J" If that's the actual Chinese belief, then the gap between the reality of U.S. military capabilities and China's percep-tion of them is wide. Worse yet,
Mulvenon's informed melancholy is shared in Washington. A recent Pentagon study, "Dangerous Chinese Misperceptions," agrees that, despite all the recent
military-to-military contacts between Chinese officers and their U.S. counterparts, the true picture of America apparently is still fuzzy. Says the Pentagon report:
"China's leadership holds a number of dangerous misconceptions that may well cause serious political
friction or even military conflict with the United States. The consequences of China consistently
underestimating the military power of potential opponents complicates any effort to deter China." A
widespread Chinese belief about U.S. weakness could trigger miscalculation by Beijing. One such error
would be a wholly unilateral Chinese decision to intervene suddenly in North Korea , should that failing state
disintegrate and refugees pour over the border into China. Or a decision to attack Taiwan , a nation of 21 million people which Beijing claims as its
historic own. Of the latter, Mulvenon agrees: "Many Chinese officers think, 'You would not risk the lives of American
boys and girls over Taiwan.'J"
Global nuclear war
Landay 00 (Jonathan S., National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, Knight Ridder/Tribune
News Service, 3-10, Lexis)
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But
even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear
war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of
organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War
Europe. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile,” said Bates Gill, director of
northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “We see the convergence of great
power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are
elements for potential disaster.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and
National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There
are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the U nited S tates would
instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense
commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear
weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable
Asia, with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources, indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous
U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the
Commerce Department.
DREAM Good – Competitiveness
Encouraging education for first-generation immigrants is key to competitiveness.
Caperton 10 (Gaston, president of the College Board, 8/2, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gastoncaperton/addressing-americas-growi_b_667185.html)
a ranking of developed countries based on the
number of young people who had earned college degrees. Among 25 to 34 year-olds, the United States
When I was governor of West Virginia in the early 1990s, there was
ranked third. I remember thinking that wasn't good enough. We used to be No. 1; we should lead the world in education attainment again. Today we're ranked
12th. Behind Russia. Behind Japan and Korea. And if the pattern continues, soon to be behind a host of other nations smart enough to match their understanding of
At the precise time that the importance
of a college degree is increasing, the ability of the U nited S tates to compete in a global
economy is decreasing. This is a trend we must reverse. We can debate the congressional
stimulus package and the vast sums of money it includes to help pull us out of the recession. But those investments will mean little in
the long run if we do not fuel the real engine of economic growth and the key to
our global competitiveness -- education. Each year 1.3 million students leave high school without graduating -- that's 7,000
the importance of college completion with the investments that make it possible.
students per day. Only about half of African American and Latino students earn a high school diploma. And the unemployment rate for those without a high school
our growing education
deficit over the long term is as great a threat to our nation's well-being as the fiscal crisis. The College Board recently
released an action agenda detailing steps the United States must take to regain its global competitiveness. Our goal is to ensure
diploma is more than three times higher than the rate of those with a college degree. Make no mistake --
that at least 55 percent of young Americans earn a college degree or higher by 2025. As of today, no state has achieved this goal; for more than half of the states,
requires establishing and supporting
efforts to support first-generation, low-income and minority students as they
complete college. Equally important, we must strengthen the pre-kindergarten through college completion educational pipeline.
less than one third of their population ages 25 to 34 hold a degree. Changing this
Extinction.
Tilford 8 (Dr. Earl, fellow with the Center for Vision and Values, PhD in history from George
Washington University, 10/6,
http://www.visandvals.org/Critical_Mass_Economic_Leadership_or_Dictatorship.php?view_all=1)
Could it happen again? Bourgeois democracy requires a vibrant capitalist system. Without it, the role of the individual shrinks as government expands. At the very
least, the dimensions of the U.S. government economic intervention will foster a growth in bureaucracy to administer the multi-faceted programs necessary for
implementation. Bureaucracies, once established, inevitably become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Will this lead to “socialism” as some conservative economic
If the American economy collapses, especially in
American democratic era may be over. If the world economies
collapse, totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well along that path in any event.
Fragile democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could crumble . A
global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic
systems shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that nations
perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the military capability, use force, just as Japan and
Nazi Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nations—
the world powers of North America, Europe, and Asia—need access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these needs. If
the world economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely
alternative. And given the increasingly rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very
quickly. The United States is at the epicenter as the world edges toward critical mass. And the ship of state appears rudderless. The current crisis is as much
prognosticators suggest? Perhaps. But so is the possibility of dictatorship.
wartime, there remains that possibility. And if that happens the
one of leadership as economics. This is the time for statesmen to come to the fore. So far, political leaders, anxious to preserve and to advance partisan agendas,
have engaged in behavior bordering on the infantile. Whether or not men and women of selfless character, statesmen devoted to the preservation of the nation
and its precious but always fragile democracy will emerge, remains unclear. But it is clear that
if our leadership fails at this
critical juncture, the fate of our nation and the world lies in the balance. At this point of critical mass, while
rife with politicians, we are impoverished for leadership.
DREAM Good – Translators (Terror)
DREAM Act key to translators
IPC 10 (Immigration Policy Center, “The DREAM Act”, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/justfacts/dream-act)
The DREAM Act would aid military recruiting. The DREAM Act would help the military find
new recruits—almost 8 percent of the current armed forces are foreign-born, and the military
relies heavily on the translation and cultural expertise of immigrants. According to
West Point Professor Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, the DREAM Act “would be tremendously beneficial to the
military. It gives the opportunity to enlist hundreds of thousands of high-quality people.” DREAM Act
students are so desirable that the Department of Defense has supported the bill to help enlist new
recruits and maintain the strength of the military. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military
Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, supports the DREAM Act and stated that the law would be “good for
readiness” and would help to recruit “cream of the crop” students.
Solves terrorism
Scarborough 9 (Rowan, Expert on Defense and National Security, “Lack of Translators Hurts U.S. War
on Terror”, Washington Times, 8-31, http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/lack-oftranslators-hurts-u.s.-war-on-terror/)
U.S. national security agencies remain woefully short of foreign-language speakers and
translators nearly eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks resulted in a war on an enemy that often
communicates in relatively obscure dialects, current and former officials say.
The necessary cadre of U.S. intelligence personnel capable of reading and speaking targeted regional
languages such as Pashto, Dari and Urdu "remains essentially nonexistent," the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence wrote in a rare but stark warning in its 2010 budget report.
The gap has become critical in the war effort, especially in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater,
where al Qaeda and Taliban operatives text message, e-mail and talk in languages that the
intelligence community had largely ignored before 2001.
Intercepting phone and radio calls in the region's native tongues is critical to monitoring
terrorist camps and movements in Pakistan's tribal areas, officials said.
The National Security Agency (NSA), based at Fort Meade, Md., channels the calls to translation centers,
where linguists are supposed to quickly translate the words into English so that they
can be distributed in reports and raw transcripts to commanders and policymakers. But such
quick follow-through does not always happen.
Extinction
Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New
Zealand – Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic
Effects”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(7), July)
A Catalytic Response: Dragging in the Major Nuclear Powers
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily
represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be
regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would
come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even
the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear
war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and
even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated
entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear
exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism,
could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the
states that possess them. In this context, today's and tomorrow's terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War
years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers
started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the socalled n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear
terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war . For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the
United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem
unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be
involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do
suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of
nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct
attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al.
that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it
detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the
materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear
terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at
all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors . Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France,
and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea,
perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high
stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing
tension
in Washington's relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major
powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would
only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were
confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well
apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the
United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible
perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington's early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the
possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and /or China . For example, in the noise and
confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country's armed
forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction
of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear
force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption
would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier)
Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the
leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these
targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an
infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario
might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as
Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents' … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42
American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced
consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.
DREAM Impact – California (Econ)
DREAM Act key to California university revenue
IPC 10 (Immigration Policy Center, “The DREAM Act”, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/justfacts/dream-act)
What are the Additional Benefits of the DREAM Act?
The DREAM Act would help universities. The 10 states which, since 2001, have passed laws allowing
undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition have not experienced a large influx of new immigrant students that displaces native-born
students. These states (Texas, California, Utah, Washington, New York, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, and Nebraska) are
home to about half of the nation’s undocumented immigrants. The measures
actually tend to increase school revenues as students who would not normally
attend college start to pay tuition.
University debt collapses the Californian economy
Samuels 10 (Bob, President – University Council AFT, “How the University of California Helped to
Create the Global Fiscal Meltdown”, Huffington Post, 5-13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobsamuels/how-the-university-of-cal_b_575326.html)
As employees with stagnant wages take out huge loans to support their inflated housing costs, students are forced to borrow millions to pay for
their education; meanwhile, the university itself has over $14 billion of debt. There is thus a huge demand for credit that is
generated by the university system, and this demand is often met by financial speculation. In fact, Ashok and Walker
show that a major cause for the change in the California economy is the growth of the financial sector: "While it is
difficult to gauge the magnitude of California-based lending as a whole, due to the geographical fungibility of financial flows, one indicator is
the growth of financial employment. Although information technology and the business services both had a good run in the 1990s, neither of
them recovered in the aftermath of the dot-com bust, whereas the financial industry went from strength to strength. Employment in FIRE
(finance, insurance and real estate) skyrocketed between 1996 and 2006 to almost one million jobs, increasing by a remarkable 27%." The
state of California's economy is now driven by finance, insurance, and real estate, and these markets themselves have been
augmented by the University of California. Moreover, through its $60 billion investment portfolio, the UC is a heavy investor in
real estate, private equity, and mortgage-backed securities, not to mention credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. Driving Up
Costs Not only is the university a large borrower, speculator, and employer, but it dominates the healthcare market due to its highly successful
medical centers. Once again, the university's participation in the medical industry is a double-edge sword: on the one hand, the UC helps to
provide high quality care, and on the other hand, it drives up costs by rewarding huge compensation packages to its star administrators,
researchers, and faculty. Not only do medical faculty and administrators often make between $400,000 and $1,000,000 a year, but their centers
generate giant profits for the university. In turn, the university is a major purchaser of healthcare insurance for present and retired employees.
While it should be possible for the UC system to use its market clout to force down the costs of healthcare premiums, the opposite has been
the case, and the university now faces a multi-billion dollar healthcare liability for retirees. Due to this dangerous combination of
stagnant wages, escalating wealth inequality, and rising costs for housing, education, and healthcare, California
has seen some of the highest rates of foreclosures. Furthermore, in the areas surrounding the University of California campuses,
we witness thousands of people defaulting on their homes loans and student loans. Once again, while we cannot blame the UC system for the
entire crisis, the university acts as a tipping point for both the inflation of costs and the deflation of wages. Some Solutions If the University
of California is really at the heart of this fiscal mix of skyrocketing costs
and stagnant wages coupled with high debt
and risky borrowing, it should be able to provide a road map of how to stop the next bubble and bust. The first step is clear: there must be
an effort to decrease the compensation inequality in the system. Not only does the stagnation of wages for the majority of employees result in
the need to take on high levels of debt, but the escalation of wages at the top drives up the costs of healthcare, education, and housing for
everyone else.
Tanks the economy and heg
Gvosdev 3 (Nikolas, Editor – National Interest, The National Interest, Vol. 2, Issue 30, 8-13,
http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue32/Vol2Issue32Realist.html)
But the real issue is this: people "inside the Beltway" sometimes seem to forget that there is no "United States" apart from the fifty states (and associated
A fiscal and economic crisis in California has a direct impact on the power of the U nited
S tates, since some 13 percent of the total U.S. output is produced by California. California on its own is the sixth largest economy in the
world, worth some $1.309 trillion--yet this represents a decline of approximately 2.3 percent from 2000, when California's economy outperformed that of
France. California represents a significant share of the country's technological base and of its human capital. The high-tech
weaponry which led to a swift initial military victory in Iraq is in part a product of the technology and defense sectors of the
California economy. A state budget crisis that significantly cuts back on everything from education (including higher education, where so many
innovative breakthroughs have taken place) to health care has ramifications for how the U nited S tates projects its influence
throughout the world. In previous issues of In the National Interest, other authors have pointed out the dangerous implications of continued deficit
spending by the federal government to support overseas operations, and this problem can only increase if a continuing crisis in the
principal engine of America's economy continues. And, of course, California is the bellweather for the nation as a
whole. Twenty-nine states have either passed or are considering tax hikes to close budget deficits. Several states--including Hawaii, Georgia and North Carolina-territories and commonwealths).
will call special fall sessions of their legislatures to deal with the fact that collected taxes have fallen short of budget projections. Yet the attitude is that the recall in
California is amusing political comedy, nothing more. There seems to be almost no recognition of the fact that whoever sits in the governor's chair after October 7 -whether Grey Davis survives or is "terminated" --must work quickly to solve the problems that have led California into its current quagmire. Few other countries in
the world would be so blasé if political turmoil and economic collapse threatened the welfare of a key component of its national power. The California crisis
reminds us that there is no neat line dividing "domestic" and "foreign" policy. Ensuring that California survives its current crisis is no less a priority than stabilizing
Iraq or containing North Korea.
Extinction
Austin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident
Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6,
http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
global chaos followed hard
on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally
worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.
The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20
million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year.
A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing
may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia,
an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown
Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls
apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors,
is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have
plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands
of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly
20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is
haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously
increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the
past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship,
including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global
downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible
protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss
of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that
coalesce into a big bang .
Economy
Econ IL – CIR
Newest studies
Huffington Post, 2-7-2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/economic-benefits-ofimmigration-reform_n_2638548.html
c omprehensive i mmigration r eform would provide a $1.5 trilion benefit to the GDP over 10
years, along with a $66 billion boost in federal tax collection. Those figures would more than offset the
potential costs of the same.¶ The Financialist modeled its projections on the 2006 comprehensive immigration reform proposal and based the graphic on
The infographic predicts that
information from the Congressional Budget Office and a 2010 study by Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda for the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American
Progress.¶ The digital publication isn't the only one trying to move the immigration debate beyond social issues into the economic realm. Conservative
New York Times columnist David Brooks said in a piece last month that reform advocates should drop the humanitarian argument
and instead focus on the economic one:¶ The forlorn pundit doesn’t even have to make the humanitarian case that immigration reform would be a
great victory for human dignity. The cold economic case by itself is so strong .¶ Increased immigration would boost
the U.S. economy. Immigrants are 30 percent more likely to start new businesses than native-born Americans,
according to a research summary by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of The Hamilton Project. They are more likely to earn patents. A
quarter of new high-tech companies with more than $1 million in sales were also founded by the foreign-born.
-Consensus
Ted Hesson is the immigration editor for Univision News. 11-19-2012
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/analysis-economic-impact-immigrationreform/story?id=17761157#.UUvQXldvCuq
The Economic Benefits of C omprehensive I mmigration R eform" by UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, published by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think
tank¶ Summary: Immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years.¶ This report
1. "
looks at three scenarios projected over a 10-year period: comprehensive reform, a guest worker program and mass deportation.¶ - Comprehensive reform would include a pathway to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants who register, pay a fine and pass a criminal background check. That would add $1.5 trillion to the GDP over 10 years.¶ - A temporary worker program
with no path to citizenship would add $792 million to the GDP, about half as much as reform.¶ - Mass deportation would result in $2.6 trillion in lost GDP over 10 years.¶ How does HinojosaOjeda get these numbers?¶ He starts by looking at the last large-scale legalization program in the United States. That would be the 1986 amnesty under President Ronald Reagan. Via this
program, nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants became lawful residents. The post-amnesty data -- which looks at a minimum period of three years, between 1988 and 1991 -- showed
that legalization boosted wages for undocumented workers.¶ He then takes the wage increase experienced after the 1986 amnesty by this group and applies that to the number of people
projected to seek legalization this time around. In Hinojosa-Ojeda's version of comprehensive reform, the immigration system is also adjusted so that the flow of immigrant workers entering
the country during the 10-year period his report covers are doing so legally. He adds the higher wages that those legal workers would receive to his projection. "What you get are these very
powerful increases in wages for the legalized population and the existing population," Hinojosa-Ojeda says.¶ This approach has its limitations, according to Laura Hill, a policy fellow at the
Public Policy Institute of California (see her report below). The economic conditions of the late 1980s and early 1990s aren't the best indicator for predicting the impact in the present day, she
says. "The world might have changed since 1986," Hill says. "That doesn't mean there wouldn't be any gains from legalization, it's just not the same magnitude of Hinojosa's work." ¶ To find
out how the wage gains would affect the GDP, Hinojosa-Ojeda used an economic model called a computable general equilibrium model -- essentially a super calculator. This program
incorporates 20,000 to 30,000 equations and is also used by the U.S. government to determine figures like the potential impact of tax revenue.¶ These types of programs can cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars to develop: "This is for when you absolutely have to have the best results," Hinojosa-Ojeda said. While the tool is high power, what's more important is the data that you
Hinojosa-Ojeda chose to use data from the last mass legalization program, which showed big wage
increases. He also made the assumption that a better functioning immigration system would allow new immigrant workers to start at a higher salary. That all translates to big GDP
gains over 10 years.¶ Verdict: Economists generally agree that a path to legalization would have a positive economic
impact, but putting an exact dollar amount on that impact requires making some assumptions along the way. If the assumptions Hinojosa-Ojeda has made about the effects of reform
put in.¶
hold true, the projection should be roughly on target.
Econ IL – Visas/High Skilled
Expanding high skilled immigration key to US economic growth and competitiveness
Anthony F. Siliato, Esq. and Scott R. Malyk, Esq, founder and associate of Meyner and Landis LLP’s
Immigration Law Group, July 29, 2009, “H-1B Visa Usage On The Decline: Is It The Economy Or
Increased USCIS Scrutiny Or Something More?” http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2009/07/h-1b-visausage-on-the-decline-is-it-the-economy-or-increased-uscis-scrutiny-or-something-more.html
As a result of the H-1B “crackdown”, a recent Computer World article predicts that more and more Indian
IT firms will look to alternate locations to the United States, including Mexico, which are more immigration
friendly and less costly. Hence the query: Is this downward trend of H-1B usage an aberration or will we
see this trend continue? Most assuredly, a confluence of factors have contributed to the recent
trend—a struggling economy, compounded by the current naysayer attitude of USCIS and the fact that the United States is becoming less and
less attractive to an immigrant workforce that has historically helped to stimulate our economy. While there is little doubt that
we can expect some increase in H-1B usage as our economy recovers, there is no doubt that the
United States has lost some of its glitter to the best and brightest of the world. Now prospects are
becoming dimmer for highly skilled professional immigrants under the H-1B program. Regardless of the
empirical data upon which one relies, it is undisputed that the shifting of nonimmigrant personnel offshore is a
damaging blow to our overall economic recovery and to the United States’ dominance in the areas of
medicine, science, engineering and technology. One such set of data is set forth in a recent position paper published by the
Harvard Business School which finds that invention increases with higher H-1B admission levels. In finding that the H-1B visa
program for temporary workers has played an important role in U.S. innovation patterns and
technological commercialization over the last 15 years, the authors conclude that the H-1B program is a
matter of significant policy importance and that “total invention increases with higher admission
levels primarily through the direct contributions of immigrant inventors”. It naturally follows that, as
invention and innovation are on the rise, so are employment opportunities for U.S. workers. This begs the
question that if we cede to certain isolationist sentiments and ideas in the name of “protecting U.S. workers,” are we simply cutting off our
The U.S. scientific, engineering, and technology industries cannot expect to maintain
their present position of international leadership if we continue to create legislative and administrative
obstacles that discourage the hiring and retention of highly educated foreign talent. We also cannot
hope to grow our economy and create more jobs if we are ceding leadership in innovation to other
nations. Indeed, Google, one of the most innovative companies in the world, has said that it could not develop its innovations in the United
nose to spite our face?
States without the assistance of the H-1B workers program. In a hearing last year before the House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Laszlo
Block, Vice President for People Operations at Google, testified, “If U.S. employers are unable to hire those who are
graduating from our universities, foreign competitors will.” Comprehensive immigration reform is
clearly necessary with a realization by Congress that current restrictions on high skill immigration are
counterproductive. Otherwise, not only will some of the best graduates of our universities, and highly qualified scientists and
researchers of the world, have no choice to live and work elsewhere, but more and more U.S. companies may follow the lead of IT consulting
companies and vacate the United States to set up facilities offshore—all of which, of course, does not bode well for the health of our national
economy.
Increasing H-1B visas crucial to US competitiveness and economic growth.
Courtney L. Cromwell, J.D. candidate, Brooklyn Law School, Spring 2009, Brooklyn Journal of Corporate,
Financial & Commercial Law, Lexis Academic
In addition to the high demand for workers, proponents remind us that the H-1B visa enables the world's best
and brightest to come to the U nited S tates, allowing it to maintain its status as a leading innovative
economy. n171 "In today's knowledge-based economy, capturing value from intellectual capital and knowledge-
based assets has gained even more importance. Global competition is no longer for the control of raw
materials, but for this productive knowledge." n172 If the cap remains at 65,000 and companies are not
able to hire the workers they need, there will be severely detrimental effects on the U.S.
economy. More companies will begin off-shoring their operations to more immigration-friendly nations
such as Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom, or to countries where labor is less expensive. n173 Furthermore, fewer
foreign nationals will enroll in U.S. universities because they will have no hope of remaining in the
U nited S tates after graduation. n174 While all agree that the H-1B category needs reform, proponents argue that the protections
mandated by the USCIS are taken seriously and that critics over-exaggerate the abuse of the category. n175
Employment-based immigration key to growth.
Paschal O. Nwokocha, former Minnesota assistant attorney general who is now chairman of
Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of American Immigration Lawyers Association, 2008, William Mitchell Law
Review, Lexis Academic
Many indicators suggest that receiving countries, and in this case the
United States, benefit currently from employmentbased immigration and will continue to do so in the future. n199 In 2006, immigrants made up 12.5 percent of the population, or 37.4
million people in the United States. n200 In economic terms alone, the U nited S tates has measurably profited
from employment-based immigration; a recent report produced by Goldman Sachs states that overall
economic output slows as the American labor force grows more slowly, and that new migrants have
added approximately 0.5 percent to American g ross d omestic p roduct every year in the past decade.
n201 Skilled immigrants supplement an aging and shrinking American workforce; they are entrepreneurs
who create jobs and wealth, consumers of goods and services, and skilled workers whose large numbers
encourage capital business investment. n202 Employment-based immigrants also pay taxes in the United
States. n203 A study by the National Research Council points out that migrants with more than a high school education generate a net fiscal
benefit of $ 198,000 over their lifetime. n204 Immigrant labor also helps keep the American economy stable
because, [*64] during strong growth periods, immigrants lower "the risk of wage pressures and rising
inflation." n205 If growth slows, migrants often choose to move home, to migrate to another country, or
not to migrate initially. n206
It’s a question of perception – the US needs to counter-act the image of restricting
high-skill immigrants – key to competitiveness.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st
Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology Committee on Science, Engineering, and
Public Policy, 2007, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
The federal government should continue to improve visa processing for international students and scholars to provide
less complex procedures, and continue to make improvements on such issues as visa categories and duration, travel for scientific meetings, the
technology alert list, reciprocity agreements, and changes in status. Since
9/11, the nation has struggled to improve
security by more closely screening international visitors, students, and workers. The federal government is now also
considering tightening controls on the access that international students and researchers have to technical information and equipment. One
consequence is that fewer of the best international scientists and engineers are able to come to the
United States, and if they do enter the United States, their intellectual and geographic mobility is curtailed. The post-9/11
approach fosters an image of the United States as a less than welcoming place for foreign
scholars. At the same time, the home nations of many potential immigrants—such as China, India, Taiwan, and
South Korea—are strengthening their own technology industries and universities and offering jobs and
incentives to lure scientists and engineers to return to their nations of birth. Other countries have taken
advantage of our tightened restrictions to open their doors more widely, and they recruit many who
might otherwise have come to the United States to study or conduct research. A growing challenge for policy-makers is to
reconcile security needs with the flow of people and information from abroad. Restrictions on access to information and technology—much of
it already freely available— could undermine the fundamental research that benefits so greatly from international participation. One must be
particularly vigilant to ensure that thoughtful, high-level directives concerning homeland security are not unnecessarily amplified by
administrators who focus on short-term safety while unintentionally weakening long-term overall national security. Any
marginal
benefits in the security arena have to be weighed against the ability of national research facilities to carry out
unclassified, basic research and the ability of private companies with federal contracts to remain internationally
competitive. An unbalanced increase in security will erode the nation’s scientific and engineering
productivity and economic strength and will destroy the welcoming atmosphere of our scientific and
engineering institutions. Such restrictions would also add to the incentives for US companies to move
operations overseas.
Increasing high-skill immigration key to boost job creation.
Richard T. Herman and Robert L. Smith, founder of Richard T. Herman & Associates, an immigration and
business law firm and veteran journalist who has written extensively on immigration, August 3, 2010,
AOL News, “Opinion: The Immigration Solution to Job Growth,”
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-heres-a-quick-and-cheap-way-to-create-jobswelcome-more-skilled-immigrants/19578143
Some people need a new job. Some people need any job. The question being asked across America these days
goes something like, "Where will the new jobs come from?" Will they come from big corporations? From the government? Will
they fall from the sky? Some people seem to think so. How else to explain their reluctance to embrace the most
powerful economic stimulus of the era -- immigration. The fact is, new jobs in the new economy are
powered by startups -- businesses started by entrepreneurs. And much of the entrepreneurial fuel in this country
comes from immigrants. According to a recent study by the Kauffman Foundation, nearly all net job growth in America
from 1980 to 2005 came from companies less than 5 years old. That's an astonishing and powerful statistic. When
people envision major employers, many still think of huge companies and their factories, banks and law firms and retail chains. How many think
of a small business with a marketable idea and an owner with zeal? In the 25-year span studied by the Kauffman Foundation, new
companies created 40 million new jobs. And here's the sobering observation: "That means the established firms created no new
net jobs during that period," Robert Litan, the foundation's research director, reported to a U.S. congressional committee in June. A quick
and cheap way to kick-start the entrepreneurial engine: Welcome skilled immigrants to town. In researching
our book, "Immigrant Inc.," we were struck by the fact that where immigrants settled, economies bloomed. Where
immigrants were absent, little happened. Immigrants today, like immigrants of old, tend to be strivers and dreamers. Add to
that an advanced degree in science or engineering, which many of them possess, and wonders happen.
Compared with native-born citizens, America's immigrants are nearly twice as likely to start a company
and twice as likely to be awarded a U.S. patent. They are probably the most prolific entrepreneurs on the
planet. Nowhere is the power of immigrant entrepreneurs more obvious than in technology clusters.
High-skilled, entrepreneurial immigrants founded or co-founded more than half of the high-tech
companies in Silicon Valley and about a quarter of the biotech companies in New England. "Silicon Valley is
full of immigrants," said Peter Rea, director of the Center for Innovation and Growth at Baldwin-Wallace College in suburban Cleveland. "They
are much more likely to start and grow companies."
Econ IL – Innovation
Innovation is the crucial variable for competitiveness – outweighs any link arguments.
Newsweek, July 10, 2010, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/how-to-build-again.html
The report surveyed 400 global CEOs, tallying their views on the key factors that drive manufacturing
competitiveness. The most surprising finding is that it’s innovation, not how cheap or expensive labor
is, that determines whether a country will be successful in manufacturing. Contrary to conventional
wisdom, manufacturing has not become a race to the bottom. That’s why the U.S. still ranks as the fourth-most competitive nation after
China, India, and South Korea, despite vastly higher labor costs. Germany, Japan, and Singapore also hold positions in the top 10. The skill levels of their workers more than offset their costs
Skills are particularly critical in the lucrative highend manufacturing sector, which accounts for about half of all new innovation within an economy.
“Talent will be the oil of the 21st century,” says Council on Competitiveness president Deborah L. Wince-Smith. On the other hand, oil is
(U.S. workers are twice as productive as those in the next 10 leading manufacturing economies).
also the new oil—cost of energy and materials ranked third, right after talent and wages, as a determining factor in where to locate manufacturing operations. That’s bad news for America.
The international CEOs
surveyed believed that America would drop a spot in the competitiveness rankings within five years.
There are measures the United States can take to shore up its position, though predictably, they aren’t easy. While it’s not
Unlike China and many nations in Europe, the U.S. has no coherent national energy policy, and has yet to spark a green-jobs revolution.
politically correct to suggest that perhaps every citizen shouldn’t aspire to a university degree, high-end technical schools that can turn a $16,000-a-year dishwasher into a $60,000-a-year
welder may in fact deserve as much private and public money as mediocre four-year liberal-arts colleges churning out students with relatively useless degrees. That idea has worked in
Germany, though the Germans have also done a good job producing top-level engineers—another area where the United States lags. A much stronger K–12 focus on math and science would
Immigration policy can also play a key role in ensuring competitiveness. As Secretary of Commerce Gary
Locke points out, “So many firms that we view as American icons were actually started by immigrants.”
help the U.S. greatly.
It’s an oft-quoted fact, but one worth remembering as the Obama administration struggles to push through meaningful immigration reform. (This writer is for stapling a green card to the
the most talented people in the world now have other
places to seek work—namely their own countries, which will be the source of the majority of the world’s new jobs in the foreseeable future. If talent really is
the new oil, it will pay to keep it here.
diploma of every foreign student who obtains a Ph.D. in the States.) After all,
A2: High Skilled Inevitable
No fallback option—negotiation failure means no bill
Elizabeth Dwoskin, 1/21/13, A Hard Line on Immigration Reform Lurks in Obama's Inaugural Speech,
www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-21/the-hard-line-on-immigration-hidden-in-obamasinaugural-speech
But that’s not the way it’s going to happen. What Obama didn’t say in his speech, and the thing Republicans will latch onto
in the days ahead, is that he wants to tie the popular idea of raising visas for skilled workers to making
broader changes in immigration laws—to which that Republicans strongly object. Last week, administration
officials—speaking anonymously, of course—”leaked” to reporters some of the details of Obama’s immigration plan. For the first time, the
White House made clear that the president won’t agree to raise the visa caps for highly skilled
immigrants unless it’s part of an overall reform plan that includes a path to citizenship for many of the
estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S.
A2: Piecemeal Solves
Dems would never agree to break it up
LAHT- Latin America Herald Tribune, 2-7-2013
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=675450&CategoryId=12395
Democratic Senate leaders said Thursday that they will not accept anything less than a comprehensive
immigration
reform
plan that
allows for the legalization and eventual attainment of citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in
the United States.¶ At a roundtable with Spanish-language media, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other senators involved in the negotiations for
immigration reform said that they will avoid the mistakes of 2006 when an earlier reform attempt failed. ¶ “This
notion that we can have a
comprehensive bill and not include a path to citizenship is unacceptable,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, one of the “Gang
of Eight” pushing a bipartisan reform plan.¶ He responded to comments from Republicans suggesting immigration reform be
undertaken in stages and that the issue of citizenship be left for last.
Big-gulp approach key- needed to reach compromise and narrow window of
opportunity
Dan Nowicki The Republic | azcentral.com 2-9-2013
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130201immigration-reformdeal.html?nclick_check=1
Champions of immigration reform are thinking big with this year’s proposed bipartisan overhaul: a massive
bill that would impose the most sweeping changes to the nation’s broken border system in more than a generation.¶ Capitol Hill
lawmakers involved in negotiations say the big-gulp approach is necessary to strike a compromise
between camps that passionately hold different priorities on immigration.¶ Experts argue that, besides being politically
expedient, a holistic plan is needed to bring the out-of-date U.S. immigration system into the 21st century.¶ But such a far-reaching
omnibus bill could be difficult to implement, with unforeseen expenses and unintended consequences, in addition to political pitfalls that could imperil
passage. And even if it’s put into effect smoothly, advocates who envision reducing illegal immigration to a relative trickle, compared with the peak flows of the late
1990s and early 2000s, acknowledge that it and some related problems probably never will go away entirely. ¶ “Big issues have big bills,” said Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz.,
the senior member of the state’s House delegation. “The objective is to have a comprehensive bill because you want to ensure that you have all the components —
border security, a pathway to legalization, visa improvements, maybe a guest-worker program — because in a way they’re all intertwined. You gain support and you
gain opposition, but also it provides the opportunity to make deals and to compromise.” ¶ It’s not uncommon for Congress to put off problematic issues for years
before addressing them in one fell swoop. President Barack Obama’s 2010 health-care law is perhaps the best-known recent example.¶ Sometimes it takes public
pressure that comes with a national crisis or scandal, such as the Enron Corp. debacle of the early 2000s, which led to a battery of new accounting regulations. Tideturning elections that shifted control of Congress to the Democrats in 2006 and control of the House back to Republicans in 2010 add to a sense that once in power
neither side has enough time to tend to big issues through a series of smaller-scale bills, even if they were so inclined. ¶ The
window of opportunity
for Obama and his bipartisan allies on immigration is narrow, which is another argument to strike fast with a single
comprehensive piece of legislation. But that also raises expectations and could make a failure that much more spectacular.
Only way to keep everyone on board
Helderman and Nakamura 1/25, Rosalind S. Helderman covers Congress and politics for the Washington Post, staff writer for The
Washington Post “Senators nearing agreement on broad immigration reform proposal,” 1/25,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-nearing-agreement-on-broad-immigration-reform-proposal/2013/01/25/950fb78a-664211e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html
But obstacles
abound. For instance, Rubio has said he thinks immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able to
be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues after those who have come
here legally. Many Democrats and immigration advocates fear Rubio’s approach would result in wait-times stretching for
decades, creating a class of permanent legal residents for whom the benefits of citizenship appear unattainable. They have pushed to create
earn a work permit but should
new pathways to citizenship specifically available to those who achieve legal residency as part of a reform effort. It is not yet clear whether the
Senate group will endorse a mechanism allowing such people to eventually become citizens — something Obama is expected to champion.
Schumer said it would be “relatively detailed” but would not “get down into the weeds.” A source close to Rubio said he joined the group in
December at the request of other members only after they agreed their effort would line up with his own principles for reform. As a possible
2016 presidential contender widely trusted on the right, Rubio could be key to moving the bipartisan effort. Rubio and other Republicans
have said they would
prefer to split up a comprehensive immigration proposal into smaller bills that would
be voted on separately, but the White House will pursue comprehensive legislation that seeks to reform the
process in a single bill. “I doubt if there will be a macro, comprehensive bill,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who supported the 2007 effort.
“Anytime a bill’s more than 500 pages, people start getting suspicious. If it’s 2,000 pages, they go berserk.” But Schumer said Friday that
a
single package will be key for passage . “We’ll not get it done in pieces,” he said. “Every time you do a
piece, everyone says what about my piece, and you get more people opposing it.” Eliseo Medina, secretary
treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which spent millions recruiting Hispanic voters last year, said immigration advocates
expect Obama to be out front on the issue . “ The president needs to lead
and then the Republicans have a
choice,” Medina said. “The best way to share the credit is for them to step up and engage and act together with the president.”
A2: XOs Solve
Congress key to visas- set quota levels
Endelman 9 (Gary, Ph.D. in History – University of Delaware and JD – University of Houston, and Cyrus
D. Mehta, JD – Columbia Law School and Managing Member – Mehta & Associates, “The Path Less
Taken: Is There an Alternative to Waiting for Comprehensive Immigration Reform?”, 2-25,
http://www.cyrusmehta.com/Print_Prev .aspx?SubIdx=ocyrus200922512947
There are those who argue that only Congress can make immigration policy in this fundamental way and this
reservation is both serious and worthy of deep respect. Yet, we have a dysfunctional Congress that is or appears to be incapable or unwilling to
reach consensus on immigration. Do we as a society simply throw up our hands and do nothing, allowing a bad situation to become worse or do
we use this challenge as an opportunity to create something better through temporary and targeted executive action that Congress can either
overturn or accept at a later date? There are several examples of administrative action to create new immigration policy in the face of
Congressional inaction in recent years. In the STEM OPT regulation, the USCIS openly admitted that granting an additional 17 months of
employment authorization was a regulatory response to an inadequate H1B quota. When they limited the validity of a labor certification of 180
days, the US Department of Labor did so on their own without the fig leaf of legislative authorization.17 Remember when the AAO handed
down the decision in New York State Department of Transportation,18 thus effectively repealing the national interest waiver statute for several
years until the relaxation came?19 Finally, under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1996, even if the Cuban national entered without inspection, the
former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner clarified that the Service could use its authority under the humanitarian and significant public benefit
criteria in Section 212(d)(5) to parole Cubans who had entered without inspection under the fiction that the individual would surrender to the
government, which in turn would release or parole him or her, and thus render them eligible for adjustment of status under the CAA.20 Did
Congress tell them they could do that? All of these actions, and many others not singled out, had profound effect but depended solely upon the
Those
who do not think so ignore at their own peril and ours the fundamental distinction between making
policy, which only Congress can do, and implementing tactical adjustments, which the Executive is
uniquely suited to do. This is why only Congress can create a legal status while the Attorney General can authorize a period of stay.
This is why only Congress can enlarge the EB quota but the Executive can allow adjustment applications
without a quota expansion so long as final approval is not forthcoming. This is why only Congress sets
visa limits while the Executive can grant parole. This is why only Congress sets work visa law but the Executive can issue EADs.
imaginative exercise of executive authority yet consonant with a proper respect for separation of powers. So we can do so here.
To suggest that Congress must act in both a long and short term context is to ignore the historic and legitimate differences between the two
branches of government. If Congress wants to overturn such executive action, it can do so. Likewise, if it supports the
President, it can stay its hand. Either way, Congress is expressing its will, whether through positive action in the form of legislation or negative
action in the form of silent acquiescence. Both action and its absence are authentic manifestations of congressional intent. In reality, we all
know that there are 40 votes in the Senate to uphold such regulatory initiative. Congress will be more than content to allow the President to
take the lead and solve what it has manifestly been powerless to solve- how to regulate both past and future migration flows; how to solve the
growing unskilled worker backlog; how to ameliorate the gratuitous cruelty of the 3/10 year bars; how to reduce the size of the undocumented
population who may already working here and contributing to the exchequer and how to satisfy the hungry manpower needs of employers
once the dark cloud of recession lifts without creating a single new immigrant visa.
A2: Watered Down/Broken Up
Capital is key to keep it together- only chance of passage
Helderman and Nakamura 1/25, Rosalind S. Helderman covers Congress and politics for the Washington Post, staff writer for The
Washington Post “Senators nearing agreement on broad immigration reform proposal,” 1/25,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-nearing-agreement-on-broad-immigration-reform-proposal/2013/01/25/950fb78a-664211e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html
But obstacles
abound. For instance, Rubio has said he thinks immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able to
be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues after those who have come
here legally. Many Democrats and immigration advocates fear Rubio’s approach would result in wait-times stretching for
decades, creating a class of permanent legal residents for whom the benefits of citizenship appear unattainable. They have pushed to create
earn a work permit but should
new pathways to citizenship specifically available to those who achieve legal residency as part of a reform effort. It is not yet clear whether the
Senate group will endorse a mechanism allowing such people to eventually become citizens — something Obama is expected to champion.
Schumer said it would be “relatively detailed” but would not “get down into the weeds.” A source close to Rubio said he joined the group in
December at the request of other members only after they agreed their effort would line up with his own principles for reform. As a possible
2016 presidential contender widely trusted on the right, Rubio could be key to moving the bipartisan effort. Rubio and other Republicans
have said they would
prefer to split up a comprehensive immigration proposal into smaller bills that would
be voted on separately, but the White House will pursue comprehensive legislation that seeks to reform the
process in a single bill. “I doubt if there will be a macro, comprehensive bill,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who supported the 2007 effort.
“Anytime a bill’s more than 500 pages, people start getting suspicious. If it’s 2,000 pages, they go berserk.” But Schumer said Friday that
a
single package will be key for passage . “We’ll not get it done in pieces,” he said. “Every time you do a
piece, everyone says what about my piece, and you get more people opposing it.” Eliseo Medina, secretary
treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which spent millions recruiting Hispanic voters last year, said immigration advocates
expect Obama to be out front on the issue . “ The president needs to lead
and then the Republicans have a
choice,” Medina said. “The best way to share the credit is for them to step up and engage and act together with the president.”
Obama will stand his ground- won’t be talked out of CIR
NYT, 1-30-2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/us/politics/on-immigration-obama-acts-as-ifhe-has-the-upper-hand.html?_r=0
As the specifics of immigration legislation take shape on Capitol Hill, President Obama is making it clear that he wants the overhaul
on his terms.¶ Senator John McCain is one of eight senators working on a bipartisan immigration bill.¶ Officials in the West Wing are convinced
that the politics of the immigration issue have firmly shifted in their direction. That belief is fueling the president’s push
for quick action and broad changes that go beyond what Republicans are signaling would be acceptable if they are to back legislation that allows a path to
citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. ¶ The administration’s confidence — which was communicated to immigration advocates in a series of conference calls
and meetings last week — is rooted in the sense among the president’s political advisers that Republicans
are eager to embrace broad immigration
changes as a way of improving their electoral appeal among Hispanic voters.¶ “We’re giving them some space,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a senior
adviser to the president. But in the meantime, he said, “we’re going to continue to make the case to the country about why immigration reform should be done and
to put pressure on Republicans that they need to do it.Ӧ While aides say Mr. Obama
is open to some negotiation over the
contours of the immigration changes he laid out Tuesday in Las Vegas, senior administration officials are convinced that there is little risk in pushing hard for
Mr. Obama’s immigration priorities, betting that Republicans will think twice about voting down a bill championed by a president who is highly popular among the
very voters they covet. ¶ The principles Mr. Obama embraced this week differ in some central ways from the effort under way in the Senate, where Marco Rubio,
Republican of Florida, and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and six other senators are working toward a bill that could be debated and voted on
as early as this summer.¶ Mr. Rubio and the other senators have said illegal immigrants would not be given a pathway to citizenship until the government had taken
certain measures — so far unspecified — to secure the border. The White House fears that could become a source of endless delays for immigrants eager to
become citizens. The Senate outline also includes a guest worker program for low-income workers, something Mr. Obama and his allies have been concerned about
in the past.¶ In
legislative fights over h ealth c are and stimulus spending in his first term, the president and his team earned
scorn from their own supporters for being too willing to compromise. Liberal activists who helped Mr. Obama get elected in 2008 criticized
him for trading away a public insurance option to secure passage of the Affordable Care Act.¶ But immigration advocates and White House officials say the
dynamic is different now. With his re-election secured and the Republican electoral problems obvious, the president is more likely
to stand his ground, they say.¶ “They know that the political momentum is on their side,” said an immigrant advocate whose group
participated in conference calls with White House officials last week. “ They are pretty confident that they have a broad cross section of civil society
behind him on this.”
That’s why now is key- faster the better
USA Today, 2-5-2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/05/obamaimmigration-meeting-labor-ceos/1893071/
Backers of President Obama's immigration plan said Tuesday they
need Congress to move quickly, so as not to lose political
momentum gained during last year's election.¶ "We feel very strongly there is a sense of urgency," said Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the
National Council of la Raza.¶ Murguia and leaders of other labor and civil rights organizations met with Obama at to discuss the status of an immigration overhaul
that has become one or the president's top legislative priorities. ¶ The
president also sat down in a separate meeting with business leaders, some of whom
later endorsed what Obama and aides call " c omprehensive i mmigration r eform."¶ Joe Echevarria, the CEO of Deloitte, said
revamping the system -- including streamlined rules for foreign high-skilled workers -- would help boost the overall economy.¶
"It's about people becoming employed and productive," Echevarria said. ¶ The White House sessions took place as the House Judiciary Committee conducted
hearings on immigration. They also came a week before the State of the Union address, in which Obama is expected to press Congress to pass a major immigration
bill this year.¶ Leaders of the labor and civil rights groups said they told Obama they want a pathway to citizenship for the some 11 million illegal immigrants who
are already in the United States, and they want it with no strings attached. ¶ While some Senate and House Republicans say they want to tie the pathway to specific
improvements in border security, Obama's supporters said those improvements have already been made and the number of illegal crossings has fallen
dramatically.¶ White House spokesman Jay Carney said "the president's commitment to border security has been amply demonstrated," and he wants "a clear path
to citizenship for people who are affected here."¶ Some congressional Republicans oppose a pathway to citizenship, saying it amounts to amnesty for lawbreakers;
the GOP also controls the majority in the U.S. House. ¶ Obama
and backers say they are confident Congress will pass an
immigration bill in part because of last year's election, in which the president carried 71% of the Hispanic vote. ¶ Supporters predict that Republicans
will want to improve their standing with Hispanic voters by being more amenable to an immigration bill.¶ But that
momentum could easily fade if legislation is stalled for several months, said some of the people who met with Obama, especially with the
president in his second term.¶ "You risk more the longer you wait," Murguia said.
A2: Doesn’t Solve– Hill/Lofstrom/Hayes
Hill study bad- doesn’t look at actual movement, too short term – consensus votes neg
Ted Hesson is the immigration editor for Univision News. 11-19-2012
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/analysis-economic-impact-immigrationreform/story?id=17761157#.UUvQXldvCuq
2. "Immigrant Legalization: Assessing the Labor Market Effects" by Laura E. Hill / Magnus Lofstrom / Joseph M. Hayes, Public Policy Institute of
California¶ Summary: Legalizing undocumented immigrants will not lead to dramatic changes in the labor market, either for unauthorized
immigrants or for native workers.¶ This report focuses on immigrants who are in the process of going from from undocumented to becoming
permanent residents, ie, green card holders. Then it asks if occupational mobility and wages grow at a greater rate for these new permanent
residents than for immigrants who legally entered the country.¶ The report finds that overall gains in wage growth and occupational mobility
after legalization would likely be small.¶ There's
a problem with this approach, according to Hinojosa-Ojeda. A mass
legalization program has a greater impact on wages and the labor market than simply gaining legal residency
through avenues that are already available. "The only study on the actual movement from undocumented status to legalization
[by the U.S. Department of Labor] shows much bigger impact ," he wrote in an email.¶ In addition, this report looks at
workers who are already on the path to becoming legal permanent residents -- something that's difficult to achieve for
the average undocumented person. "You can only get that under very extraordinary circumstances," says Hinojosa-Ojeda. "So
these are extraordinary workers." In other words, the report isn't looking at typical undocumented workers.¶ This
report also studies a smaller period of time. While the Hinojosa-Ojeda report uses a minimum of three years worth of data
from 1988 to 1991, the interviews here only span 4 to 13 months from when the subject gains residency. The researchers didn't
choose that on purpose, it was the only recent data available aside from the 1986 amnesty figures, and they wanted to look at a time period
closer to present day. "It's possible that things could change if we had a longer window," Hill says. ¶ In this case there is no
projection about how legalization would affect the GDP, but Hill thinks that if researchers did make a prediction, the results would still be much
different than the first report. "I do think that if you plugged our numbers into Hinojosa model, you're not going to get the number he did, it's
not possible."¶ Verdict: Not conclusive. The data set looks at workers in a scenario that's significantly different from mass legalization. And the
short time period raises questions about whether the study can accurately project the impact of
reform.¶ The report has value in that it suggest that the economic impact of reform might be muted among certain sectors of workers. For
example, it shows that for those already on a path to legalization, getting legal status had little impact on wage growth, at least over a short
period of time.¶ Takeaways:¶ Predicting economic scenarios 10 years down the road is a science, but estimates can vary. Researchers
need to make some assumptions along the way, like whether a legalization program today would have the same effects as a legalization
program did 25 years ago. And there's limited data on what happens when undocumented workers are given legal status. For that, you have to
turn back the clock to 1986.¶ However, of
nine economists and policy experts consulted by ABC/Univision, the majority
found that a mass legalization program would have an overall positive impact on the economy.¶
That
includes John Feinblatt, the chief policy advisor for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose Partnership for a New American Economy
has done it's own body of research on the impact of reform.¶ "There's a pretty straightforward explanation for this," Feinblatt, said. "The act of
immigration itself is an entrepreneurial act. Picking up your things, leaving your relatives behind and coming to a new country is
about wanting something better for yourself."
A2: Doesn’t Solve– Porter/NYT/CBO
Porter misses the boat on costs- border security sufficient so that new CIR won’t have
as many up front costs
Igor Volsky is the Managing Editor of ThinkProgress.org. Igor is co-author of Howard Dean’s Prescription
for Real Healthcare Reform and has appeared on MSNBC, CNN, Fox Business, Fox News, and CNBC
television, and has been a guest on many radio shows. In 2011, Forbes named Igor one of their top 30
under 30 in Law & Policy 2-6-2013 http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/06/1549801/whyimmigration-reform-wont-increase-government-spending/
On Tuesday, just days after a bipartisan group of Senators released a set of principles to reform the immigration system with a pathway to
citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented residents, House Republicans convened a hearing to consider the benefits of immigration
reform. The stacked witness list — of the eight witnesses testifying, four were opposed to comprehensive reform, and only two were clearly in
favor — reflected the growing anxiety among conservative lawmakers about the cost of granting legal status to undocumented people, who,
Republicans fear, would qualify for state or federal benefits and cost tax payers millions. ¶ The
New York Times echoed these
concerns on Wednesday with an article warning that “chances are good” that reform will “cost the government
money.” The piece, by reporter Eduardo Porter, cited a 2007 Congressional Budget Office report which found that immigrants
are “putting a burden on state and local budgets” and warned that once unauthorized immigrants became citizens, they “would be
entitled to the same array of government benefits as other Americans”:¶ The White House and other backers of reform have made much of a
2007 Congressional Budget Office analysis concluding that the failed immigration overhaul would have increased government revenue by $48
billion over a decade while adding only $23 billion to direct spending on entitlements and other programs. But the report also said that
including the costs of carrying out the new law would actually increase the budget deficit by $18 billion over the decade and several billion a
year after that.¶ But there
is good reason to believe that concerns about increased government spending
are overstated and that immigration reform will prove to be a net benefit for the economy.¶ Currently
“spending by state and local governments on services specifically provided to unauthorized immigrants make up a small
percentage” of government spending, some of which is offset by taxes paid by the unauthorized population. The
majority already “pay federal, state, and local taxes” and that number will increase as the undocumented population embarks on a path
towards citizenship and leaves the cash economy.¶ Research shows that legalizing
immigrants boosts their wages, which
increases consumption, business revenue, and ultimately the entire economy. Immigration reform would
add up to $5.4 billion in new tax revenue over the first three years, and a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy
over a decade. Allowing these immigrants to naturalize would add even more economic activity, as naturalized immigrants earn 8 to 11
percent more in wages than permanent residents.¶ The Congressional Budget Office agrees with that assessment. The office’s score of the
Senate’s 2006 comprehensive immigration reform plan calculated a net benefit of $12 billion over 10 years and an updated report placed the
revenue gains even higher. An analysis of the 2007 immigration proposal found that legalization would increase revenue over costs by a factor
of 2 to 1.¶ Significantly, the
projected deficit of $18 billion from the CBO’s analysis (and the number Porter cites in his piece)
is the result of additional border enforcement and other security measures which will not be as costly in a 2013
reform proposal. After all, much has changed along the border since 2007 as the nation has met and exceeded the security goals
of past reform efforts. The U.S. spends $18 billion each year on immigration enforcement — more than every other
federal law enforcement agency combined — and as a result net undocumented migration is now at or below zero.¶ As Sen. John McCain (AZ),
one of the Republican members of the bipartisan group working on immigration reform admitted at a press conference to announce his
support for immigration reform, “There is no question, there has been a significant reduction in illegal crossings over the past five years.”¶ As a
consequence of these advancements,
any immigration reform legislation introduced
today
would have to spend
far less on border security . And since undocumented immigrants and even permanent residents will bill barred
from receiving most social services and will have to wait a significant period of time before qualifying, the net cost of
immigration reform to the economy will remain positive.
A2: Visas Bad- Wages
We’ll preempt your economy offense - Their wages arguments are based on poor
studies – new evidence proves that increased visas boost the US economy and don’t
trade off with American jobs.
Sunil Mithas and Henry C. Lucas, Jr., assistant professor and Department Chair at the Robert H. Smith
School of Business at University of Maryland, May 2010, Management Science, p.762
Our findings have important policy and managerial implications. From a policy perspective, this
study suggests that, contrary to
popular belief, non-U.S. citizen IT professionals are not paid less compared to American IT
professionals. More broadly, the evidence in this study provides indirect evidence that visa and immigration
policies so far have not had any adverse impact on the wages of American IT professionals due to any relatively
lower compensation of foreign IT professionals. Comparisons of average salaries or those based on the
compensation information in LCA petitions, which do not adequately adjust for educational qualifications, work experience,
or institutional factors associated with American or foreign professionals, can lead to wrong conclusions. The current study,
using actual salary data from IT professionals, suggests that calls for making visa policies more restrictive to
protect American professionals and to prevent exploitation of foreign professionals need to be examined more
carefully. Although some instances of potential abuse can not be ruled out for any policy, an appropriate and prudent policy response for
any allegations of visa abuse should be commensurate with the seriousness of the actual abuse. Setting visa caps higher is
perhaps less damaging than setting them too low because, if the economy does not need foreign
professionals, then these visa caps will remain underutilized, as happened from 2001–2003. On the other hand,
policies that restrict the supply of highly skilled professionals for U.S. firms may force U.S. companies
to hire professionals overseas, thus defeating the very rationale invoked for reactive policy responses
(Lewin et al. 2009, Thibodeau 2008). This phenomenon may already be occurring because the number of IT
professionals hired by companies like IBM and Accenture in India in recent times far exceeds the number
of IT professionals with H-1B or other work visas on their payroll.11 By the end of 2007, IBM had more than 70,000
employees in India, and Accenture was slated to have more employees in India than in the United States (Giridhardas 2007). More importantly,
restrictive visa policies, to the extent they lead to reverse migration and thus potential loss of skills,
innovation, and entrepreneurship of foreign-born IT professionals, particularly those who acquired higher education
in U.S. universities (Wadhwa 2009), can also hurt the long-term competitiveness of U.S. firms and the U.S.
economy.
Lack of available visas drive companies off-shore – causes a net decrease in jobs
available to US workers.
Courtney L. Cromwell, J.D. candidate, Brooklyn Law School, Spring 2009, Brooklyn Journal of
Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, Lexis Academic
Proponents of the H-1B visa argue that the visa cap threatens to set the United States behind in
innovation and science and actually increases layoffs of U.S. workers because it encourages offshoring. n190 If employers in the United States cannot hire foreign workers with the experience and
training required, "then companies who are trying to remain globally competitive are left with only one
solution: shifting those operations offshore." n191 Many U.S. companies "concede that the uncertainty created by
Congress' inability to provide a reliable mechanism to hire skilled professionals has encouraged
placing more human resources outside the United States to avoid being subject to legislative winds." n192 While the
practice of off-shoring began mainly with the working class, commonly with apparel workers, and then moved into areas like customer service
(as with American Express), a number of IT industry leaders such as IBM have begun the practice of off-shoring some of their technical support
positions and software jobs. n193 Companies are finding that "knowledge-based endeavors," such as technical support positions and software
jobs, "require relatively little overhead costs beyond a basic telecommunications infrastructure." n194 Moreover, information-based productive
activities involve far less complex issues of coordination by virtue of the ability of [*476] work products to "move unencumbered by the limits
of time and space as bits and pixels in global communication networks." n195 Most recently, Microsoft Corp. announced
the plan
to open a large software development center in Vancouver to enable it to "recruit and retain highly skilled
people affected by immigration issues in the [United States]." n196 The stated benefits for companies engaging in offshoring are plentiful and include cheaper labor (which benefits consumers), economic efficiency and the ability to bring new job opportunities
to third world nations. n197 However,
off-shoring has many disadvantages including the loss of American jobs,
which forces more people into unemployment and hurts the U.S. economy. n198 Other disadvantages
include the risk of abuse of workers in foreign countries who are forced to work for low wages n199 and most relevant, the risk of the
United States "losing its leading role in innovation." n200 If the cap remains low, then foreigners who
make up a significant portion of U.S. university science graduates, and "who have been extremely
helpful to U.S. technological success" will no longer be able to come to the United States with their creative
and innovative ideas, n201 thus depriving the United States of the vital brain power needed to remain a
leading intellectual influence in the global realm. As more and more U.S.-educated foreign students are forced to leave the
United States after graduation for lack of available visas, they return to their home countries, which become
"attractive locales for off-shoring." n202 The cap on the H-1B visa "has resulted in a highly educated class of knowledge workers in
Asian countries that is acculturated to U.S. business [*477] practices and prepared to conduct business on global terms." n203 Thus, U.S.trained talent returns to its home countries where U.S. companies have established operations for
cheaper wages and less overhead. n204
Studies prove – increasing immigration doesn’t lower wages of American workers –
tight markets prove that increased high-skill labor is necessary.
Sunil Mithas and Henry C. Lucas, Jr., assistant professor and Department Chair at the Robert H. Smith
School of Business at University of Maryland, May 2010, Management Science, pp.757-8
We conducted additional analyses using yearwise regressions and found that non-U.S.
citizens earned statistically significant
salary premiums from 2000 to 2005, after controlling for education, experience, demographic, and other
institutional variables deemed important in prior research (see Table 6). The salary premium is 10.6% in 2000, 8.1% in 2001, 11.1% in
2002, 8.3% in 2003, 17.5% in 2004, and 4.7% in 2005. Note that during 2001 to 2003, actual H-1B visas issued were lower than the maximum
limit of 195,000 allowed by the H-1B, cap, and yet we observe salary premiums for non–U.S. citizen IT professionals during these years. During
2004, maximum quotas came down to pre-1999 levels of 65,000, and perhaps as a result, the premium rose significantly that year. During 2005,
Congress allowed an additional 20,000 H-1B work visas for foreign professionals graduating from U.S. universities, and we see some impact in
the form of lower salary premium during that year. We further divided the non-U.S. citizen category into work visa and green card status
categories for which we have data from 2000 to 2003 (see Table 7). We
find that the salary premium is 8.4% in 2000, 3.3% in 2001,
8.4% in 2002, and 4.4% in 2003 for H-1B holders. In contrast, the salary premium for green card holders is generally higher than that for
work visa holders during these years (green card premiums are 13.9% in 2000, 12.9% in 2001, 13.6% in 2002, and 11% in 2003).8 Figure 4 shows
yearwise salary premiums for IT professionals with an H-1B or other work visa, IT professionals with a green card and non-U.S. citizen IT
professionals from 2000 to 2005. Interestingly, the salary premiums for non-U.S. citizens, H-1B or other work visa holders, and green card
holders rise or fall in concert and are generally higher when the H-1B visa cap is lower and fully utilized as predicted by the reasoning for H2. On
the whole, the
yearwise results on salary premium for foreign professionals do not provide support for the
notion that firms are misusing U.S. work visa provisions to pay less to foreign professionals. The
presence of a significant salary premium for H-1B and other visa holders in 2000 when the H-1B cap was
115,000, but insignificant premium in 2001 when the H-1B cap went up to 195,000, appears to vindicate
the IT industry’s plea for raising the H-1B cap to make it easier to hire foreign professionals to overcome
“tightness” in the IT labor market (Thibodeau 2008). Although the H-1B cap remained underutilized during 2002 and 2003, the H1B salary premium during these years lends support to foreign IT professionals as being complements
rather than substitutes for American professionals. Collectively, the presence of salary premiums for foreign professionals
even when a visa cap is underutilized and the fact that H-1B professionals’ salary premiums are more directly affected by H-1B visa restrictions
than that of green card holders imply that (1) foreign IT professionals are complements of American IT professionals,
and (2) H-1B professionals may be substitutes for each other because a reduction in their supply affects their wages much more than that of
green card holders. This finding is consistent with anecdotal evidence in trade press that suggests substitution among visa holders (Thibodeau
2009).
This argument makes no sense – studies prove that H-1B professionals actually get
paid more.
Sunil Mithas and Henry C. Lucas, Jr., assistant professor and Department Chair at the Robert H. Smith
School of Business at University of Maryland, May 2010, Management Science, p.757
Hypothesis 1A predicted that after
accounting for educational qualifications, work experience, and relevant
controls, IT professionals without U.S. citizenship will have a salary premium compared to IT
professionals with U.S. citizenship. As column (2) of Table 4 shows, we find support for this hypothesis because IT
professionals without U.S. citizenship earn 8.9% more than those with U.S. citizenship, and this difference is statistically
significant (p < 0.001).7 Hypothesis 1B predicted that after accounting for educational qualifications, work experience, and relevant controls, IT
professionals with an H-1B or other work visa will have a salary premium compared to IT professionals
who have U.S. citizenship. We find support for this hypothesis; IT professionals on H-1B or other work
visas earn 6.8% more than those with U.S. citizenship, and this difference is statistically significant (Table
4, column (3); p < 0001). Hypothesis 1C predicted that after accounting for educational qualifications, work experience, and relevant controls, IT
professionals with green card status will have a salary premium compared to those with U.S. citizenship or a work visa. We find support for this
hypothesis because IT professionals with a green card earn 12.9% more than those with a U.S. citizenship, and this difference is statistically
significant (p < 0.001). We also tested whether green card holders have a salary premium compared to those with an H-1B or some other work
visa. An IT professional with a green card earns 6.1% more than one with a work visa, and the difference in coefficients of a green card holder
versus a work visa holder is positive and statistically significant (Wald test, F = 11.52, p < 0.001).
A2: Eurozone Thumper
No Eurozone collapse-Debt sharing
Angelo Airaghi is a Commodity Trading Advisor, registered with the National Futures Association and
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. He has been an active professional since 1990 working for
major international financial companies. In the past 10 years, Angelo Airaghi has been an analyst and
commentator for national and international media. 8-20-2012 http://seekingalpha.com/article/817651yes-the-eurozone-could-survive
Mario Draghi said the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. What does he really mean? In order to
help Spain, and eventually Italy, the ECB will need to buy large amounts of peripheral bonds, while the ESM rescue fund will need to be allowed
to operate at maximum volume. Core
countries, such as Germany, will be responsible for weaker nations. As a result,
eurozone will probably share its debt. With interest rates so low, economic activity
could rebound again. Wages will rise. Unemployment will decline.¶ The other side of the story will be low growth,
in one or two years' time, the
higher inflation, and higher interest rates. A political union is also necessary for Europe. With time, perhaps a decade or two, current challenges
will resurface. Debt would then have to be reduced in peripheral countries, and unemployment might rise again. Nonetheless, the
mutual
debt-sharing plan is probably the only option available to preserve the eurozone, considering the large differences
between the northern and southern nations. It will calm the financial markets and put the European crisis on the
backburner for a while. A stable union will be beneficial for everybody.
-Bond buying solves
Reuters, 9-6-2012 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/06/us-ecb-eurozone-bondplanidUSBRE8850LW20120906
The European Central Bank agreed on Thursday to launch a new and potentially unlimited bond-buying
program to lower struggling euro zone countries' borrowing costs and draw a line under the debt
crisis.¶ Seeking to back up his July pledge to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro, ECB President Mario Draghi said the new plan,
aimed at the secondary market, would address bond market distortions and "unfounded" fears of investors
about the survival of the euro.¶ The scheme, to which Germany's Bundesbank reiterated its opposition, would focus on bonds
maturing within three years and was strictly within the ECB's mandate, Draghi said. Only one member of the ECB Governing Council had
dissented, he said.¶ "Under appropriate conditions, we will have a fully effective backstop to prevent potentially destructive scenarios," Draghi
told a news conference after the central bank's monthly meeting On Thursday.¶ "No ex-ante quantitative limits are set on the size of outright
monetary transactions," he said, using the formal term for ECB bond-buying programs.¶ Investors were on tenterhooks, waiting to hear how
decisively the ECB would act to help bring down the borrowing costs of Spain and Italy, after disagreements among policymakers on the plan
were played out in public last week.¶ Draghi's statement at least met expectations, analysts said. With the bond-buying plan the focus of
Thursday's meeting, the ECB kept interest rates on hold, leaving its main rate unchanged at 0.75 percent.¶ "The details ... released today add to
the credibility of the safety net taking shape in the euro zone and should support demand for euro zone assets," said Andrew Cox, G10
strategist at CitiFX in New York.¶ Euro zone blue chip stocks soared 3.2 percent to levels not seen since March in response.¶
Pressure on Draghi intensified after an unsubstantiated German newspaper report last week that Bundesbank chief Jens Weidmann had
considered resigning over his opposition to bond-buying, although several sources say he has made no such threat and believes in staying at the
table to argue his case.¶ Draghi succeeded in securing overwhelming support on the Governing Council for the plan despite Weidmann's
opposition.¶ "In the most recent discussions, as before, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann reiterated his frequently substantiated critical
stance towards the purchase of government bonds," the German central bank said in a statement.¶ "He regards such purchases as being
tantamount to financing governments by printing banknotes," it added.¶ Other ECB policymakers saw a greater urgency to help Spain and Italy
and prevent the euro zone crisis from deepening.¶ STRICT CONDITIONS¶ Draghi said the ECB would only help countries that signed up to and
implemented strict policy conditions, with the euro zone's rescue fund also buying their bonds, and preferably with the IMF involved in
designing and monitoring the conditions.¶ Renewed
ECB intervention in the euro zone's bond markets is crucial to buy
governments time to come up with a longer-term response to the bloc's debt crisis, which began in early 2010.¶
Spanish and Italian government bond yields have fallen significantly since Draghi said on August 2 that the ECB would buy bonds issued by
Madrid and Rome. They fell further after he fleshed out his plan to intervene on Thursday.¶ The ECB would not target specific bond yields,
Draghi said.¶ ECB debt purchases - which would succeed the bank's Securities Markets Programme that has been dormant since March - would
be suspended if countries did not comply with the terms.¶ With Germany's constitutional court not due to rule on the new ESM rescue fund
until next week, there was no prospect of the ECB intervening immediately.¶ Highlighting the euro zone's economic predicament,
said growth in the region would recover
this year by between 0.2 and 0.6 percentage points.
only
Draghi
gradually . Fresh ECB staff projections pointed to the economy contracting
A2 Econ Defense/Impact Boosters
A) Decline magnifies the severity of other conflicts – WWII proves
Miller 8 – G. Robert M. Miller, journalist for Digital Journal, 10-25, 2008, “Guns vs. Shovels – The
Central Question Behind Our Next Economy,” online: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/261595
But before we look at the modern ‘Guns versus Butter’ model, it first has to be noted that this phrase was originally popularized
in a time where securing economic prosperity was a primary concern in nearly every nation. More importantly, when
these nations did experience economic collapse, nearly all of them chose Guns. There is no question that Nazi aggression
spawned World War II, however, what was happening in Europe became a world war for a purpose as central to the heart of
the capitalist as was the instantaneous end of the holocaust to the heart of the compassionate; economic prosperity. Simply said, big
wars are big money; and to truly break from the embrace of the Great Depression, a big commitment to the economy
was necessary. And due to the leadership that guided the balance between ‘Guns and Butter’ in the US through World
War II, the economy was considerably improved; this was true for many western nations.
b) Crisis makes diversionary theory true – states will start wars to head off domestic
discontent – and use force to settle old disputes with rivals
Rothkopf 9 – David Rothkopf, Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 311, 2009, “Security and the Financial Crisis,” Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee,
CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis
--Destabilizing Bilateral or Regional Effects of the Crisis: The
weakening of states can produce instability that spills
across borders or can produce social pressures that increase migration and create associated tensions
along borders. The rise of opposition groups can create an opportunity for like-minded neighbors to
support their activities and thus cause rifts and potential conflicts to spread. Political and economic
weakness in nations can be seen by opportunistic neighbors (some wishing to produce distractions from their own
crises) as an invitation to intervene in their neighbors politics or even to step in and take control of neighboring territories or to
seek to use force to resolve in their favor long-simmering disputes. In the same vein, old animosities may be inflamed by the crisis
either because they produce tensions that play into the origins of old rivalries or because political leaders seek to play on those
rivalries to produce a distraction from their inability to manage the economic crisis. Need may enhance tensions
and produce conflicts over shared or disputed resources. A desire to preserve national resources, jobs,
or capital may produce reactive economic, border or other policies that can increase tension with
neighbors. This can include both trade and capital markets protectionism (in traditional and new forms see below), closed or more
tightly monitored borders, more disputes on cross-border issues and thus both an increase in tensions and a decreased ability to
effectively cooperate with neighbors on issues of common concern.
Failure to act crushes economic leadership which ensures peace – collapse causes war
Posen 9 - deputy director and senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (Adam, “Economic leadership beyond the
crisis,” http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/foresight/documents/PN%20USA_FINAL_LR_1.pdf)
Thus, the
US faces a challenging but not truly threatening global economic situation as a result of the
crisis and longer-term financial trends. Failure to act affirmatively to manage the situation, however,
bears two significant and related risks: first, that China and perhaps some other rising economic powers
will opportunistically divert countries in US-oriented integrated relationships to their economic
sphere(s); second, that a leadership vacuum will arise in international financial affairs and in
multilateral trade efforts, which will over time erode support for a globally integrated economy.
Both of these risks if realised would diminish US foreign policy influence, make the economic system
less resilient in response to future shocks (to every country’s detriment), reduce economic growth
and thus the rate of reduction in global poverty, and conflict with other foreign policy goals like
controlling climate change or managing migration and demographic shifts. If the
should concentrate on the following priority measures.
US is to rise to the challenge, it
A2: Impact Slow
Nature of international relations means that conflict will arise fast from collase
Craig Turpin, Executive editor of New Jersey newspapers, 10/14 2008, Critical Mass: Economic
leadership or dictatorship,
http://www.nj.com/cranford/index.ssf/2008/10/critical_mass_economic_leaders.html
A global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic systems
shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is certainly
within the realm of possibility that nations perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the
military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world
needs access to food and water. Industrial nations -- the world powers of North America, Europe, and Asia -need access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these needs. If the world
economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely alternative. And given the
increasingly rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very
quickly.
A2: Economy Resilient
Economy not resilient – last line of defense gone
Jon Nadler, Senior Investment Products Analyst, Kitco Bullion Dealer, Feb 13, 2009, “Easy Money.
Who Needs It?,” http://www.kitco.com/ind/nadler/printerfriendly/feb132009B.html
The first line of defense is gone. The economy is not resilient and is not stable. And the second line of
defense is eroding. The Fed already has taken interest rates to zero, and lent out nearly $2 trillion in
fruitless attempts to revive demand. In his speech, Bernanke proposed that the central bank "can always generate higher
spending and hence positive inflation" by simply printing money as fast as possible. We're nowhere near that point yet. But the Fed hasn't
demonstrated convincingly that lowering rates to zero and lending out trillions of dollars has had any impact on increasing final demand. It
turns out that the Fed can print all the money it wants, but it can't make anyone spend it."
Economy not resilient – next economic collapse will be permanent
Jan Lundberg was previously Senior Vice President, Head of Global Discovery, a position he had since
the Astra-Zeneca merger in 1999, June 12, 2006, “A Call to Action: The Necessity Defense,”
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=65
Let there be a call to action for everyone to consider immediate direct action on behalf of the world's climate. If a small percentage of
people actually do it, this would bring the polluting economy to a grinding halt. Due
to the nature of our Humpty-Dumpty
infrastructure and lack of self-sufficiency, global economic collapse will be permanent. The cheap oil
to fuel the scope and levels of today’s trade is already mostly gone, and so a new economics and
politics will emerge. Granted, a message or goal that would sacrifice industry as we know it - along with the global economy - is an
impossible message or goal for the present powers that be. This does not mean the idea is premature, except in terms of widespread
acceptance.
A2: Economy Won’t Collapse
Economic collapse coming now
Gerald Celente is a United States trend forecaster, publisher of the Trends Journal, business
consultant, Feburary 11, 2009, ‘‘We’ll see worst U.S. economic collapse ever’,’
http://russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-02-11/_We_ll_see_worst_U.S._economic_collapse_ever_.html
G.C.: We’re
going to see the economic collapse the likes of which the world has never seen before. It’s
not only in the U nited St ates; it’s going global. At the end of 2008 we saw Christmas retail sales:
women’s apparel down 23%; home furnishings and electronics off 27%; luxury items down 35%.
These are Depression Era collapses. We saw major bankruptcies, such as retailers Circuit City and Linens and Things. One
bankruptcy after another. Then we saw store closings. Starbucks, Home D&D Power and down the line. The question becomes
who is going to take all of the vacant retail space? Who is going to rent it? The answer is – nobody.
Now we look at the financial collapse in 20 08 , we saw the Merrill Lynch mob go under the bed and
the Lehman boys went bankrupt. You saw bond companies, brokerage firms, and banks go belly up.
Who is going to rent all the vacant commercial business space that they used to occupy? The answer
is – nobody. The commercial real estate collapse that’s going to happen in 2009 is going to dwarf the
residential real estate collapse.
A2: No War
Economic decline causes war.
Mead -92 (Walter Russell, Mead, Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations, NEW PERSPECTIVES
QUARTERLY, Summer, 1992, p. 30)
The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depressionwill open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned
their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market
principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. But
what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates, or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new
period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-these
countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to
world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's.
Economic decline cause nuclear war.
Liutenant Colonel Bearden -2K (Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, 2000, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It, 2000,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Big- Medicine/message/642)
Bluntly, we foresee these factors - and others { } not covered - converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years.
As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing
nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that
desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have
increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving
North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a
desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the
mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies
have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are
then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that
the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the
studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed .
The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least
is almost never discussed. Without effective defense,
for many decades.
Continued economic crises will result in global war
Mead -09 (Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. The New
Republic, “Only Makes You Stronger,” February 4 2009. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-854292e83915f5f8&p=2 AD 6/30/09)
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse
position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind
that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and
professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious
extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons.
Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a
financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively
recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently,
financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This
may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises
actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If
financial crises have
been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The
wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two
World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad
economic times can breed wars.
Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and
helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts
might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not,
yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
Turns Case – Africa
US downturn jacks African economies- destroys global demand which is key to
expansion
UNIS 1/10/2008 (United Nations Information Service, UN Sees Risk of Global Economic Recession
Rising, http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2008/unisinf255.html?print)
Run of strong growth in the developing world 2008 could be the fourth straight year in which growth of developing economies averages near 7
per cent growth. Strong
demand has created jobs and reduced unemployment in most countries, albeit at a lesser rate
than overall economic growth and, in much of Africa, with job creation still lagging population increase. Inflation has been tame, outside
of some least developed countries experiencing commodity booms. As their weight in the world economy increases, developing countries as a
group could be perceived as running the table, in economic terms. The share of world trade of economies that are developing and in transition
increased from 35 per cent in 2000 to over 40 per cent in 2007. Terms of trade for most primary commodity-exporting countries improved for
the fifth year in a row in 2007, while the external financing costs for emerging market economies remain low. Equity investments have flooded
many emerging market economies, due to their higher growth rates and -- in a notable role reversal -- their perceived relative security
compared with the high uncertainty reigning in developed country financial markets. Export-led
economic growth has enabled
developing countries to amass over $3 trillion in international currency reserve holdings, a full three
quarters of the world total. These reserves provide a buffer against possible adverse shocks, but also pose challenges to economic management
of their in avoiding strong currency appreciations. Being invested in dollar-denominated assets, the build up of large monetary reserves by
developing countries is part and parcel of the problem of the large global imbalances as developing countries act as the financier of the US
external deficit. Further dollar depreciation will erode the value of their reserve holdings, and a diversification into other currencies could
precipitate an even steeper fall of the dollar. There are other indications that 2008 could pose the severest economic test in some time for the
developing world. The slowing
of the US and other developed economies will take air out of the rising commodity
prices which have buoyed developing country growth. The slowdown will undercut world trade, which in
2007 had already tailed off from the high growth rates of 2004 and 2006. Also apparent in 2007 was greater volatility in investment flows -- and
emerging market economies already have had experience with investment booms that turned to busts. Pessimistic scenario Given that
inflation-adjusted prices for houses rose by about 90 per cent in the United States in the ten-year period leading up to 2006, there is substantial
room for a downward adjustment in housing prices, UN economists say. The risk is compounded by household indebtedness that has risen
sharply in the US in recent years. A 15 per cent drop in housing prices would be likely to affect consumer demand and take 2 per cent off of US
growth, bringing the US economy to a virtual standstill in 2008. The economies of Japan and Western Europe, already operating near
production potential, are not in a position to take up the slack. It is notable that trade is taking on an ever-greater role in global economic
growth, with exports now averaging nearly 40 per cent of GDP for all economies outside the US. The
domino effect of a US
recession would be to knock down export growth from China, Europe and Japan, in turn reducing their
demand for exports from developing countries. The housing bubble in the US and other developed countries is organically
linked with the global financial imbalances that have developed over the past ten years. Significantly, the UN notes, most economies that have
experienced a substantial appreciation of house prices have also undergone widening current account deficits. With a US net external liability
position of roughly $3 trillion in 2007, the perception exists that the US debt position is approaching an unsustainable level. The risk of a
disorderly unwinding of global imbalances has probably increased, the UN notes, with the downward spiral of the housing market in the US and
associated debacle in the sub-prime mortgage market. A hard landing for the dollar would further depress US demand for goods from the rest
of the world, reducing exports from developing nations and cutting into the standard of living of US households
Turns Case – China Economy
US decline jacks Chinese growth
Roubini 2008 (Nouriel, chairman of RGE Monitor and professor of economics at New York University’s
Stern School of Business, The Coming Financial Pandemic, Foreign Policy, March/April, http://www.vietstudies.info/kinhte/coming_financial_pandemic.htm)
TRADE WILL DROP: The
most obvious way that a U.S. recession could spill over elsewhere in the world is
through trade. If output and demand in the United States fall—something that by definition would
happen in a recession—the resulting decline in private consumption, capital spending by companies, and
production would lead to a drop in imports of consumer goods, capital goods, commodities, and other raw materials from
abroad. U.S. imports are other countries’ exports, as well as an important part of their overall demand.
So such a scenario would spell a drop in their economic growth rates, too. Several significant
economies—including Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and much of Southeast Asia—are heavily dependent
on exports to the United States. China, in particular, is at risk because so much of its double-digit
annual growth has relied on the uptick of exports to the United States. Americans are the world’s biggest
consumers, and China is one of the world’s largest exporters. But with Americans reluctant to buy, where would Chinese goods go? China is
also a good example of how indirect trade links would suffer in an American recession. It once was the case
that Asian manufacturing hubs such as South Korea and Taiwan produced finished goods, like consumer electronics, that were exported directly
to American retailers. But with the rise of Chinese competitiveness in manufacturing, the pattern of trade in Asia has changed: Asian countries
increasingly produce components, such as computer chips, for export to China. China then takes these component parts and assembles them
into finished goods—say, a personal computer—and exports them to American consumers. Therefore, if
U.S. imports fall, then
Chinese exports to the United States would fall. If Chinese exports fall, then Chinese demand for
component parts from the rest of Asia would fall, spreading the economic headache further.
Turns Case – Chinese War
Failure to boost the economy causes Chinese collapse.
Pethokoukis 9/22 (James, money and politics blogger for U.S. News & World Report , where he writes
the monthly Capital Commerce magazine column. Pethokoukis is also the assistant managing editor of
the magazine's Money & Business section, “Bailout Prevents Great Depression 2.0,” 2008,
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/09/22/bailout-prevents-great-depression20.html)
Nope, I think they believed, and got Congress to believe, that the
economy was on the verge of something far worse
than the worst downturn in a generation. And that is why they went with the so-called nuclear option: the biggest
financial bailout in history. In the words of JPMorgan Chase economist James Glassman, "Thankfully, we and our friends around the
world who are watching the economic lights come on will never know where events would have led, if the clock had not stopped [last]
Thursday afternoon.... Last week's events made the 1987 stock market crash look like child's play." As
plumbers say about pricey repairs, "Sure, it costs money. It costs money because it saves you money." And plumber in chief Paulson had a
pretty big pipe, loaded with toxic debt, to unclog. OK, let's run the numbers. Paulson is asking for $700 billion. But that massive amount
doesn't include previous government actions to cure the credit crisis (like propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), nor does it take into
account money the government may get back from selling the bad assets it will be purchasing. So let's say those situations cancel each
other out, and we are really talking about $700 billion. Now that money is being borrowed. So
you take $700 billion
borrowed for 30 years at prevailing interest rates, and you are talking about $2.5 trillion. But as
Paulson said last week, "I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative: a continuing series
of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion." Now let's do the math on the "alternatives."
What would doing nothing cost? 1) Scenario 1: Great Depression "Lite." This is supposed to be the worst
financial crisis since the 1930s. So let's assume that the total freezing up of American and global credit markets caused something half as
bad as the Great Depression. From 1930 through 1933, the U.S. economy shrank by about 25 percent. Now let's say that by doing nothing
and letting Mr. Market do his worst, the $12 trillion U.S. economy shrinks by half that amount (12.5 percent), or around $1.5 trillion over
four years. (Also, figure a near doubling in unemployment.) But there's also the opportunity cost of not returning to growth, even at a so-so
2.0 percent a year. Doing nothing costs $1.1 trillion more in lost growth. So now we are down $2.6 trillion. But wait: There's more. Let's
assume the stock market drops an additional 25 percent or so. That's $3 trillion more in lost market capitalization. Plus, we are forgoing the
opportunity to gain back what we have lost in the market, about $3 trillion. So, add the $6 million in lost market capitalization to the lost
economic output, and we are at $8.6 trillion. Then there is housing, already down $5 trillion, or roughly 20 percent. Let's conservatively say
that we lose another $5 trillion by doing nothing. Plus, we forgo a partial rebound, say, $2.5 trillion. Adding together further housing losses
(plus the lost opportunity to recoup some losses), and we are talking about a total cost of doing nothing of $15 trillion in four years for the
whole megillah. But it could be worse. 2) Scenario
2: Great Depression 2.0. The economy shrinks by 25 percent
over four years, or $3.2 trillion, plus $1.1 trillion in lost opportunity growth. Economic cost: $4.3 trillion. The market falls two thirds
from its peak, losing $7 trillion in value from its current level, plus $3 trillion from not getting a rebound. Stock market cost: $10 trillion.
Housing falls an additional $10 trillion from current levels, plus the lost opportunity of $2.5 trillion from a rebound. Housing cost: $12.5
trillion. Total four-year financial and economic cost of doing nothing: $26.8 trillion. Now this
is all a very rough guesstimate
and doesn't include the costs of all sorts of other ramifications. Here is a fun one: the dissolution of
China. Its economy is built for hypergrowth. A dramatically rising standard of living is both keeping
the Communist Party in power and keeping the country together. Neither might survive a global
economic meltdown. What is the economic impact of that? I don't know. My guesstimator just blew up.
The result is a CCP lash-out causing a billion deaths
Rexing ’05 (Sam, Epoch Times, 8-5, http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html)
Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two
hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it
really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the
speeches. This theme is murderous and utterly evil. In China we have seen beggars who coerced people to give them money by threatening to stab
themselves with knives or pierce their throats with long nails. But we have never, until now, seen such a gangster who would use biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons to threaten the world, that all will die together with him. This bloody confession has confirmed the
CCP’s nature: that of a monstrous murderer who has killed 80 million Chinese people and who now plans to hold one billion people
hostage and gamble with their lives.
Turns Case – Clean Tech
Econ decline turns clean tech and global warming
Richard 8 (Michael Graham, Environmental Activist and Contributor @ HuffPost, "4 Reasons Why
Recession is BAD for the Environment," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-graham-richard/4reasons-why-recession-i_b_133564.html)
As a counter-point to Lloyd's tongue-in-cheek post about 10 Ways the Recession Can Help the Environment, here are some eco-reasons why
we should wish a speedy recovery (we won't get into non-green reasons here): Firstly, when squeezed, companies
will reduce their investments into research & development and green programs. These are usually not
short-term profit centers, so that is what's axed first. Some progress has been made in the past few years, it
would be sad to lose ground now. Secondly, average people, when money is tight, will look for less
expensive products (duh). Right now, that usually means that greener products won't make it. Maybe someday if we
start taxing "bads" instead of "goods" (pollution, carbon, toxins instead of labor, income, capital gains) the least expensive products will also be
the greenest, but right now that's not the case. Thirdly, there's less
money going into the stock markets and bank loans are harder to get,
that many small firms and startups working on the breakthrough green technologies of tomorrow
can have trouble getting funds or can even go bankrupt, especially if their clients or backers decide to make cuts.
Fourthly, during economic crises, voters want the government to appear to be doing something about
the economy (even if it's government that screwed things up in the first place). They'll accept all kinds of measures and
laws, including those that aren't good for the environment. Massive corn subsidies anyone? Don't
which means
even think about progress on global warming ...
Turns Case – Democracy
Economic decline collapses democracy
Halperin 5 [Morton, Senior Vice President of the Center for American Progress and Director of the
Open Society Policy Center, 2005, The Democracy Advantage, p. 90, Google Books]
This chapter has made the case that economic
stagnation is a threat to democratization. Over 70 percent of
democratic backtrackers experienced economic stagnation in the years preceding their political
contraction. Moreover, democratizers with more prolonged recessions had a greater tendency to revert
to authoritarianism. Backtracking under economic duress has been primarily concentrated in parts of Latin America, Africa, and the
former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, democracy has amazing staying power. In more than 95 percent of the cases of sustained economic contraction, democratizing states did not backtrack. Furthermore, even for those that eventually did backtrack, 60 percent regained their
democratic course after a several-year interval.
Economic Collapse tanks democracy
Petrou 9 [Michael, PhD in History from Oxford, Maclean’s, March 9, Proquest]
History suggests the results will be damaging. Political
freedom rarely advances during a worldwide recession. "The
current downturn, if it continues for some period of time, is likely to be very unhelpful for hope that
democracy will spread around the world," says Benjamin M. Friedman, a Harvard University economist and
the author of The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, in an interview with Maclean's. Friedman argues that political freedom
expands during prolonged periods of prosperity, and contracts during regression or stagnation. It's a
thesis echoed by Freedom House's Puddington. "Democracy moves ahead when diings are flush," he says. "The history
of democracy in times of real economic pain and crisis- it's not very good. I'm certainly hopeful that
we're not going to end up like we did in the late 1920s and 1930s. That was a terrible time for world
politics."
Economic collapse would destroy democracies
Craig Turpin, Executive editor of New Jersey newspapers, 10/14 2008, Critical Mass: Economic
leadership or dictatorship,
http://www.nj.com/cranford/index.ssf/2008/10/critical_mass_economic_leaders.html
Could it happen again? Bourgeois
democracy requires a vibrant capitalist system. Without it, the role of the
individual shrinks as government expands. At the very least, the dimensions of the U.S. government economic intervention will
foster a growth in bureaucracy to administer the multi-faceted programs necessary for implementation. Bureaucracies, once established,
inevitably become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Will this lead to "socialism" as some conservative economic prognosticators suggest?
Perhaps. But so is the possibility of dictatorship. If
the American economy collapses, especially in wartime, there remains
the American democratic era may be over. If the world economies collapse,
totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well along that path in any event.
Fragile democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could crumble.
that possibility. And if that happens
Turns Case – Developing Countries Economy
US decline hurts developing economies
World Bank 1/16/2008 (Developing Countries to Cushion Rich-Country Slowdown in 2008, with
Turkey’s GDP Growth accelerating from 5.1% in 2007 to 5.4% in 2008,
http://go.worldbank.org/BSCQE8A5D0)
A weaker US dollar, the
specter of an American recession and rising financial-market volatility could cast a shadow
over this soft landing scenario for the global economy. These risks would cut export revenues and
capital inflows for developing countries, and reduce the value of their dollar-investments abroad. In
this context, the reserves and other buffers that developing countries have built up in past years may
be needed to absorb unexpected shocks.
Turns Case – Disease
Economic decline leads to disease spread
Alexander 9 [Brian, Staff Writer, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29599786]
To most Americans, diseases with names like dengue
fever, chikungunya, malaria, Chagas and leishmaniasis might sound like
something out of a Victorian explorer’s tales of hacking through African jungles. Yet ongoing epidemics of these diseases are killing
millions of people around the world. Now, disease experts are increasingly concerned these and
other infections may become as familiar in the United States as West Nile or Lyme disease. Few believe Americans
face a killer epidemic from tropical diseases. But scientists who specialize in emerging infectious diseases say such illnesses may
become more common here as the economic downturn batters an already weakened public health
system, creating environmental conditions conducive to infectious diseases spread by insects or other
animals. At the same time, such vector-borne diseases are capable of spreading around the world much
more rapidly due to massive south-to-north immigration, rapid transportation, and global trade.
Economic decline causes disease spread
Robertson 9 [Dr Andrew, Physician, June 12th, http://www.physorg.com/news163993567.html]
There are concerns that the financial crisis has already hit t u b erculosis control, which has global
ramifications, says Robertson.“There are already indications that funding for TB diagnosis and management is
decreasing in developing countries and a surge of new cases there may flow onto the US and other
countries,” he says.Healthcare in developed countries will also suffer if budgets are cut and incomes
fall. Fewer people are accessing private health services in the USA, which will increase the burden on public health
services.Resources for disease surveillance are often cut back during difficult economic times,
jeopardising the systems we rely on to identify and deal with emerging diseases - including the
current swine flu epidemics.The 1995 economic crisis in Mexico led to 27,000 excess deaths in that
country alone - but the effect of this far greater, global downturn is currently “impossible to
quantify,” according to Robertson.
Turns Case – Environment
Growth key to check environmental degradation
Sagoff 1997 (Mark, Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at University of Maryland, College Park, Atlantic Monthly,
June, v279, n6, p. 80-96, www.chem.brown.edu/chem12/readings/atlantic/consume.html)
Many have argued that economic activity, affluence, and growth automatically lead to resource depletion, environmental deterioration, and
ecological collapse. Yet greater productivity
and prosperity—which is what economists mean by growth—have become
prerequisites for controlling urban pollution and protecting sensitive ecological systems such as rain
forests. Otherwise, destitute people who are unable to acquire food and fuel will create pollution and
destroy forests. Without economic growth, which also correlates with lower fertility, the environmental and population
problems of the South will only get worse. For impoverished countries facing environmental disaster,
economic growth may be the one thing that is sustainable.
Economic growth key to the environment
Sagoff 97 (Mark, Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy @ U of Maryland – College
Park, Bioscience, October, v45, n9, p. 614)
Ecological economists assert that economic growth, as they define it, is unsustainable because it stresses
the carrying capacity of the earth. Economic growth, in the conventional sense, however, bears no general relation to
environmental stress. Societies with large gross domestic products, such as Sweden, protect nature, while
nations in the former Soviet bloc, with much smaller gross domestic products, such as Poland, have devastated their
environments. The Scandinavian countries use their affluence to help countries with smaller economies, like
Poland, clean up the environmental mess they have made. In impoverished nations, as consultant in
environment and development Norman Myers observes, people may “have no option but to over-exploit
environmental resource stocks in order to survive,” for example, “by increasingly encroaching onto
tropical forests amongst other low-potential lands” (Myers 1994, p. 128). The poorest of the poor, Myers writes,
are often the principal cause of deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, and extinction of species
(Myers 1993). It is the absence of economic growth rather than its presence, then, that is a principal cause of rain
forest destruction, desertification, erosion, and loss of biodiversity.
Turns Case – Europe Economy
US decline destroys global consumer confidence- destroys European economies
Roubini 2008 (Nouriel, chairman of RGE Monitor and professor of economics at New York University’s
Stern School of Business, The Coming Financial Pandemic, Foreign Policy, March/April, http://www.vietstudies.info/kinhte/coming_financial_pandemic.htm)
Consumer confidence outside the United States—especially in Europe and Japan—was never strong; it can only
become weaker as an onslaught of lousy economic news in the United States dampens the spirits of
consumers worldwide. And as losses on their U.S. operations hit their books, large multinational firms
may decide to cut back new spending on factories and machines not just in the United States but
everywhere. European corporations will be hit especially hard, as they depend on bank lending more
than American firms do. The emerging global credit crunch will limit their ability to produce, hire, and invest. The best way to see how
this financial flu spreads is by watching global stock markets. Investors become more risk averse when their economies
appear to be slowing down. So whenever there’s bad economic news in the United States—say, reports of
higher unemployment or negative GDP growth—there are worries that other economies will suffer, too. Investors
sell off their stocks in New York and the Dow Jones plunges. You can expect a similarly sharp fall when the Nikkei opens
in Tokyo a few hours later, and the ripple effect then continues in Europe when opening bells ring in Frankfurt, London, and
Paris. It’s a vicious circle; the market volatility culminates in a kind of panicky groupthink, causing investors to
dump risky assets from their portfolios en masse. Such financial contagion was on prime display when global equity
markets plummeted in January.
Turns Case – Heg
Economic strength key to Heg
Khalilzad 1995 (Zalmay, chair of RAND’s project Air Force Security and Doctrine Program, “Losing the
Moment,” Washington Quarterly, Sping, lexis)
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy
declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership
would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world,
become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States
weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum.
Turns Case – India
Collapse of the Indian Economy jacks world stability
Garten 1995 (Jeffrey, Under Sec. Trade, “Moving beyond”, March 7, FDCH, p ln)
Paramount among those interests are the commercial opportunities that are increasingly at the heart of the Clinton Administration's
foreign policy. But it is impossible to separate those commercial interests from our broader interests. Economic reforms enable our
companies to take advantage of the opportunities within the Indian market and enable Indian companies to better enter the global
marketplace. Economic
growth in India is a powerful stabilizing force in a region of the world where
stability is of supreme.importance. Stability and growth in India are of enormous importance
through southern Asia, from the Middle East to Indochina. Peace and prosperity in that part of the world are essential to
the peace and prosperity of the world. The survival of Indian democracy is an important message to those who doubt the value of
democracy, particularly in large, complex, emerging societies. India is a regional powerhouse. Home of the world's fourth largest navy.
Home of a burgeoning space program. It would be hard to describe a nation that could be more central to our interests in the century
ahead -- or one with whom the promise of cooperation and friendship is greater.
A strong Indian Economy is crucial to lifting millions of people out of poverty.
Dr. Y V Reddy, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, at the Institute of South Asian Studies,
Singapore, 5/20/08, “Indian Economy – Prospects for Growth with Stability,”
http://www.bis.org/review/r080522b.pdf
There are certain “not easily quantifiable strengths” which the Indian economy possesses. A vast pool of
science and technology graduates and the millions of people who are familiar with the English
language are sources of strength. The familiarity with multiple languages in India prepares the people to adapt better to multicultural situations, making it easier for them to fit into international systems smoothly. The political climate is characterised by, what may
be termed as, political system stability, despite the coalition cabinets and periodic elections both at the Centre and in several States.
India will remain one of the youngest countries in the world in the next few decades. This “demographic
dividend” is seen as an inevitable advantage provided pre-requisites such as skill-upgradation and sound governance to realize it are put in
place. In terms of business environment, the
impressive growth coupled with market orientation of the
economy has been a bottom-up exercise with a very broad-based and growing entrepreneurial
class. These tendencies are perhaps reflective of a penchant for innovation among already large
and growing entrepreneurial class in India, imbued with professionalism and seeking to be globally competitive. In brief, the
medium term challenges are many, but all indications point to a sense of overall optimism for some acceleration in the already high rate of
growth, with reasonable stability. Perhaps we
should track not only the addition to the number of billionaires
in India but also the depletion in the number of millions of poor and unemployed. For some, Indian
economic progress signifies the beginnings of a major economic powerhouse in the world. But for
many of us, the optimism over the medium-term is only the beginning of an arduous journey to
ensure basic nutrition, clean water, safer sanitation, minimal housing, personal security and
individual dignity for millions in India. The prospects for growth and stability in India are great, but greater are the
challenges in fulfilling the very basic objectives of public policy.
Turns Case – Japan Economy
Collapse of the Japanese economy causes nuclear war with China
The Guardian ‘02 (2-11, Lexis)
Even so, the west cannot afford to be complacent about what is happening in Japan, unless it intends to use the country as a test case to explore whether a
full-scale depression is less painful now than it was 70 years ago. Action is needed, and quickly because this is an economy that could soak up some of the
world's excess capacity if functioning properly. A
strong Japan is not only essential for the long-term health of the
global economy, it is also needed as a counter-weight to the growing power of China. A collapse in the
Japanese economy, which looks ever more likely, would have profound ramifications; some experts believe it could even unleash a
wave of extreme nationalism that would push the country into conflict with its bigger (and nuclear)
neighbour.
US decline jacks the Japanese economy
Roubini 2008 (Nouriel, chairman of RGE Monitor and professor of economics at New York University’s
Stern School of Business, The Coming Financial Pandemic, Foreign Policy, March/April, http://www.vietstudies.info/kinhte/coming_financial_pandemic.htm)
TRADE WILL DROP: The most obvious way that a U.S. recession could spill over elsewhere in the world is
through trade. If output and demand in the United States fall—something that by definition would
happen in a recession—the resulting decline in private consumption, capital spending by companies, and
production would lead to a drop in imports of consumer goods, capital goods, commodities, and other raw materials from
abroad. U.S. imports are other countries’ exports, as well as an important part of their overall demand.
So such a scenario would spell a drop in their economic growth rates, too. Several significant
economies—including Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and much of Southeast Asia—are heavily dependent
on exports to the United States. China, in particular, is at risk because so much of its double-digit annual growth has relied on the
uptick of exports to the United States. Americans are the world’s biggest consumers, and China is one of the world’s largest exporters. But with
Americans reluctant to buy, where would Chinese goods go?
US decline destroys global consumer confidence- destroying the Japanese economy
Roubini 2008 (Nouriel, chairman of RGE Monitor and professor of economics at New York University’s
Stern School of Business, The Coming Financial Pandemic, Foreign Policy, March/April, http://www.vietstudies.info/kinhte/coming_financial_pandemic.htm)
Consumer confidence outside the United States—especially in Europe and Japan—was never strong; it can only
become weaker as an onslaught of lousy economic news in the United States dampens the spirits of
consumers worldwide. And as losses on their U.S. operations hit their books, large multinational firms
may decide to cut back new spending on factories and machines not just in the United States but
everywhere. European corporations will be hit especially hard, as they depend on bank lending more than American firms do. The
emerging global credit crunch will limit their ability to produce, hire, and invest. The best way to see how this financial flu spreads is by
watching global stock markets. Investors
become more risk averse when their economies appear to be slowing
down. So whenever there’s bad economic news in the United States—say, reports of higher unemployment or
negative GDP growth—there are worries that other economies will suffer, too. Investors sell off their stocks
in New York and the Dow Jones plunges. You can expect a similarly sharp fall when the Nikkei opens in
Tokyo a few hours later, and the ripple effect then continues in Europe when opening bells ring in Frankfurt, London, and Paris. It’s a vicious
circle; the market volatility culminates in a kind of panicky groupthink, causing investors to dump risky
assets from their portfolios en masse. Such financial contagion was on prime display when global equity markets plummeted in
January.
Turns Case – Latin America
US decline hurts Latin American economies
AP 1/29/2008 (IMF predicts slowing global economy in 2008 due to US housing woes, but no recession,
lexis)
Rising home foreclosures and falling home prices caused U.S.
financial markets to drop steeply in recent months, as major banks such as
Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. have written down billions of dollars of securities that include bad home loans. The disruptions
have reverberated around the world as banks have cut back on lending and raised credit standards, leading to tighter credit
markets. Tuesday's IMF report was the second time the organization has cut its 2008 growth projection. Last July, the IMF estimated the world
economy would grow 5.2 percent in 2008, but in October the estimate was reduced to 4.4 percent. Johnson said that difficulties in the U.S.
financial sector have impacted Europe's economy. Several of its major banks have also reduced the value of complex securities they hold that
are tied to U.S. mortgages. The IMF expects growth in the European Union to slow to 1.6 percent this year, down from an estimated 2.6 percent
in 2007. Asia and Latin America, meanwhile, will also see
reduced growth in 2008, the IMF said, as their exports
decline due to weaker economies in the United States and Europe. The global impact of the U.S. slowdown indicates that
the U.S. economy still exerts influence over the rest of the world, despite predictions that other
countries are "decoupling," Johnson said.
Turns Case – Poverty
Global economic collapse causes food crisis, economic hardships, and increases
poverty
Klare 9 [Michael T. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies at Hampshire College,
March 19, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-second-shockwave_b_176358.html]
While the
economic contraction is apparently slowing in the advanced industrial countries and may reach bottom in the not-tooonly beginning to gain momentum in the developing world, which was spared the
earliest effects of the global meltdown. Because the crisis was largely precipitated by a collapse of the housing market in
distant future, it's
the United States and the resulting disintegration of financial products derived from the "securitization" of questionable mortgages, most
developing nations were unaffected by the early stages of the meltdown, for the simple reason that they possessed few such assets. But
now, as the wealthier nations cease investing in the developing world or acquiring its exports, the crisis is hitting them with a vengeance.
On top of this, conditions are deteriorating at a time when severe drought is affecting many key food-producing regions and poor farmers
lack the wherewithal to buy seeds, fertilizers, and fuel. The
likely result: A looming food crisis in many areas hit
hardest by the global economic meltdown. Until now, concern over the human impact of the global crisis
has largely been focused -- understandably so -- on unemployment and economic hardship in the United States, Europe,
and former Soviet Union. Many stories have appeared on the devastating impact of plant closings, bankruptcies, and home foreclosures on
families and communities in these parts of the world. Much less coverage has been devoted to the meltdown's impact on people in the
developing world. As the crisis spreads to the poorer countries, however, it's likely that people in these areas will
experience hardships every bit as severe as those in the wealthier countries -- and, in many cases, far worse. The greatest worry is that
most of the
gains achieved in eradicating poverty over the last decade or so will be wiped out, forcing tens or
hundreds of millions of people from the working class and the lower rungs of the middle class back
into the penury from which they escaped. Equally worrisome is the risk of food scarcity in these areas,
resulting in widespread malnutrition, hunger, and starvation. All this is sure to produce vast human misery, sickness, and death, but could
also result in social and political unrest of various sorts, including riot, rebellion, and ethnic strife. The president, Congress, or the
mainstream media are not, for the most part, discussing these perils. As before, public interest remains focused on the ways in which the
crisis is affecting the United States and the other major industrial powers. But the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and
U.S. intelligence officials, in three recent reports, are paying increased attention to the prospect of a second economic shockwave, this
time affecting the developing world.Sinking Back Into Penury In late February, the World Bank staff prepared a background paper for the
Group of 20 (G-20) finance ministers meeting held near London on March 13 and 14. Entitled "Swimming Against the Tide: How Developing
Countries Are Coping with the Global Crisis," it provides a preliminary assessment of the meltdown's impact on low-income countries
(LICs). The picture, though still hazy, is one of deepening gloom. Most LICs were shielded from the initial impact of the sudden blockage in
private capital flows because they have such limited access to such markets. "But while slower to emerge," the report notes, "the impact of
the crisis on LICs has been no less significant as the effects have spread through other channels." For example, "many LIC governments rely
on disproportionately on revenue from commodity exports, the prices of which have declined sharply along with global demand." Likewise,
foreign direct investment is falling, particularly in the natural resource sectors. On top of this, remittances from immigrants in the wealthier
countries to their families back home have dropped, erasing an important source of income to poor communities. Add all this up, and it's
likely that "the
slowdown in growth will likely deepen the deprivation of the existing poor." In many LICs,
moreover, "large numbers of people are clustered just above the poverty line and are therefore
particularly vulnerable to economic volatility and temporary slowdowns." As the intensity of the crisis grows,
more and more of these people will lose their jobs or their other sources of income (such as those allimportant remittances) and so be pushed from above the poverty line to beneath it. The resulting outcome: "The economic crisis is
projected to increase poverty by around 46 million people in 2009."
Turns Case – Prolif
Economic growth is the surest way to stop proliferation
Burrows & Windram 94 [William & Robert, Critical Mass, p. 491-2]
Economics is in many respects proliferation’s catalyst. As we have noted, economic desperation drives Russia
and some of the former Warsaw Pact nations to peddle weapons and technology. The possibility of considerable profits
or at least balanced international payments also prompts Third World countries like China, Brazil, and Israel to do the same. Economics, as
well as such related issues as overpopulation, drive proliferation just as surely as do purely political motives. Unfortunately, that subject is
beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that, all things being equal, well-of, relatively
secure societies like today’s
Japan are less likely to buy or sell superweapon technology than those that are insecure, needy, or
desperate. Ultimately, solving economic problems, especially as they are driven by population pressure, is the
surest way to defuse proliferation and enhance true national security.
Economic collapse kills nuclear security spurring proliferation
The Antiatom, антиатом, Russian newspaper, December 23, 2008 “ RUSSIAN ECONOMIC CRISIS MAY
LEAD TO NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS AND ADVANCE ILLEGAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION,”
http://antiatom.ru/en/node/644
The nuclear industry in Russia is being negatively affected by the country's economic crisis; and the
situation is expected to to worsen in 2009. This is according to a recently released annual report by the states nuclear regulatory
body. Ongoing job cuts at nuclear facilities include the personnel directly responsible for safety contro l.
Activists call on the Russian government to quickly adopt a plan to insure public safety and nuclear security. Antiatom.ru (Moscow, December
23, 2008 - The deteriorating social and economic situation in Russia is likely to result in significant drop of nuclear safety' level at many nuclear
facilities. Some
nuclear facilities have already seen jobs cut because of reduced national income due to
declining oil prices and the global recession. It is possible that further cut jobs in Russians and may bring
back the nuclear proliferation problems related to illegal trade of radioactive materials. These
radioactive materials can be used for building a "dirty bomb". According to governmental report, obtained by
Ecodefense, staff cuts have been underway since 2007. According to the recently released annual report written by the Russian nuclear
regulator, Rostekhnadzor, there have been "job
cuts at facilities responsible for nuclear-fuel cycle of personnel
responsible for safety control and maintenance". The report also criticises nuclear facilities management for "not paying
enough attention to ensuring nuclear safety". In a disturbing criticism of iteself, Rostekhnadzor reports that it doesn't have enough safety
inspectors to do it's own job properly.
Turns Case – Racism
Economic decline cause hate crimes
Kim 93 [Marlene, Prof of Labor Studies at Rutgers University, 1993 p. viii]
In addition, anti-immigration sentiment, like hate crimes, ignites when economic times are tough.
During the Great Depression of 1930s, lynchings of African Americans increased and 300,000 Mexican
Americans were forcibly bussed back across the border. Over a hundred years ago, the US prohibited Chinese and
later all Asians from immigrating, sanctions that were not lifted until the 1940s
Economic decline turns racism
New York Times 90 [October 24, Section A; Page 24; Column 4; Editorial Desk]
The emancipation of the slaves did not lead directly to segregation, as it should have if American society
was primarily and fundamentally racist. Rather, segregation arose in response to a threatening
biracial political challenge from black and white farmers in the 1890's to the white elite -- which
capitulated to racism after paternalism failed. Segregation collapsed in the face of a civil rights movement
sustained by post-World War II prosperity, while racism is now resurgent in an era of economic
decline. This oversimplified summary is meant to document the assertion that racism has been and continues
to be fostered by competition for limited resources, that is, it is primarily a class issue. It can best
be fought by policies for economic and, hence, social justice.
Economic decline turns racism and sexism
Finsterbusch 98 (Kurt, prof of sociology @ U of Maryland – College Park, The Coming Age of Scarcity:
Preventing Mass Death and Genocide in the Twenty-First Century, Eds. Michael N. Dobkowski & Isidor
Walliman, p. 157-8)
The fifth explanation of why scarcity decreases integration is that it aggravates
all fissures in society. The shrinking pie
intensifies the class struggle as discussed earlier, but Blumberg (1980, 220) adds that scarcity “will almost inevitably
increase the overall level of social nastiness” and aggravate all fissures and cleavages, “creating social
conflict amid a general scramble for self-aggrandizement.” He goes on to describe how racial, gender,
educational, generational, and regional conflicts are likely to intensify in the United States.
Turns Case – Russia
Russian economic decline causes nuclear war.
David -99 (Steven David, political scientist, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, January/February 1999, p.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars.
Html)
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the
GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many
economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $
70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout
privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of
life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the
current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared.
If conditions get worse, even the stoic
Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military.
In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control
remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation – personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile,
the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new
emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk
that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force.
Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local
governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces.
Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the
military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will
continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As
the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the
economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them
already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet
policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar
movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is
likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -even though in decline -- does
not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might
provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western
Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on
nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be
even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war
might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent
disintegration of Russia could lead
to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear
precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands
more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much
material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide
range of anti-American groups and states. Such
dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical
threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more
than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.
Collapse of the Russian economy causes Rusisan breakup and secessionism
Henry E. Hale, Poly Sci Prof @ Indiana, and Rein Taagepera, Political Scientist and politician, 2002,
“Russia: Consolidation or Collapse?”, Europe-Asia Studies, v. 54, no. 7, JSTOR
From the perspective of Russia's own history, then, Russia's survival looks to be overdetermined in light of comparisons
with the USSR. But ethnic politics in the USSR once looked quite stable too, before conditions arose that put separatist dynamics into play.
What kinds of conditions might turn the seemingly impossible into reality ? In the Soviet case the immediate
precipitating factor was a virtual collapse of central state institutions when the August 1991 coup failed and split the military at the same
time that it confirmed fears in many republics that Russia could never fully be trusted. While a full analysis of such 'triggering'
events is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to lay out some scenarios that could conceivably (though not probably)
beset Russia in the foreseeable future. * Economic collapse. For one thing, one could conceive of a total economic collapse, far
worse than the August 1998 crisis, perhaps involving sustained hyperinflation. If such a severe
depression were to render the federal government virtually useless (or even harmful) to its citizens, this
could trigger a combination of secession and state collapse as regions decide that they are better off trying to go it
alone.
Turns Case – Russian Nuclear Security
Economic collapse causes lapses in Russian nuclear security
The Antiatom, антиатом, Russian newspaper, December 23, 2008 “ RUSSIAN ECONOMIC CRISIS MAY
LEAD TO NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS AND ADVANCE ILLEGAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION,”
http://antiatom.ru/en/node/644
The nuclear industry in Russia is being negatively affected by the country's economic crisis; and the
situation is expected to to worsen in 2009. This is according to a recently released annual report by the states nuclear regulatory
body. Ongoing job cuts at nuclear facilities include the personnel directly responsible for safety contro l.
Activists call on the Russian government to quickly adopt a plan to insure public safety and nuclear security. Antiatom.ru (Moscow, December
23, 2008 - The deteriorating social and economic situation in Russia is likely to result in significant drop of nuclear safety' level at many nuclear
facilities. Some
nuclear facilities have already seen jobs cut because of reduced national income due to
declining oil prices and the global recession. It is possible that further cut jobs in Russians and may bring
back the nuclear proliferation problems related to illegal trade of radioactive materials. These
radioactive materials can be used for building a "dirty bomb". According to governmental report, obtained by
Ecodefense, staff cuts have been underway since 2007. According to the recently released annual report written by the Russian nuclear
regulator, Rostekhnadzor, there have been "job
cuts at facilities responsible for nuclear-fuel cycle of personnel
responsible for safety control and maintenance". The report also criticises nuclear facilities management for "not paying
enough attention to ensuring nuclear safety". In a disturbing criticism of iteself, Rostekhnadzor reports that it doesn't have enough safety
inspectors to do it's own job properly.
Turns Case – Southeast Asia
US decline jacks Southeast Asian economies
Roubini 2008 (Nouriel, chairman of RGE Monitor and professor of economics at New York University’s
Stern School of Business, The Coming Financial Pandemic, Foreign Policy, March/April, http://www.vietstudies.info/kinhte/coming_financial_pandemic.htm)
TRADE WILL DROP: The
most obvious way that a U.S. recession could spill over elsewhere in the world is
through trade. If output and demand in the United States fall—something that by definition would
happen in a recession—the resulting decline in private consumption, capital spending by companies, and
production would lead to a drop in imports of consumer goods, capital goods, commodities, and other raw materials from
abroad. U.S. imports are other countries’ exports, as well as an important part of their overall demand.
So such a scenario would spell a drop in their economic growth rates, too. Several significant
economies—including Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and much of Southeast Asia—are heavily dependent
on exports to the United States. China, in particular, is at risk because so much of its double-digit annual growth has relied on the
uptick of exports to the United States. Americans are the world’s biggest consumers, and China is one of the world’s largest exporters. But with
Americans reluctant to buy, where would Chinese goods go? China
is also a good example of how indirect trade links
would suffer in an American recession. It once was the case that Asian manufacturing hubs such as South Korea and Taiwan
produced finished goods, like consumer electronics, that were exported directly to American retailers. But with the rise of Chinese
competitiveness in manufacturing, the pattern of trade in Asia has changed: Asian countries increasingly produce components, such as
computer chips, for export to China. China then takes these component parts and assembles them into finished goods—say, a personal
computer—and exports them to American consumers. Therefore, if
U.S. imports fall, then Chinese exports to the United
States would fall. If Chinese exports fall, then Chinese demand for component parts from the rest of
Asia would fall, spreading the economic headache further.
Turns Case – Trade
Economic decline jacks trade
UzReport 4/18/2008 (Uzbek news organization, WTO: developing, transition economies cushion trade
slowdown, lexis)
The adverse consequences of turmoil on financial markets will not only affect US demand growth but also lead to further downward revisions in
economic growth for Japan and Western Europe. As
world trade responds strongly to variations in global economic
activity a stronger than projected deceleration in world economic growth could cut trade growth much
more sharply, to significantly less than the 4.5% predicted above. (Income elasticity how much trade responds to changes in income
has been between 1.5 and 2 over the last decade, indicating that trade reacts significantly.) REAL
MERCHANDISE TRADE AND OUTPUT DEVELOPMENTS IN 2007 The slowdown in economic activity in developed countries
was the major factor in the reduced expansion of global trade in 2007. Real merchandise export growth is
provisionally estimated at 5.5% in 2007, nearly 3 percentage points less than in 2006 but still close to the average rate of trade expansion over
the last decade (1997-2007). The expansion of real trade exceeded global output growth by 2 percentage points.
Turns Case – Warming
Economic growth key to solve warming
Anderson 4 [Terry L. professor of economics at Montana State University, Ph.D. in economics
http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php]
Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note, saying "the
main elements [new technologies] required to halt
climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity." This statement would not have surprised
economist Julian Simon. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces.
Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations, we are not running out
of natural resources. As a resource becomes more scarce, prices increase, thus encouraging
development of cheaper alternatives and technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced
scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by new technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces
also cause economic growth, which in turn leads to environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to
sacrifice clean water and air, healthy forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their
incomes rise above subsistence, "economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years," says
economist Bruce Yandle. "If economic growth is good for the environment, policies that stimulate
growth ought to be good for the environment."
EU Modeling
2NC
EU models US CIR liberalization
JEROEN DOOMERNIK TRANSATLANTIC ACADEMY REY KOSLOWSKI TRANSATLANTIC ACADEMY AND
DIETRICH THRÄNHARDT TRANSATLANTIC ACADEMY 2009 The German Marshall Fund of the United
States http://www.gmfus.org/brusselsforum/2009/docs/BF_Battle4Brain_Final.pdf
Selective migration policies are proliferating among migrant destination countries of the developed world.
Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Germany, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, and the Czech Republic have
devised special visas and programs to attract scientists, highly-skilled engineers, medical professionals, computer programmers, and
information technology professionals from developing countries such as India and China. The
proliferation of these immigration
policies has set up a competitive dynamic. Germany’s Independent Commission on Migration to Germany, led by Rita
Süssmuth, described it in terms of a “battle for the brains.”1 This competition has taken on a transatlantic dimension as
European policymakers call for policy changes with explicit reference to their competitors across the
Atlantic. For example, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has argued that “the most qualified migrants, the most dynamic and competent
ones head to the American continent, while immigrants with little or no skills come to Europe” (Bennhold 2006). Not only do EU member
states wish to compete with the United States and Canada for the highly skilled, they have initiated new selective
immigration policies that copy elements of the Canadian-style point system as well as the U.S. temporary H1-B visa for
high-skilled workers.
Vital internal link to stop inevitable EU econ collapse and soft power
Stefan Theil, Newsweek's European economics editor, 2-19-2010
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/europe-s-big-choice.html
As these trends intensify, Europe will face a stark choice. It can appease the angry masses and slam the doors. Or it can
defy public
opinion and open the gates to more and better-skilled immigrants. Doing so will be difficult politically. But it is
also a necessary part of ensuring the continent's economic recovery and long-term vitality. While
inviting more foreigners in might seem an odd choice today, Europe simply can't afford not to. Should
it force itself to become a more open, mobile society—modeled on traditional immigrant countries
such as Canada, Australia, and the U.S.—it will thrive. If it locks its doors and halts integration, on the other hand, it will
wind up like Japan: shriveling, xenophobic, and resigned to decline. Europe's need for immigrants owes in
part to demographics. The continent's population is aging so fast, it needs young newcomers to fill the
gaps. This year deaths will outnumber births in 10 of the EU's 27 member states, including two of its biggest, Germany and Italy. By 2015 this
phenomenon will have spread to the EU as a whole, and by 2035 the death gap will have grown to 1 million a year. According to the European
Commission, the Union will have 52 million fewer people of working age by 2050, making it harder to compete with younger, more vibrant
Even now, businesses across the
continent face chronic shortages of skilled workers such as engineers, technicians, craftspeople, and
medical staff. Despite the downturn, there are now some 4 million unfilled jobs in Europe. "Every one of
our clients has positions they can't fill because of [labor] shortages," says Barbara Beck, European head of Manpower. With
time, these problems will only grow. Economists predict that global GDP will double in the next 20
years, and as many as 1 billion new skilled jobs will be created. But to capture its share of this growth
and support its aging population, Europe will need far more skilled workers than it currently produces. Getting them
will mean attracting more of the global talent pool. According to the European Commission, Europe will need 20
million skilled immigrants over the next 20 years just to maintain its position. Should it fail to get
them, Europe will not only become small er and poor er; it will also see its own best and brightest
decamp for better opportunities in the growing economies of China, India, and Brazil.
countries like China or the United States, or to support Europe's own senior citizens.
Strong EU key to solve multiple scenarios for extinction
Burton ’01 (John,- Ambassador for the European Commission Delegation
http://www.irlgov.ie/committees-02/c-europeanaffairs/future/page1.htm)
2.5 As the Laeken Declaration put it, "Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation" adding that Europe must exercise its power in
order "to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development". 2.6 Only a strong
E uropean
U nion is big enough to create a space, and a stable set of rules, within which all Europeans can live securely, move freely, and provide for themselves, for their
families and for their old age. Individual states are too small to do that on their own. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with the globalised
human diseases, such as AIDS and tuberculosis. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with globalised criminal conspiracies, like the Mafia, that
threaten the security of all Europeans. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with globalised environmental threats, such as global warming,
which threaten our continent and generations of its future inhabitants. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with globalised economic forces,
which could spread recession from one country to another and destroy millions of jobs. Only a strong European Union is big enough to regulate, in the
interests of society as a whole, the activities of profit seeking private corporations, some of which now have more spending power than many individual states. 2.7
These tasks are too large for individual states. 2.8 Only by coming together in the
E uropean U nion can we ensure that humanity, and the values which make
us, as individuals, truly human, prevail over blind global forces that will otherwise overwhelm us.
Disease ---- Extinction
Steinbruner ‘98 (John, Director of the Center for International and Security Studies @ Maryland,
Winter Foreign Policy)
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit
policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose
sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases
emerge, while old diseases
mutate
and
adapt . Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down
on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth
century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIV virus
have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought
to be under control--are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread
contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances that
expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in
the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the
species as a
whole.
Organized crime --- the impact is accidental nuclear war
Cilluffo ’03 (“Dealing with transnational threats”)
The stranglehold of Russian organized crime on Russian society is immense. Crime is truly usurping the state’s authority to resolve legal
disputes. Unable to depend on overburdened or corrupt courts, Russian businesses and individuals are forced to turn to kryshas (protection
rackets), many with criminal ties for adjudication. The criminals, on the other hand, do brutally enforce their own criminal code, settling
everything from parking tickets to major business disputes. Once ingrained into the Russian ethos, this phenomenon cannot be eradicated
overnight. This is precisely why the United States needs to support processes, as opposed to individuals. An independent judiciary, insulated from
corruption and politics, is crucial. This is not an issue of simply placing more laws on the books, it is an issue of political will and making the
bureaucracy more professional. Crime and corruption have also been the greatest impediments to attracting foreign direct investment, which
cannot be treated in isolation of infrastructure modernization, shareholder rights, contract enforcement, Russian customs, and taxation and
licensing issues. Russia finds itself in the unpalatable position of depending on foreign investment, given massive capital flight and the wholesale
plundering of its natural resources by its oligarchs and organized crime groups. The current fiscal crisis in Russia is, of course, undermining
urgently needed maintenance of nuclear command systems and is weakening security and safeguards of nuclear weapons. A former army general
and Duma member, the late General Rokhlin, stated that the Russian strategic nuclear forces were nearing extinction for want of funds for
maintenance. Both officers and ranks are unpaid, not fed, and unhappy. In this atmosphere the prospect for a criminal diversion of nuclear
materials or an unauthorized and perhaps even accidental launch is at an all-time high. This threat may not be as apocalyptic as nuclear war, but
nevertheless the likelihood of a nuclear event is greater today than it was during the Cold War.
Environmental decline --- causes extinction
Kline ’98 (Gary, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia Southwestern State University,
Journal of Third World Studies, Vol 15, Issue 1, Spring)
Additionally,
natural ecosystems provide certain less obvious services that are crucial to life as we know it.6 The atmosphere of our planet
is the product largely of ecosystem operations. About twenty-one percent of our atmosphere is made up of oxygen, the result of plant photosynthesis
which releases the gas. Approximately seventy-eight percent of the remaining air we breathe is nitrogen, which is regulated by the nitrogen cycle of plant production. Ecosystems then
influence weather and climate patterns by affecting the circulation of air in this atmosphere.
Plants, and especially forests, are instrumental in retaining and
conserving our soil and water. Destruction of forest areas results in soil erosion (deleterious to agriculture and plant life in general), floods, and droughts. The rapid
decertification of large tracts of land in places like north Africa are a direct consequence of loss of such ecosystems. Each year an area equivalent in size to Belgium falls victim to
decertification. Plant and animal life, much of it not visible to the naked eye, helps create and maintain soil by breaking down rocks into finer and finer pieces and by adding organic material to
it, enriching it for agriculture. Except for some of the most troublesome products of Humankind, like DDT and plastics, these same plants and animals work to dispose of wastes. Decomposed
wastes are then recycled as nutrients into the food chain for the sustenance of new life. Natural ecosystems also produce mechanisms in plants for the resistance of pests and diseases and for
the pollination of flowering plants, essential to their reproduction, including many of our food crops. It should be apparent that biodiversity and life are synonymous. The organisms in an
ecosystem are part of a "trophic pyramid," as labelled by scientists. That is, a large mass of plants supports a smaller number of herbivores; these support a smaller number of primary
carnivores and an even smaller number of second order carnivores. Due to their more rapid rates of reproduction, the lower order life forms are generally better able to adapt to changes in
their environment than the higher forms. The latter are also disadvantaged by bioconcentration of harmful substances which make their way into the food chain. Every organism has some
Human activity which
threatens the pyramid is akin to playing Russian roulette. Of this, Humankind is now more aware. As Garrison Wilkes of the University of
niche and work to perform in the pyramid. Homo sapiens occupy a position at the top and are therefore vulnerable to instability at the base.
Massachusetts put it, "We have been building our roof with stones from the foundation."7 This problem is now manifesting itself especially in an area of human endeavor which is essential to
our existence: agriculture.
Modeling IL – U.S. CIR Key
More ev Europe models- want to increase immigrant flow
JEROEN DOOMERNIK TRANSATLANTIC ACADEMY REY KOSLOWSKI TRANSATLANTIC ACADEMY AND
DIETRICH THRÄNHARDT TRANSATLANTIC ACADEMY 2009 The German Marshall Fund of the United
States http://www.gmfus.org/brusselsforum/2009/docs/BF_Battle4Brain_Final.pdf
A UN survey of member state perceptions of migration and migration policies reflects the changing views of these European
governments regarding labor migration, as summarized in Table 1. It shows that, in 1996, European governments tended to view
immigration as generally too high (with the exception of Central European countries that at the time had limited experience with immigration)
and in a number of cases do so at present. Without
exception, all would like the numbers of highly-skilled migrants
to be higher. This almost universal paradigmatic change invariably comes with reference to the
American and especially the Canadian point-based models as the suitable means by which to attract and retain
highly-skilled immigrants.
EU Good – Balkans
Independently, strong EU regional influence key to prevent Balkan conflict
Bildt ‘05 (Carl, former UN special envoy to region, former prime minister of Sweden, “Europe must keep its ‘soft power’”, 5-1 Financial Times, pg. 17, lexis)
The debate is mainly about Turkey. In France, Jacques Chirac, the president, has talked about Turkish membership being two decades or so away, and Nicolas
Sarkozy, leader of the ruling UMP party, makes no secret of his opposition to the entire idea. In Germany, there is pressure on the Christian Democrats to turn
the coming election campaign more or less into a referendum on Turkish membership of the EU - just ahead of the start of accession negotiations in October. But
Europe's soft power is so urgently needed, in order
not only to secure the continued European reformation of Turkey but also the reconciliation and
reintegration of the war-torn societies of the Balkans. Let us be clear: without the soft power of EU
enlargement, neither of these processes has much prospect of going forward and the risk of
backsliding is very real. In both cases, the prospect of membership has been declared time and again by the EU. If the Union is seen as pulling away
the coming enlargement must cover all of south-eastern Europe. It is here that
from its commitment to enlargement, it should be no surprise if these societies start to backtrack on their commitment to European values and stability.
Global nuclear war
Chicago Daily Herald ‘99 (May 09, lexis)
We hear the grim rationale for sending in ground troops “to salvage the credibility of the NATO Alliance.” I don’t want any American servicemen/women to die
for the idea that once you have embarked on a disastrous course of action, you can only continue on ... that’s nonsense. On a recent news program the Italian and
German foreign ministers stated troop deployment is not acceptable as part of their national defense - the French representative waffled. Both France and
Germany have large Muslim populations. The German official said the NATO Alliance weapons, planes, missiles are primarily American with minimum
action could culminate in a third world
The war in the Balkans could easily become the flash point of world conflict resulting in nuclear war
and incalculable self-destruction.
involvement of NATO allies. Let’s not forget that Russia has warned NATO countries that this
EU Good – Terrorism
EU Soft power solves terrorism
Nye ’04 (Joseph,- prof of IR @ Harvard “Europe’s Soft Power” http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3886)
The European preference for multilateral cooperation has generated a few successes that have increased Europe’s soft power — as well as its
economic power. Broad economic achievements After a bumpy start, the Airbus consortium surpassed Boeing as the world’s leading manufacturer of
commercial jetliners. In the mobile phone industry, European governments agreed on a single regulatory standard, GSM, as early as 1987, while Americans used
a market-driven approach to allow a standard to emerge and dominate. The effects of successful cooperation The result was that Europe developed a stronger
infrastructure than the United States and was able to dominate the wireless market in the 1990s. A future test of the European approach will be the Galileo global
navigation satellite system, Europe’s answer to the U.S-based Global Positioning System (GPS). While excessive bureaucracy can hamper the European
approach, the ability to work cooperatively on large information infrastructure projects that serve as global public goods can increase Europe’s soft power as well
as its economic power. Pushing for public diplomacy Europeans also invest more in their public diplomacy. Many European domestic policies appeal to young
populations in modern democracies. The Europeans have a longer tradition and spend more — particularly in international cultural relations. In this area France
had the highest per capita spending — over $17 — and more than four times that of second-ranked Canada. Britain and Sweden rank third and fourth. In
comparison, U.S. State Department funding for international cultural programs spending was only $0.65 per capita. Common interests Soft power can be
shared and used in a cooperative fashion. European promotion of democracy and human rights helps advance shared values that are consistent
with American objectives. The Islamist extremists of al-Qaeda are fighting against Western values — not just American values. European public
diplomacy that counters their appeal is beneficial to the United States
Extinction
Alexander ‘03 (Yonah, Director, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Jerusalem Post, 8-25, Lexis)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically the international community's failure, thus far at least, to
understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threat to the survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades
tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than as a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising,
therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned to witness the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al-Qaida terrorists striking a devastating blow at the
center of the nation's commercial and military centers. Likewise Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Accords of 1993 and numerous acts of
terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack. Why are the US and Israel, as well as
scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism, continually shocked by terrorist surprises? There are several reasons: * A
misunderstanding of the manifold factors contributing to the expansion of terrorism, such as the absence of a universal definition of terrorism; * The
religionization of politics; * Double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological
warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats
and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear that we have entered an Age of Super-Terrorism biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear, and cyber - with its serious implications for national, regional, and global security concerns. Two myths
in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism strategy can be developed; for example, strengthening international cooperation.
THE FIRST illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social, and
economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism used by "oppressed" people seeking to achieve their goals is justified. Consequently, the argument advanced by
so-called freedom fighters - "give me liberty and I will give you death" - is tolerated, if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals the fact that the real
purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance,
Palestinian religious movements, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and secular entities, such as Fatah's Tanzim and the Aksa Martyrs Brigade, wish not only to resolve national grievances
such as settlements, the right of return, and Jerusalem, but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of
American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq; its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that
initiating strong action against the terrorist infrastructure - leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control - will only increase terrorism.
The argument here is that law enforcement efforts and military retaliation will inevitably fuel more brutal revenge acts of violence. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail,
particularly in democratic societies, the danger is that such thinking will paralyze governments into inaction, thereby encouraging further terrorist attacks. Past experience provides useful
lessons for a realistic strategy. The prudent application of force has demonstrated that it is an effective tool in deterring terrorism in the short and long terms. For example, Israel's targeted
killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a ticking bomb. The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab, a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, directly
responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem, disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the US military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam
Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House
of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival."
Extension – EU Solves Balkans
EU soft power is vital to solve Balkans conflict
Ozerkan ’08 (Fulya,- diplomatic reporter and Serkan Demirtas is the news editor for the Turkish Daily News “Vision of EU's 'soft power'”
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=97841)
“I think the EU is a
crucial
model. It offers such a good overview of the future that otherwise would be questionable,” said Ivan Barbalic, president of the
Alumni Association of the Center for Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Studies in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Western Balkans is a term used since 1999
and refers to the southeastern European countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo with a combined
population of around 22 million. The EU has prioritized promoting peace, stability and freedoms in the Western Balkans in the aftermath of the
violent conflicts that marked the region's recent history. In December, the European Council reaffirmed a 2003 commitment that the future of the Western
Balkans lies in the EU and said this year would be an important one in consolidating the transition process. But EU support is not unconditional and the
membership prospects of Western Balkan states will be considered only if they catch up with the bloc's standards in every policy area. While the reforms are
helping Western Balkans inch closer toward the EU, full membership is expected to bring a welcome respite by mainly addressing security and stability concerns
in the region, which only a decade ago was shaken by successive conflicts and is still witnessing troubles today that
unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. “EU integration is actually the
only way
resurged
with the
to achieve security and stability in southeastern
Europe,” said Visnja Samardzija, head of European Integration Department at the Croatian Institute for International Relations. Kosovo in particular is the key
element for long-term stability in the region, she added.
Soft power key to solving Balkans conflict
BBC 1-28-05. (“Macedonian official upbeat on EU, NATO accession prospects in 2005”, lexis)
"This green light will stand as proof that hard
work and devotion make integration with key western institutions
achievable goals, even for Balkan states that have experienced ethnic conflicts. "It will show also that this
goal is achievable only by abiding the principles of democracy, tolerance and the rule of law - and this applies especially to Balkan states
that have gone through the hardships of ethnic division and conflict. "The dominant feeling in the western Balkans is that EU membership
is so far away, being an imaginary goal. This depressing climate of opinion can only be changed through positive examples. " The EU
has
always been perceived as a master in the application of a 'soft-power' policy, that is, creating stability
through the implementation of the EU's own regulations. Actually, there is no better policy. "This policy
has been already tested. That it has worked was proven by the EU's enlargement in 2004. The same policy is also being tested
in the Balkans and the year 2007 will show it can work here. Macedonia's success in 2005 could show that with necessary dedication
on all sides, this policy should and will continue."
EU’s regional influence key to solve conflicts
Evens ’04 (Ambrose, "How the balance of EU power finally changed", The Daily Telegraph, Pg. 6,
February 19, l/n)
Although the 1998 St Malo agreement for a rapid reaction force may enhance the EU's collective military strength to some extent,
Europe's true potency appears to lie in its soft, normative power. After a modern history laden with war on its
continent, it is hardly surprising that the EU would attempt to find a peaceful means to conflict
resolution, as well as conflict prevention rather than resolution.
EU Immigration Good- Econ/Competitiveness
EU immigration increases growth- population growth determines economic success
Martin Hüfner, chief economist at HypoVereinsbank AG in Munich, 2-22-2005
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4369
Some people who think that the number of foreigners in Europe is already too high will welcome this decline. I think,
however, that this is a mistake, at least from an economic point of view. Europe does not need less
immigration — but more. The reason is quite simple. If we look at international statistics, countries with a higher rate of
population growth are often more successful economically. The United States is a prominent example.
There, the economy is expanding by a long-term average rate of 3.5% per year. More than one percentage point of this
increase can be attributed to the increase in population. In 2004, the number of residents in the United States increased by 2.9 million, of
which 1.2 million were immigrants. If Europe
were to have the same percentage rate of population growth, then
the economy would have expanded not just by 1.7% last year, but by at least 2.3%. European growth would
then still have been lower than that of the United States, certainly — but not by all that much.
-Ageing population makes immigration key
EU Times, 7-15-2010 http://www.eutimes.net/2010/07/more-immigration-for-europe-says-brussels/
An ageing population and low birth rates mean that migrant labour will be necessary to help EU
growth in the long term. Mrs Malmstrom said: “In light of the -demographic challenge the EU is facing, where
our active population is forecasted to start falling already in 20 13 , we need immigrant workers in
order to secure our economic survival.
-Immigration solves specialization
Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano Professor of Economics at the University of Bologna and CEPR Research
Fellow and Giovanni Peri Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Davis, 4-172008 http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1061
Immigration of less educated, younger Eastern Europeans and North Africans to Western Europe would economically benefit its educated and
older population. This column, summarising research on immigration effects in Germany, suggests that, to
fully reap the benefits
from immigration, Western Europe should make its labour markets more competitive and accessible
to outsiders (immigrants) and its welfare state more selective. Western European workers are ageing, Western European women are
increasingly participating into the labour force, and young Western European generations have significantly increased their level of schooling.
As these three tendencies continue, Western European economies will increase their demand for services once provided by women at home
and young workers with low education (such as the care of children and elderly, cleaning, cooking, preparing food, driving, landscaping, building
and similar services), while the supply of workers willing to provide them will shrink. Just as there is a secular tendency of rich countries to shift
their productive specialisation from agriculture and manufacturing into services, there is also a shift in the productive specialisation of western
economies within the service sector. As education and average age increase, rich economies specialise in services intensive in managerial and
analytical skills rather than manual and physical ones. Nonetheless, as income per capita increases, rich economies still demand personal
services using manual and physical skills. At the same time, close neighbours of Western Europe, such as countries in North Africa, the Middle
East and in part of Eastern Europe, have younger, less educated labour forces potentially attracted by the higher productivity and wages of
Western Europe. The possible ‘gains from trade’ look obvious here: Older educated Western Europeans should specialise in human capital
intensive services (education, finance, health care, business services and research) and ‘outsource’ some of the personal, manual-intensive
services (health aides, personal care, food preparation, transportation, construction) to younger, less educated foreigners. The issue is that, as
those services are ‘non-traded’, such outsourcing would require less educated, younger foreigners to be allowed to work in Western Europe.
Immigration, in a word, would be the way to reap the benefits from specialisation. But even the mention of
greater mobility across borders produces very strong and alarmed reactions – not from just a few eccentric politicians but the general public in
most of Western Europe (see Table 1).
A2: EU Immigration Bad – Assimilation
Assimilation is possible-Integrationist society and empirically proven
Anne Applebaum is a columnist for The Washington Post and Slate, 11-10-2009
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/portents
Perhaps because I belong to the group of people who fondly and naïvely imagine that Islam may evolve--every other monotheism has--I
am
not entirely persuaded by Caldwell’s elegant pessimism. There are multiple examples--many multiples of examples-of Muslim immigrants who have integrated seamlessly into Europe. I am thinking of the secular and sophisticated
Iranians of Paris, the Pakistani shopkeepers on British high streets, even individuals such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of
Europe’s most fervent exponents of Enlightenment values. All have succeeded because some elements of European life--the
entrepreneurial tradition and the blandishments of cap italism; the cosmopolitan cultural scene ;
the large role given to public intellectuals , particularly those who have something new to say--are well suited to the
absorption and the cultural adaptation of outsiders. I do not see why Muslim immigrants will remain
magically immune to all the integrationist influences that have shaped other immigrants into contented
citizens of Western societies.
-Will seek prosperity and education
Anne Applebaum is a columnist for The Washington Post and Slate, 11-10-2009
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/portents
There are also some historical precedents. As noted above, the habit of importing spouses from the old country
was also practiced by American immigrants--Jewish, German, Irish--some of whom also remained isolated in their own
communities into two, three, or more generations. But these groups were finally integrated, partly through the lure
of prosperity --in the end you had to speak English in order to get on--and partly through schools and peer pressure .
Caldwell is right when he notes that Europeans always underestimate how deeply conformist American society is, and how much overt
pressure there has always been to assimilate; but it is not impossible to imagine that a few changes in Europe could make a big difference.
Indeed, that ban on the veil in schools in France is now widely perceived as an enormous success, precisely because it has tended to accelerate
the assimilation of Muslim girls (and thus it might eventually be possible to drop it). Nor is it impossible to imagine that Europe
could
recover from the current recession--from which, with the exception of Britain and Ireland, it has suffered less drastically than the
United States--and that a subsequent burst of economic growth could pull immigrants into the mainstream.
-European culture is appealing
Anne Applebaum is a columnist for The Washington Post and Slate, 11-10-2009
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/portents
At times Caldwell
underestimates the power of the European project itself, which for all its frequent
stupidity, hypocrisy, and fluffiness does have some cultural and even moral attractions. The very
mildness of modern Europe, the absence of extremes, the irony and the distance from national symbols, the low-key and
humble attitude to the past: all of this has an appeal. And over time, as the consequences of rampant ethnic and religious passion
become clearer, that appeal may grow. It is true that Christianity in Europe is anemic, and it is possible that a religious revival might be
good for the souls of many Europeans. But I am not so sure it would be a useful “response” to Muslim immigration. Who wants a renewal of
religious conflict in Europe?
A2: EU Immigration Bad – Domestic Workforce
Doesn’t create unemployment- fill jobs locals don’t want and pay into health care
Martin Hüfner, chief economist at HypoVereinsbank AG in Munich, 2-22-2005
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4369
Hence,
it is argued, they take jobs away from less-qualified workers — those who comprise one of the large groups of
worth taking a look at the United States. Most of the immigrants there come
from Mexico. However, their presence does not represent any significant problems for American
workers, because Mexicans and other immigrants typically fill the jobs that Americans themselves do
not want. In Germany as well, there is a labor shortage in many jobs in the low-wage sector. Consider the seasonal workers from Poland
the unemployed. Here again, it’s
and other Eastern European countries. Without them, the agricultural industry and the hotel and restaurant industry, for instance, could not
Population growth does not only create more growth and jobs. It also helps to solve
the difficult problems of paying for retirement plans. Over 60% of the immigrants are between 18 and 40 years old — still
far from retirement age. More people coming into the country and paying into social security insurance lessens
the financial and demographic pressure on the pension insurance plan. Incidentally, immigration by younger workers
also helps the h ealth c are system, since younger people fall sick less often.
survive in many areas.
A2: EU Immigration Bad – Integration Costs
Integration costs are outweighed by the economic benefits- comparative
Martin Hüfner, chief economist at HypoVereinsbank AG in Munich, 2-22-2005
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4369
But when it comes to calculating
the benefits of immigration, it is always necessary to also factor in the
costs of integrating immigrants. This includes government infrastructure measures, such as new schools and kindergartens. In
addition, there are various other measures necessary to help along social integration, such as language courses for immigrants. On the
other hand, immigration brings with it cultural and social diversity, which in turn also has economic
advantages. The great economic success of the U nited S tates over the past several decades is based
not least on the competition of different cultures. Admittedly, it is important that the structure of immigration is
appropriate. It does of course make a difference whether the people coming into the country are economic refugees who only want to profit
Considered as a whole, the
American example shows that the advantages of immigration do — on balance — outweigh the
disadvantages. President Bush is planning to push for a law that would allow more guest workers — that is, immigrants with a timefrom the favorable social system — or are highly trained computer specialists, for instance.
limited residence permit — to enter the country.
A2: EU Immigration Bad – Labor
Immigration wouldn’t worsen labor problems- the US proves- increase the number of
jobs available
Martin Hüfner, chief economist at HypoVereinsbank AG in Munich, 2-22-2005
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4369
In the German debate, it
is often argued that immigration of foreigners would further aggravate the labor
market problem in Germany. The example of the United States shows that this is not true either. Despite
the high immigration rate, the country’s unemployment rate — at about 5% — is significantly lower than
Europe’s. The reason is that immigration not only increases the number of available
employees, but also increases overall economic demand — and thus the number of jobs
available. On the one hand, this takes place through private consumption. In addition, immigrants need apartments and
houses. That helps the construction industry and the real estate markets. Increasing real estate prices, in turn, have a
positive effect on the private consumption of domestic residents, because the assets of homeowners increase. Overall, economic
growth thus increases more strongly than the increase in the population. If Europe had the same
immigration levels as the U nited S tates, this multiplier effect would have lifted economic growth to
2 .5 % — not all that much less than in the United States. Another argument prevalent both in the European and U.S. debate states that
immigrants are a burden, particularly on the low-wage sector, since they are willing to work for lower wages and tolerate poorer working
conditions.
A2: EU Immigration Bad – Terror
New immigration won’t matter- terrorists are already in Europe
Robert S. Leiken, Director of the Immigration and National Security Program at the Nixon Center and a
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, 2005 http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back405.html
Immigration has two components: territorial (entry) and membership (naturalization, citizenship.) As Zaki Badawi,
the Dean of the Muslim College in London, a mainstream Muslim leader says, the new mujahideen are already
"inside the fortress." The menace of the European mujahideen cannot be met by focusing on territorial measures
like immigration controls. As we have noted, al Qaeda and its confederates do not confine themselves to
dusky immigrants with poor command of Western languages.
Indian Relations
2NC
Immigration reform expands skilled labor—spurs relations and economic growth in
China and India.
LA Times 11/9/12 [Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform,
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-bysource-countries.html]
" C omprehensive
i mmigration r eform will see expansion of skilled labor visas ," predicted B. Lindsay
Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at
Georgetown University. A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell
said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that
would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China ." There is widespread consensus
among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business
relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy , Lowell said. "Countries
like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with the possibility of brain drain,
and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not ," he said.
US-Indian relations avert South Asian nuclear war.
Schaffer 2 [Spring 2002, Teresita—Director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Security, Washington Quarterly, Lexis]
Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's
newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies see that
they can benefit by closer cooperation . For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in
Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible
future nuclear tensions in the region . Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and are a
prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India . For India, the country's ambition to assume a stronger leadership role
in the world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States.
Relations IL – Visas Key
Plan is a symbolic gesture --- key to cooperation
Stringer 4 (Dr. Kevin D., Visiting Professor – Thunderbird School of Global Management and Ph.D. in
History and International Security – University of Zurich, “The Visa Dimension of Diplomacy”, Discussion
Papers in Diplomacy,
http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20040300_cli_paper_dip_issue91.pdf)
The consular element of national diplomatic power plays an essential, but often
underrated and overlooked role in international relations. This consular dimension of
diplomacy has often taken the backseat to the political and military aspects of
foreign policy in the past. This situation has changed dramatically with the end of the Cold
War and the rapid globalization of the world economy. This shift to a unipolar world, but global marketplace,
emphasizes the increasing importance of so-called 'low politics' - trade, commerce,
tourism, migration - all traditional consular areas of interest. While one superpower, the United States,
may currently dominate the military and political aspects of the international environment, the economic and commercial interplay among
nations is more diffuse and requires a nuanced and multilateral diplomatic approach. This environment is caused largely by the
increasingly complex interdependencies among the world's economies, which no longer recognize political, commercial, geologic, or technological borders as
barriers. The line between domestic and foreign events has been blurred by the impact of external forces ranging from diseases like Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS) to technological developments like Chat. Indeed, technology has tended to transcend borders, crossing them and turning them into obstacles to
progress.1 In this type of international world, a nuanced and multilateral approach requires the flexible application of a variety of diplomatic instruments, either In
solo or in unison with other countries, to influence positively or negatively, the actions of other state actors and non-state actors, to achieve national interest goals.
This type of environment places emphasis on all operative aspects of diplomacy, one of which is its consular component. With the use of force between stairs more
Nowhere is the partial fulfillment of
need for a variety of diplomatic instruments better illustrated than in the often overlooked,
and seemingly mundane area of consular visa operations. The lowly visa serves an important purpose
in international relations and is a well-used, but little studied, instrument of foreign policy in
and more restricted as a policy option in the International system, alternative diplomatic options must be sought.
this
today's system of sovereign states.' In fact, its use may be more diplomatically opportune when other, blunter instruments are nor available or possible. This paper
Visa diplomacy is
defined as the use of visa issuance or denial at an individual, group or interstate level, to influence another state's
policies. The first section will provide a brief overview of consular visa diplomacy. The second section will focus on examples of visa issuance as a symbolic
will attempt to illustrate the practical uses of 'visa diplomacy" as an integral device in the conduct of international relations.
diplomatic measure to express a shift in foreign policy to greater cooperation or recognition. The third section will consider examples of diplomatic retorsion1 with
visa usage as an expression of protest, a step in conflict escalation, a measure for diplomatic coercion, or as part of a wider sanctions package targeted towards
specific, decision-making groups. Visa regimes as a component of the national security system and border control will not be addressed in this paper'. The
conclusion will assess where the use of visa diplomacy seems most effective in international relations. 1. Consular Visa Diplomacy in General The Importance of
consular services as an integral part of a country's diplomacy in general is insufficiently understood and appreciated. It is insufficiently understood not only by the
general public but also by persons who make the study of foreign policy their specialty - even by many practitioners of diplomacy/ Consular operational services
generally divide themselves into two areas: the provision of assistance to citizens abroad and the issuance of visas to qualified foreigners seeking entry Into the
represented state. The first area plays an important role in how a country's consular service is perceived in domestic politics. This citizen service will not be
visas, influences how a country is perceived abroad and
serves as a tool in a country's overall foreign policy. Broadly speaking, the consular aspects of foreign policy
issues have become much more prominent and complex in the 20th and 21st centuries. The movements of people - voluntary and forced,
individual and mass - are a growing international phenomenon caused by global trends in
technology and demography, income disparities, and political instabilities.6 The division
addressed in this paper. The second area,
of the world between developed and developing countries, coupled with advanced telecommunications and internet technology which allows both camps to view
each other instantaneously, encourages both legal and illegal migration from one to the other. This trend is abetted by an ease of travel that puts any destination
within reach of a long haul flight. In taking the United States example, many people wish to come to the United States, not Just to travel, but for business, study,
This interest makes the use of visa denial or issuance an
influential tool - but not necessarily a powerful one in comparison to force or trade sanctions - for foreign policy
applications. The visa component of consular diplomacy can be visualized as the foreign policy bridge between the foreign individual and his
government. The application of a specific visa policy can affect international relations between
states at a personal (individual applicant), group (tourists, businessmen, students, government officials) or intergovernment level.
family visits, and of course immigration.'
Briefly viewing visa diplomacy at these three levels gives an Indication of its influence on international relations. From the first level perspective, consular work
should be esteemed in the diplomatic service because it concerns the individual. Consular officers are the first, and sometimes only people who represent their
country to foreigners abroad.5 Consular officers may well be the first government representatives aliens abroad will meet. The impression consular officers make on
these people may be lasting. The skill, the patience, the civility, the decency they bring to their tasks in dealing with foreigners can do much to enhance the image of
a government, institution, society, or people.3 At this level, consular diplomats are exposed to local people, culture, and language directly through visa application
interactions."0 A foreign culture and society are intensively learned by interviewing visa applicants. One could argue that the consular visa interview is the most
basic level of bilateral diplomatic interaction between two countries. This viewpoint is buttressed by Herbert Butterfield's emphasis on the importance of individual
personalities in shaping events, because "every public action which was ever taken can be regarded as a private act. the personal decision of somebody'." Nowhere
Is this more true than at the level of the visa interview, where the foreign policy of a government is directly communicated to and affects the individual foreigner. As
The issuance or withholding of
visas is retail diplomacy at its best. Yet this form of retail diplomacy can have serious bilateral implications –
both political and economic – in terms of visa issuance or denial at the private citizen, governing elite, or state level.
one foreign service officer noted. 'Consular officers affect lives retail, in concrete terms, one body at a time'.
This position is echoed by US Congressman Peter Rodino, who stated, the
exercise of those powers, duties, and functions conferred upon
has far reaching effects on the lives of persons
seeking admission to the U nited S tates: it affects our foreign policy and foreigners'
perception of this nation: and most importantly, it affects our national security and national interest." Thousands of visa
cases are sensitive in political and foreign policy terms. The issuance or refusal of a visa to a controversial
person invariably embroils a nation in foreign policy issues.14 Long lines of visa applicants snaking through the streets, beginning at
ridiculously early hours, can lead to public relations problems in host countries.15 Restrictions on visas for
consular officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas
specific groups like students or athletes can also have implications ranging from demonstrations to host government intervention. In one anecdotal example, when
the visa of a noted South African boxer was revoked during the apartheid era. the Foreign Minister of that country telephoned the US Secretary of State to point out
unless reversed, that action could have a deleterious effect on the ongoing Namibian negotiations.16
Clearly then, a nation's visa policy towards another state, and hence its citizens, has both
symbolic diplomatic inferences and practical economic implications.
that
A2: Relations Resilient
CIR is the vital internal link to resiliency- collapse possible without deeper ties
Davis ’10 (Ted, School of Public Policy @ George Mason University, Association for Public Policy
Analysis and Management, 2/18-20, “The Global Dynamic: of High-Skill Migration: The Case of U.S./India
Relations”,
https://www.appam.org/conferences/international/maastricht2010/sessions/downloads/389.1.pdf)
There is no reason to think that the present system of governing migration is optimal. Migration is a dynamic
process, while the migration policy-making machinery is slow and cumbersome. The possibility that policy-makers will fail to capitalize on opportunities for mutual
gain among sending and receiving countries is especially large for high-skill migration. At
first glance, the case of India — U.S. relations would
appear to contradict this point. As noted, both India and the U.S. have experienced significant benefits from migration
and circulation. Yet many Indians still live in poverty and many Americans see India, its immigrants and offshore services, as a
threat to their jobs and wages. Thus there is a growing tension between these countries that could impede, if not
derail , further progress. Absent a program of cooperation, and perhaps exacerbated by the economic downturn, there is a risk that
each country would be inclined to act unilaterally in pursuit of its own interests. However, these typically protectionist or nationalistic
actions may impede the flow of immigrants, but it could impede the flow of ideas, reduce knowledge spillovers, and ultimately inhibit innovation and growth. ¶
Cooperation on migration offers an
opportunity for countries to address the tensions that arise from immigration while
opening avenues for pursuing common objectives and mutual prosperity. Though it may be desirable to consider a common
system of migration across countries that transcend bilateral arrangements, such a system may not be able to address the unique dynamics that exist between
countries. Nor should these relationships be viewed uniformly. Differences exist between sectors, such as technology services and medical services that call for their
own strategies. This paper represents only a beginning point for understanding
Spillover highly possible- deep relations are a new development- CIR needed to
cement ties
Lal & Rajagopalan ’05 (Rollie, Assistant Professor at Vlerick Management School in Leuven, Belgium
and political scientist for RAND, Rajesh, Associate Professor in International Politics, Center for
International Politics, “US-India Strategic Dialogue”,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF201.pdf)
Relations between the world's two largest democracies, India and the U nited S tates, have encountered many
obstacles over the years. Until recently, the two countries had limited interactions and few cooperative
endeavours. However, the relationship has improved dramatically over the past several years, and today is better than at any previous
point in history'. Through dialogue on a number of issues, at various levels of government, academia, and the press, the current
relationship has achieved great depth and maturity.¶ This is the kind of interaction that both India and
the U nited S tates will need to keep working at rather than take for granted. Candid exchange of ideas is
the key to ensuring that natural differences of interests and perspectives do not lead back to the estrangement
that
characterized die relationship between the two countries for the last half a century.
And- there’s a question of depth- even if some relations are inevitable it’s about
maximizing cooperation- CIR solves
Olivia Enos, Research Assistant, Asian Studies at The Heritage Foundation 1-18-2013
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/18/unleash-the-market-u-s-india-economic-relations/
The U.S.–India economic relationship is undeniably expanding. The question is how to maximize it . A recent report published
by The Heritage Foundation, “Unleashing the Market in the U.S.–India Economic Relationship, Part I,” begins to answer that very question. The publication sheds light on what could happen if
the largest economy (the U.S.) and the fourth-largest economy (India) in the world capitalized on their economic strengths.¶ The report is the first of an ongoing series intended to enhance
economic relations between the two nations by focusing on the proper role of government, the positive strides that can be made in the private sector despite poor government policies, and
U.S.–India bilateral trade, at just $58
is fairly small, especially when compared to U.S. trade with South Korea that comes to around $100 billion. While trade in
services is flourishing, trade in goods fails when measured against the natural benefits of comparative advantage. Other barriers to increased trade levels include
India’s underdeveloped intellectual property rights system, as well as immigration restrictions on high-skilled workers wanting to
come to the U.S or go to India.¶ There is hope for the future if foreign direct investment (FDI) in India is realized by working at the state level, relaxing immigration barriers to
recommended additional actions that the U.S. and India should take to facilitate greater exchange between the two markets.¶
billion,
high-skilled workers wanting to work in both India and the U.S., and passing a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The private sector also offers great opportunities for growth that require less
Are U.S.–
India relations growing? The answer is: They could be growing much more , if both sides would unleash
the power of the free market.
political change and expedites the process of investment. The combination of these action steps will make for a more open and economically prosperous environment.¶
Relations Good – Afghanistan
Strong US-India relations key to Afghani stability – spills over to Pakistan and regional
extremism.
Neena Shenai, adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, November 18, 2009, “The Critical
U.S-India Relationship,” The American, http://www.american.com/archive/2009/november/the-criticalu-s-india-relationshipg
Afghanistan. India
shares the desire of the United States for a stable, secure Afghanistan. Although India has no
military involvement in Afghanistan (due to Pakistani sensitivities), India’s current and future reconstruction activities in
Afghanistan are critical to successful U.S. efforts. In fact, closer U.S. cooperation with a democratic, U.S.-friendly
India —a blossoming regional and rising global power— is vital to stability and the balance of power in the region.
India has already committed more than US$1.3 billion in development assistance for infrastructure and civic
projects in Afghanistan. The Indian government also has longstanding ties with Afghanistan pre-dating the
Taliban’s rule and enjoys close relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which could assist in rooting out
corruption and containing violent Islamic extremism. While Pakistan remains uneasy about India’s intentions in Afghanistan,
India has no interest in a destabilized Pakistan and instead seeks to contain Taliban and other terrorist
elements and prevent their incursions into Kashmir. By supporting the Karzai government’s efforts to compartmentalize
extremist elements in Afghanistan, India’s investment activities in concert with U.S. counterinsurgency efforts
could prevent the re-Talibanization of Afghanistan, reversion of Afghanistan into a safe haven for
terrorists, and a full-scale spillover of the conflict into Pakistan’s bordering tribal areas and Kashmir. Accordingly, the
United States should seek to allay Pakistan’s fears and more publicly support India’s reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. After all, India sees
itself with, in the words of Prime Minister Singh, “vital stakes in the peace, progress, and stability” of the region.
Spills over to Central Asia and causes great power war.
Rollie Lal, PhD and political Scientist at RAND, 2006, “Central Asia and its Asian Neighbors”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG440.pdf
The relationship between the Central Asian states and their neighbors is complex and heavily influenced by the situation in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan forms the link between regions, and it has endured a great deal of meddling from various
sides, as in the past few decades, the United States, Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, Uzbekistan, and other
countries have attempted to push for a friendly government in Afghanistan. Since September 11, 2001, and the fall of the Taliban,
Afghanistan has also gained in importance as a feasible key transport route for increased trade and
security cooperation between the countries of Central Asia and India and Pakistan.1 Stability in
Afghanistan has had a profound effect on Central Asian security as both religious radicalism and
drugs emanating from Afghanistan threaten the region. During the Afghan-Soviet war, the United States in effect,
through Pakistan, supported fundamentalist Islamic teachings and military training of Afghan, Pakistani, and other Central Asian militants in an
effort to expel the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.2 The growth of Islamic fundamentalism from the Afghan-Soviet war accelerated the spread
of a religious ideology throughout the formerly communist countries. The Taliban trained Uzbek, Tajik, and Uighur radicals, spurring the growth
of destabilizing fundamentalist movements throughout the region.3 In 1992, leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party (IRP) fled Tajikistan to
take refuge and regroup in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Russia.4 During the 1990s, Afghanistan also became a haven for the IMU.5
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan all moved to support the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in the 1990s in the hopes of
defeating the fundamentalist threat.6 The Central
Asian states remain concerned by the continued presence of
militants in Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan, and also by the booming drug trade that passes through Afghanistan and Central Asia
into Europe and Russia.7 Narcotics flow from Afghanistan via multiple routes in the region to foreign markets, and populations of these transit
corridors are increasingly consumers of the drugs as well. Traffickers transport opiates north through Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan on to Russia,
and west through Iran and Turkmenistan to Turkey and Europe.8 Tajikistan has made efforts to stem the flow of drugs across its border from
Afghanistan, establishing two antidrug agencies in Afghanistan to coordinate military and nonmilitary operations with international troops and
Afghan forces in the border areas.9 Since the fall of the Taliban, many local leaders have retained considerable power and maintain some ability
to destabilize the Kabul government. In addition, various renegade militant groups and remnants of the Taliban continue to operate in parts of
Afghanistan, particularly near the Pakistani border. The ability of these groups to move nimbly across the border to evade counterterrorism
forces and border patrols has been a cause for consternation among Afghan border patrols has been a cause for consternation among
Afghanistan’s neighbors. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan are concerned that Afghanistan could revert to a haven for terrorist
training, sending the militants back into their countries to de- stabilize regimes.11 A political
vacuum in Afghanistan has
traditionally drawn its neighboring countries in to compete for influence. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan
have an interest in fostering trade and transport linkages both with and through Afghanistan, but they face difficulties in maintaining security
for the routes.12 Iran has been successful in moving forward with an agreement to trade goods with Uzbekistan through Afghanistan. This
agreement has facilitated Uzbekistan’s access to needed ports for export.13
It goes nuclear.
M. Ehsan Ahrari, Prof of National Security @ the Armed Forces Staff College, 2001, Jihadi Groups,
Nuclear Pakistan and the New Great Game, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/jihadi.pdf,
August 2001
South and Central Asia constitute a part of the world where a well-designed American strategy
might help avoid crises or catastrophe. The U.S. military would provide only one component of such a strategy, and a secondary
one at that, but has an important role to play through engagement activities and regional confidence-building. Insecurity has led
the states of the region to seek w eapons of m ass d estruction, missiles, and conventional arms.
It has also led them toward policies which undercut the security of their neighbors. If such
activities continue, the result could be increased terrorism, humanitarian disasters , continued
low-level conflict and potentially even major regional war or a thermonuclear exchange . A shift
away from this pattern could allow the states of the region to become solid economic and political partners for the United States, thus
representing a gain for all concerned.
Relations Good – Asian Stability
Relations key to Asian stability and the US economy.
Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment, 11/16/2005 (Ashley, Testimony before the House
Committee on International Relations,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17693&prog=zgp&proj=znpp,
zsa,zusr)
If I am permitted to digress a bit, let me say parenthetically, that advancing the growth of Indian power, as the Administration currently
intends, is not directed, as many critics have alleged, at “containing” China. I do not believe that a policy of containing China is either feasible or
necessary at this point in time. (India too, currently, has no interest in becoming part of any coalition aimed at containing China.) Rather,
the
Administration’s strategy of assisting India to become a major world power in the twenty-first century is
directed, first and foremost, towards constructing a stable geopolitical order in Asia that is conducive to
peace and prosperity. There is little doubt today that the Asian continent is poised to become the new center of gravity in international
politics. Although lower growth in the labor force, reduced export performance, diminishing returns to capital, changes in demographic
structure, and the maturation of the economy all suggest that national growth rates in several key Asian states—in particular Japan, South
Korea, and possibly China—are likely to decline in comparison to the latter half of the Cold War period, the spurt in Indian growth rates,
coupled with the relatively high though still marginally declining growth rates in China, will propel Asia’s share of the global economy to some
43% by 2025, thus making the continent the largest single locus of economic power worldwide. An
Asia that hosts economic
power of such magnitude, along with its strong and growing connectivity to the American economy,
will become an arena vital to the United States— in much the same way that Europe was the grand prize during the Cold
War. In such circumstances, the Administration’s policy of developing a new global partnership with India
represents a considered effort at “shaping” the emerging Asian environment to suit American
interests in the twenty-first century. Even as the United States focuses on developing good relations with all the major Asian states, it is
eminently reasonable for Washington not only to invest additional resources in strengthening the continent’s democratic powers but also to
deepen the bilateral relationship enjoyed with each of these countries—on the assumption that the
proliferation of strong
democratic states in Asia represents the best insurance against intra-continental instability as well as
threats that may emerge against the United States and its regional presence. Strengthening New Delhi
and transforming U.S-Indian ties, therefore, has everything to do with American confidence in Indian
democracy and the conviction that its growing strength, tempered by its liberal values, brings only
benefits for Asian stability and American security. As Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns succinctly stated in his
testimony before this Committee, “By cooperating with India now, we accelerate the arrival of the benefits that India’s rise brings to the region
and the world.”
Conflicts in East Asia go nuclear
Jonathan S. Landay, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, -2K [“Top Administration Officials Warn Stakes for U.S. Are High in
Asian Conflicts”, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, March 10, p. Lexis]
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to
fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and
even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few,
too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an
uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and
relationships so fragile,” said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a
Washington think tank. “We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no
institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster.” In an effort to cool the region’s
tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals
this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There
are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to
defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the U nited S tates would instantly become embroiled if Beijing
moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India
or Pakistan,
end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already
shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia, with its massive
markets, cheap labor, exports and resources, indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms
and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the Commerce
a conflict between the two could
Department.
Relations Good – Democracy
US-India relations key to global democracy promotion.
Mohammed Ayoob, Distinguished Professor of International Relations at James Madison College,
Michigan State University, Washington Quarterly, Winter 2000
Furthermore, the recent emphasis in U.S. rhetoric on creation of a "democratic community of states," itself based on a popularized version of
the "democratic peace" thesis, can be expected to aid in improving Indian-U.S. relations. The
two states crucial to legitimizing
the idea of a global democratic community are obviously the world's largest democracy (India) and the
world's most powerful democracy (the United States), and their partnership is essential for the idea to
be taken seriously. n3 If democracy and human rights are to inform U.S. foreign policy making in any
substantial fashion in the coming decade, Washington's relations with New Delhi must inevitably move
to a higher plane of understanding and cooperation.
Democracy solves extinction.
Diamond, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, 1995 (Larry, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,
December, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/fr.htm)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist
aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful
international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of
tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source
of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional
threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for
legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers
important lessons. Countries
that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one
another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic
governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face
ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build
w eapons of m ass d estruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable,
open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates
for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who
organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they
value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their
own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on
which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
Relations Good – Heg
US-India Relations key to heg
Josy Joseph, Deputy Editor at Defence India, “Target Next: Indian Military Bases,” 2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/21josy.htm
The report on the future of Indo-US
military relations, being distributed among decision-makers in the United States and made
available to a handful of senior members of the Indian government, also speaks of the USAF's desire for 'having access closer to
areas of instability'. "American military officers are candid in their plans to eventually seek access to Indian bases and military
infrastructure. India's strategic location in the centre of Asia, astride the frequently traveled Sea Lanes of Communication
(SLOC) linking the Middle East and East Asia, makes India particularly attractive to the US military," the report says. The
report can be distributed only with the permission of Director, Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defence. The report is the most
comprehensive picture of American perspective of its military relation with India and its future aspirations. To some extent it also uncovers
Indian military thinking vis-à-vis the US. It has quoted US lieutenant generals as saying that the access
the US military 'to be able to touch the rest of the world' and to
to India bases would enable
'respond rapidly to regional crises'. The report,
prepared by Juli A MacDonald, an associate at Booz Allen Hamilton, for the department of defence, is based on interviews of 42 key Americans,
including 23 active military officers, 15 government officials and four others. In India MacDonald met 10 active Indian military officers and five
government officials besides several members of the National Security Council, and outside experts advising the government. For
understandable reasons, none of the individuals are identified by name, but by their ranks or other positions. The report points out that many
American military planners are thinking about 'different sets of allies and friends for addressing a future
strategic environment in
Asia that may be dramatically different from today'. "For many, India is the most attractive alternative. For this reasons, several
Americans underscored that eventual access to Indian military infrastructure represents a critical 'strategic hedge'
against dramatic changes in traditional US relationships in Asia," the report says. A South Asia Foreign Area Officer of the US state
department has been quoted as saying that India's strategic importance increases if existing US relationships and arrangements in Asia fails. He
cites three key possibilities for that: If
US relations with other traditional allies (eg Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia) becomes
more acrimonious or politically uncomfortable for both parties; or if access rights that the United States takes for granted become
more restrictive; or if our traditional relationships collapse resulting in a US military withdrawal. The FAO, who is specialises on South Asia
and among those few American diplomats who can converse in Hindi, says, "The United States needs to develop alternatives in Asia. India
the optimal choice if we can overcome
the
obstacles in
building the
relations hip."
is
An American Colonel says, "The
US Navy wants a relatively neutral territory on the opposite side of the world that can provide ports and support for operations in the Middle
East. India not only has a good infrastructure, the
Indian Navy has proved that it can fix and fuel US ships. Over time, port visits
must become a natural event. India is a viable player in supporting all naval missions, including escorting and
responding to regional crises. In the same vein, the US Air Force would like the Indians to be able to grant them access to
bases and landing rights during operations, such as counter-terrorism and heavy airlift support." It is
significant that during the 1991 Gulf War-I, India provided refuelling facility to US warplanes. And during Operation Enduring Freedom, several
US warships used Indian facilities for rest and recuperation. As part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Indian naval ships provided escorts to
merchant vessels from North Arabian Sea till Strait of Malacca in the most active cooperation with US navy in history. In fact, it is in naval
cooperation that America sees the immediate future of Indo-US military relations. It is not just access to bases and ports that the US military
hopes to get in India, but also training facilities in India. A common theme among high-ranking American officers is that the
US military
would benefit from training with Indians, particularly if the training could occur on Indian territory. "India has a variety of
landscapes, from ice-clad mountains to deserts, and it would help the Americans because military training ranges shrinking and becoming
increasingly controversial in the United States," the report says. And for the US navy training with Indian navy is the best way to become
'proficient in the Indian Ocean region', the report adds. The American decision-makers 'believe that the military relationship should result in
shared technology and capabilities, and ultimately they would like to be able to respond jointly to regional crises'.
US leadership prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict – prefer it to all other
alternatives
Kagan 07 Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Robert “End of
Dreams, Return of History” Policy Review
(http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10)]
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and
Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the
Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after
the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years,
the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.
Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions
in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with
Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern
power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as “No. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish
it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they
have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they
seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these
ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international
system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power,
influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional
as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is
currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in
the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope,
intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess
nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more
catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a
measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant
naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They
either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and
trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States
engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar
world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and
possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed
embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now
impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. Such order as exists in the
world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great
geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure
enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe’s stability depends on the
guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous
development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing
the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the
present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today
exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was
diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that’s not the way it
works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The
international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold
War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United
States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the
interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement?
Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe.
The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers.
Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt
between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States
and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan
remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including
the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they
are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.
This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing
and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to
supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could
unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from
the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even
more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist
theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West,
and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia
are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what
some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia
and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.
It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the
assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the
United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and
Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the
powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to
unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That
commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American
military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region
would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence
among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic
fundamentalism doesn’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition ,
which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change.
The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition.
The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be
followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China
and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the
region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration
would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward
Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to
“normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The
alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional
stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among
nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future,
no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global
involvement will provide an easier path.
Relations Good – Sea Lanes/Economy
Strong relations key to protect sea lanes in the Indian ocean.
Andersen, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE SOUTH ASIA STUDIES PROGRAM PROFESSORIAL LECTURER,
SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, 2008 (Walter, Federal
News Service, June 25, Lexis)
A second area where there is a good chance of cooperation with India is Indian engagement with the U.S.
on safeguarding shipping over the critical Indian Ocean sea lanes used to transport a growing
percentage of the oil and gas to meet the growing demand from energy- deficient countries like India, China, Japan and
Korea. This might be in the form of a memorandum of understanding, preferably multilateral and involving the major users to address our
mutual interest in countering terrorism and piracy, providing for search and rescue and humanitarian assistance. Unfortunately, sea
lane
protection in the Indian Ocean is presently covered by a number of ad hoc arrangements. Something
more institutional is required (in ?) India with vital economic and security interests in these sea lanes would be a major
candidate to be a major participation in the multilateral agreement. It possesses the only indigenous
blue-water navy in the Indian Ocean, has troops trained in counterterrorism, and moreover, the Indian
navy already has a record of collaboration with the U.S. on counterterrorism by providing escorts to American shipping in
2002 at the Malacca Straits and in 2005 working with the U.S., Japan and Australia on tsunami humanitarian relief activities. The navies of
the U.S. and India, in addition, have a record of joint exercising starting several years ago that are geared to anti- piracy and
counterterrorism. Such cooperation has the advantage of developing a certain comfort level in India for
cooperation -- security cooperation with the United States and provides a model that could be used for security collaboration on a larger
scale to face crises affecting the interests of both the United States and India.
Those sea lanes are key to the global economy.
LA Times 08 (August 31, Lexis)
But just
over the horizon runs one of the world's great trade arteries, the shipping lanes where
thousands of vessels carry oil from the Middle East and raw materials to Asia, returning with television sets, toys and
sneakers for European consumers. These tankers provide 80% of China's oil and 65% of India's -- fuel
desperately needed for the two countries' rapidly growing economies. Japan is almost totally
dependent on energy supplies shipped through the Indian Ocean. Any disruption -- from terrorism, piracy,
natural disaster or war -- could have devastating effects on these countries and, in an increasingly
interdependent world, send ripples across the globe. When an unidentified ship attacked a Japanese oil tanker
traveling through the Indian Ocean from South Korea to Saudi Arabia in April, the news sent oil prices to record highs.
That causes extinction
Bearden, Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists, 2000 (TE, “The Unnecessary
Energy Crisis: How to Solve it Quickly,” June 24, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior
to the final economic collapse, the stress on
nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example,
suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic
suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In
addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the
conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions,
once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on
perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never
discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try
to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid
escalation to full WMD
exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself
{[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere,
at least for many decades.
Relations Good – Terrorism
Us-india relations key to solve terrorism
Mohammed Ayoob, Distinguished Professor of International Relations at James Madison College,
Michigan State University, Washington Quarterly, Winter 2000
India and the United States have a major shared interest in foiling the designs of this terrorist network, and
it is becoming increasingly clear to both that they must cooperate with each other toward this end. This
cooperation has started in earnest, indicated by the fact that for the first time, high-level discussions have taken place
between Indian and U.S. officials specifically focused on Afghanistan and the terrorist threat emanating from there. Held
in Washington in early September 1999, this meeting is seen as the harbinger of a more coordinated strategy on the issue of counterterrorism.
Such coordination has taken on greater urgency because of the recent coup in Pakistan that has brought to power a military establishment
suspected of close links with the Taliban.
Terrorism causes extinction.
Sid-Ahmed, 2004 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1,
Issue no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far
from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no
choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons
have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have
reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify
anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that
a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even
if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we
are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions
between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed
up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if
humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a
third world war , from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another,
this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all
be losers.
Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of
Relations Good – US/China War
Relations prevent US-China war over Taiwan.
Victor Gobarev, former scholar at Woodrow Wilson Center and George Washington University, Cato
Policy Analysis No. 381, September 11, 2000 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa381.pdf)
What would such a policy win for the United States? America would get a strategic partner of the highest caliber. Most important, such a policy
The geopolitical balance in
Asia would be especially tilted in America’s favor. India could help the U nited S tates contain
expansionist threats from China to maintain order and stability in East and Southeast Asia. In addition,
America would move further from the brink of nuclear confrontation with China over the Taiwan issue
and other potential sources of friction. China would be less able to contemplate a confrontation with
either its neighbors in East Asia or with the United States if Beijing had to worry about India’s response.
Benefits to U.S. national security interests would occur on a global scale if the U nited S tates and India
became strategic partners. Most notably, there would be no chance for an anti-U.S. Russia-India-China alliance. Preventing that outcome
would dramatically shift the global, geopolitical, and geostrategic balance in favor of the United States.
alone would be a huge geopolitical success for the United States. Further, effectiveness of U.S. intelligence and special operations against major
international terrorist groups located in Afghanistan and Pakistan would significantly increase thanks to direct U.S.-Indian cooperation.
That causes extinction.
Straits Times -2K (Straits Times, June, 25, 2000, No one gains in war over Taiwan] (PDNSS2115)
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO -THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China.
If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable.
Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the
possibilityof a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and
logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the
Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If
China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration
may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order . With the US
distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the M iddle
E ast may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each
armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase: Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to
a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean
War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a
personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US
was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to
resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against
The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear
warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear
option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear
China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons.
weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow
Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures
from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as
should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of
civilization. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Annaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable,
a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that
it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
Legalization
2NC Ag
Guest worker is critical to sustain U.S. agriculture
AFBF ‘06
(Texas Agriculture, 2-17,
http://www.txfb.org/TexasAgriculture/2006/021706/021706guestworker.htm)
Failure to include comprehensive guest-worker provisions in any new or reformed immigration law could
cause up to $9 billion annually in overall losses to the U.S. agriculture industry and losses of up to $5 billion annually in net
farm income, according to a detailed study released by the American Farm Bureau Federation. If Congress ultimately approves a new immigration law that does not
account for agriculture's needs for guest workers, like the bill approved by the House last year, then the
consequences for American
agriculture will be dire , according to the study. The fruit and vegetable sector as it now exists would
disappear, the study says. Up to one-third of producers—who are especially dependent on hired labor—would no longer be able to compete. Instead of
stocking produce grown and harvested in the U.S., America's grocers would increasingly fill their shelves with foreign-grown produce, resulting in billions of dollars
currently kept in the U.S. being sent overseas. "The
agriculture industry is unique in that we are highly dependent on
temporary foreign workers to fill jobs that most Americans do not want to perform," said AFBF President Bob Stallman. "Many family farms depend
on temporary labor and could not sustain the impact of net farm income losses brought about by current immigration proposals."
Strong agricultural sector is critical to the overall U.S. economy
Journal of Commerce ‘98
(12-31, Lexis)
U.S. agriculture prices have reached lows not seen in 10, 20 or even 30 years, while the costs of living, labor and machinery are at record highs. The only thing
missing that was present 70 years ago is a stock-market plunge and massive unemployment. If
this country continues to allow its
agriculture to sink to Depression-era levels, how can it keep the stock market from tumbling, too? Think about the
stock market's falling to levels of 30 years ago, say around 700, instead of flirting with 9,000. Impossible? In just over two years, cash grain prices have dropped over 70 percent from the high
posted in July 1996. Hog prices also reflect a near-70 percent decline since 1990. Many things have contributed to this dramatic decline of commodity prices. Some have directly benefited the
consumer, like lower petroleum prices that were passed on at the gas pump. However, this has not been the case with meats and other commodities in 1997 and 1998. Processors and
retailers decided they could increase their margins rather than passing on the savings to the consumer (which would have cleaned up the oversupply). Supplies continue to build, benefiting
only processors and retailers, not consumers. Free markets have been stymied. I am not trying to tell you we are heading for a sequel of the Great Depression. But why is the greatest
production machine in the world, American agriculture, going through such difficult times? Why should a minority, those who produce the majority of our food, be subjected to cost inflation
and price deflation at the same time? U. S. taxpayers coughed up $6 billion dollars this year to help the farmer. Along with next year's Freedom to Farm payments, the extra cash is helping us
through the crisis. Thank you, it is just what we needed: another Band-Aid. Government policy for the past 60 years has been to intravenously feed farmers the ""antibiotic'' of farm subsidies
and price supports. But the wound has never healed. The Freedom to Farm Act attempts to wean agriculture from subsidies and supports by initiating a ""withdrawal'' process. The problem is,
other grain-producing countries around the world don't see it that way. They continue to subsidize their producers. The livestock producer gets no help from taxpayers. But if these prices
continue, it is a pretty sure bet the banks holding his notes will get bailed out. We can make our products much more affordable to foreign buyers by devaluing the dollar. But, you say, that will
cause inflation. Maybe investors should rethink inflation. Maybe a little inflation is much better than another Depression. If you look at government money-supply figures, it would appear that
Washington may have started to print money (which, in hindsight, could have prevented the Great Depression). I hope this is the case. The enormous power of the hedge funds that
continuously short commodity futures - the pricing mechanism of the world these days - is staggering.
If agriculture dies an economic death, the rest of
the economy is sure to follow.
Removing guest workers guts U.S. agricultural productivity
Rural Migration News ‘96
(April, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=111_0_3_0)
The three major grower arguments were: 1. That illegal aliens comprise a significant share of the current farm
labor force. Growers testified that illegal aliens are 50 to 70 percent of some harvest crews, and they implied that this
percentage is typical of the entire hired farm work force despite the legalization of over one million unauthorized workers in the SAW program in 1987-88. (The US
Department of Labor estimates that 25 percent of the labor force on US crop farms was unauthorized in 1993-94.) 2. That
new control measures
under consideration in Congress--more border controls, more interior enforcement, and a more secure work
authorization document-- would prevent them from continuing to hire unauthorized workers who present
fraudulent documents. Effective controls on hiring illegal aliens would leave them with a labor shortage,
they asserted. 3. That the current H-2A program is too inflexible to provide them with foreign workers if
labor shortages appear--the US workers recruited for employers allegedly do not show up, work hard, or remain with the employer; growers must pay
US and H-2A workers the higher of three wages--prevailing, minimum, or adverse effect wage rate--and provide housing at no charge to the US and temporary
foreign workers. In the words of one grower, the H-2A program is "too structured for a labor market that is relatively unstructured."
Food insecurity causes conflict
Marc J. Cohen, Special Assistant to the Director General at the International Food Policy Research
Institute, 2001 (February, “2020 Vision: The Prospects for Universal Food Security in the Next Two
Decades,” www.ifpri.com)
<Conflict, Refugees, and Food Security. Since the end of the Cold War, internal conflicts have proliferated in developing and transition
countries, particularly in Africa. Fourteen million refugees
have fled these struggles, which have displaced
another 20–30 million people within their own countries. Uprooted people are vulnerable to
malnutrition and disease, and need humanitarian assistance to survive. Postconflict reconstruction takes
years. Not only does violent conflict cause hunger, but hunger often contributes to conflict , especially
when resources are scarce and perceptions of economic injustice are widespread.1[25]>
2NC Bioterrorism
Immigration reform prevents inevitable bioterrorism
Francis ’01 (Sam, Syndicated Columnist, Immigration Reform: No, 11-15,
http://www.vdare.com/francis/bush_ amnesty_si.htm)
It's been like pulling teeth, but the
reality of the alien terrorist threat within the U nited S tates is finally forcing
even the pro-immigration Bush administration to recognize the suicidal folly of tolerating mass
immigration from countries and cultures profoundly different from our own. Last week the president himself uttered the first words that
indicate he's starting to perceive where the real danger comes from. [Read transcript , listen via RealAudio.] Acknowledging that "never did we
realize that people
would take advantage of our generosity to the extent that they have," Mr. Bush ticked off a list of
changes in how the country would receive—or not receive—immigrants in the future. Tighter visa security and
procedures, the most popular mantra of the hour, were high on the list, but so were new regulations forbidding the entry of suspected and
potential terrorists. Later in the week, Attorney General John Ashcroft unveiled a new list of 46 more groups for the list of known terrorist
organizations. This is progress, sort of. Apparently it requires immense concentration of mind and steely girding of loins for the ruling class to
see that letting
just about anyone who wants to come here enter the country and wander about at will is really
not a good idea in itself, let alone the most effective way to deter foreign terrorists. Even with the new announcements,
the president had to pause every other sentence to explain that he's really not against immigration per se. Although we need to
"tighten up the visas," Mr. Bush also insisted "that's not to say we're not going to let people come into our country; of course we are."
Then again, just because some people we let into our country are evil and need to be "brought to justice," "by far the vast majority of people
who have come to America are really good, decent people—people that we're proud to have here." Maybe so, but it ought to be unnecessary
for the president to have to keep saying it. No doubt most of the people of Afghanistan are "really good, decent people" as well, but neither the
president nor the military leaders planning the bombing campaign feel the necessity to tell us so. As for the late and unlamented "amnesty for
illegal Mexican immigrants," that dominated the news prior to Sept. 11, it turns out that amnesty is not quite as late as some had thought. "It's
not dead," says White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, but due to "other duties," drawing up the amnesty plan just "has not moved at the
pace the president had hoped it would move." What all of this means is that the ruling class in general and the Bush administration in particular
have not really changed their minds about immigration one iota. It's just that they have at least enough political sense to grasp that most
Americans know immigration
is a major reason why we have foreign terrorism at all, why we are having to
worry about continuing anthrax attacks, why we need to keep worrying about what immigrant terrorists are planning to do to us
in the future, and why the FBI and similar agencies keep issuing warnings about imminent terrorist attacks. If there were no Arabic or
Muslim immigrants here, if those here who are clearly sympathetic to terrorism or are clearly anti-American in their religious and
political views were kicked out, there would not be much of a terrorist threat at all.
Bioterror causes extinction
Steinbrenner ’97 (John, Snr Fellow – Brookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22, Lexis)
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction, there is
an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not
reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple
observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The
aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is
detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such
predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The
use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose
scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not
act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore
the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A
lethal pathogen that
could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying
cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population . The 1918 influenza epidemic
demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
2NC Terrorism
Immigration reform is critical to prevent terrorism
-Ends underground labor markets
-Reduces demand for fake documents
-Frees up human and financial resources
Griswold ’02 (David T., associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, "Fixing
the Problem of Illegal Mexican," http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-019.pdf )
Members of Congress rightly understood, when crafting the legislation, that Mexican
migration is not a threat to national security.
enhance our national security by
bringing much of the underground labor market into the open, encouraging newly documented workers to
cooperate fully with law enforcement officials, and freeing resources for border security and the war on
terrorism. Legalization of Mexican migration would drain a large part of the underground swamp that facilitates
illegal immigration. It would reduce the demand for fraudulent documents, which in turn would reduce the
supply available for terrorists trying to operate surreptitiously inside the United States. It would encourage millions of currently
undocumented workers to make themselves known to authorities by registering with the government, reducing
cover for terrorists who manage to enter the country and overstay their visas. Legalization would allow the government to
devote more of its resources to keeping terrorists out of the country. Before September 11, the U.S. government had
Indeed, legalizing and regularizing the movement of workers across the U.S.-Mexican border could
stationed more than four times as many border enforcement agents on the Mexican border as along the Canadian border, even though the Canadian border is more
than twice as long and has been the preferred border of entry for Middle Easterners trying to enter the United States illegally.74 A
system that allows Mexican
free up thousands of government personnel and save an estimated $3
billion a year75—resources that would then be available to fight terrorism. The ongoing effort to stop Mexican migration
only diverts attention and resources from the war on terrorism. Yet some anti-immigration groups continue to demand that
workers to enter the United States legally would
even more effort be devoted to stopping Mexican migration. According to Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, “A real effort to control the
border with Mexico would require perhaps 20,000 agents and the development of a system of formidable fences and other barriers along those parts of the border
used for illegal crossings.”76 Such a policy would be a waste of resources and personnel and would do nothing to make America more secure against terrorists.
Extinction
Alexander ’03 (Yonah, Prof, Dir – Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Washington Times, 8-28, Lexis)
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary
terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of
conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of
current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological,
chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and
global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be
developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root
causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to
achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not
glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of
the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic
Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of
return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military
in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth
is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only
increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this
perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist
attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective
tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad,
defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings
including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's
regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it
behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal
message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of
terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival."
Terror IL – Legalization Key
That’s key to solve terrorism
NYT ‘02
(9-13, Lexis)
President Vicente Fox of Mexico says that it is time for the United States to move ahead on foreign policy matters derailed by
the Sept. 11 attacks, specifically, America's relations with his country. "By dedicating so much concentration to the issue of
security, bilateral matters pass to a secondary level," Mr. Fox said in an interview, conducted in Spanish, on Tuesday. He urged
President Bush not to forsake his promise to work with Mexico on issues including broad immigration reforms. "Those matters
continue to have enormous importance to us," he said. "I ask myself if it is necessary to choose between the two issues?" "I
believe that work can be done on security, in combating terrorism," he said. "But at the same time, the world must continue
working. The world must continue advancing, and even more our bilateral relations with the United States." Mexico responded
to the attacks by taking up Mr. Bush's call to make security, especially at Mexico's northern and southern borders, a foreign
policy priority. Mr. Fox declared that Mexico, which had won a seat on the United Nations Security Council, was a firm ally in
the fight against terrorism.
2NC US-Mexico Relations
Guest worker is critical to US-Mexican relations
Houston Chronicle ‘04
(11-22, Lexis)
The 21-nation summit focused on issues such as North Korea and Iraq, but Bush also sought to mend relations with Latin
America, a region he rarely visited during his first term and where much of the public and their governments have opposed
the U.S. presence in Iraq. Key to thawing relations with Mexico is a guest-worker plan that Fox has lobbied for since
Bush was first elected. Earlier this year, Bush outlined a plan that would allow 8 million undocumented
immigrants to be eligible for temporary legal status in the United States for at least six years, as long as they are
employed. The proposal has been stalled in Congress largely because of opposition from conservative Republicans who fear it
would end up a general amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Extinction
Shifter, Inter-American Dialogue president, 2012b(Michael, “Remaking the Relationship: The United
States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, DOA: 2-9-13, ldg)
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties. Every
country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved
access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources. Even with its current economic problems,
the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances)
and technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance.
For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the United
States’ economic future. The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by
more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and
human rights. With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and
Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits,
relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized,
relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation persists, the harder it will
be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention—both
from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Nanotech
2NC
Visa restrictions are collapsing nanotech leadership
Shapira 7 (Philip and Jue, Program in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy – Georgia Tech, “R&D
Policy in the United States: The Promotion of Nanotechnology R&D”, December,
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnolo gy/docs/pm-casestudy_us_nanotech11.pdf
A broader contribution to the policy mix is the renewed interest in science and engineering education in
the US. Initiatives such as the Innovate America initiated by the Council on Competitiveness in 2004, the
Rising Above the Gathering Storm report produced by the National Academy of Sciences in 2006, and
the America Competes Act introduced in the US Senate and House of Representatives in 2007 proposed
a new education strategy and encouraged more graduates in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics occupations. These federal investments in science education and workforce development
complement NNI investments in education and workforce issues associated with the advancement of
nanotechnology.46 However, the attractiveness of the US to foreign scientists has been increasingly
challenged by European countries. The visa and immigration situation in the US becomes more stringent after
911, which largely reduces the willingness of foreign scholars and students to do research in the US. The newly
announced European Blue Card plan is competing with the American Green Card in attracting foreign
scientific human capital. Hence, the US is gradually losing talents to other countries, which might affect its
leadership in science and technology, including nanotechnology.
Nanotech is inevitable --- U.S. leadership is key to stable development --- checks gray
goo, super-weapons, and eco-collapse
Dennis 6 (Lindsay V., JD Candidate – Temple University School of Law, “Nanotechnology: Unique
Science Requires Unique Solutions”, Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law,
Spring, 25 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 87, Lexis)
Nanotechnology, a newly developing field merging science and technology, promises a future of open-ended potential. 6 Its scientific limits are
unknown, and its myriad uses cross the boundaries of the technical, mechanical and medical fields. 7 Substantial research 8 has led scientists, 9 politicians 10 and academicians 11 to believe
nanotechnology may touch
every facet of human life because its products cross the boundaries of the most important industries, including electronics, biomedical and pharmaceutical [*89] industries,
and energy production. 13 In the future, nanotechnology could ensure longer, healthier lives with the reduction or elimination of lifethreatening diseases, 14 a cleaner planet with pollution remediation and emission-free energy, 15 and the innumerable benefits of increased information technology. 16
However, certain uses, such as advanced drug delivery systems, 17 have given rise to an ethical debate similar to that surrounding cloning and stem cell research. 18 Moreover, some
analysts have theorized that nanotechnology may endanger humankind with more dangerous warfare and weapons of
terrorism, 19 and that nanotechnology may lead to artificial intelligence beyond human control. 20 The widespread use of nanotechnology far in the future threatens to alter the
societal framework and create what has been called "gray goo." 21 Because nanotechnology has the potential to improve the products that most
of us rely on in our daily lives, but also imperil society as we know it, we should research, monitor and regulate nanotechnology
for the public good with trustworthy systems, and set up pervasive controls over its research, development, and deployment. In addition, its substantial impacts on
that nanotechnology has the potential to profoundly change the economy and to improve the national standard of living. 12 In addition,
existing regulations should be ascertained, and solutions incorporated into the regulatory framework. This paper addresses these concerns and provides potential solutions. Part I outlines the
development of nanotechnology. Parts II and III explore the current and theoretical future applications of nanotechnology, and its potential side-effects. Then, Part IV analyzes the
government's current role in monitoring nanotechnology, and the regulatory mechanisms available to manage or eliminate the negative implications of nanotechnology. Part V considers the
creation of an Emerging Technologies Department as a possible solution to maximize the benefits and minimize the detrimental effects of nanotechnology. Lastly, Part VI examines certain
environmental regulations to provide an example of nanotechnology's impact on existing regulatory schema. [*90] Part I: Nanotechnology Defined Nanoscience is the study of the fundamental
principles of molecules and structures with at least one dimension roughly between 1 and 100 nanometers (one-billionth of a meter, or 10[su'-9']), otherwise known as the "nanoscale." 22
Called nanostructures, these are the smallest solid things possible to make. 23 Nanofabrication, or nanoscale manufacturing, is the process by which nanostructures are built. 24 Top-down
nanofabrication creates nanostructures by taking a large structure and making it smaller, whereas bottom-up nanofabrication starts with individual atoms to build nanostructures. 25
Nanotechnology applies nanostructures into useful nanoscale devices. 26 The nanoscale is distinctive because it is the size scale where the properties of materials like conductivity, 27
hardness, 28 or melting point 29 are no longer similar to the properties of these same materials at the macro level. 30 Atom interactions, averaged out of existence in bulk material, give rise to
unique properties. 31 In [*91] nanotech research, scientists take advantage of these unique properties to develop products with applications that would not otherwise be available. 32
Although some products using nanotechnology are currently on the market, 33 nanotechnology is primarily in the research and development stage. 34 Because nanoparticles are remarkably
small, tools specific to nanotechnology have been created to develop useful nanostructures and devices. 35 Two techniques exclusive to nanotechnology are self-assembly, and
nanofabrication using nanotubes and nanorods. 36 [*92] In self-assembly, particular atoms or molecules are put on a surface or preconstructed nanostructure, causing the molecules to align
themselves into particular positions. 37 Although self-assembly is "probably the most important of the nanoscale fabrication techniques because of its generality, its ability to produce
structures at different length-scales, and its low cost," 38 most nanostructures are built starting with larger molecules as components. 39 Nanotubes 40 and nanorods, 41 the first true
nanomaterials engineered at the molecular level, are two examples of these building blocks. 42 They exhibit astounding physical and electrical properties. 43 Certain nanotubes have tensile
strength in excess of 60 times high-grade steel while remaining light and flexible. 44 Currently, nanotubes are used in tennis rackets and golf clubs to make them lighter and stronger. 45 Part II:
Nanotechnology's Uses Researching and manipulating the properties of nanostructures are important for a number of reasons, including, most basically, to gain an understanding of how
matter is constructed, and more practically, to use these unique properties to develop unique products. 46 Nanoproducts can be divided into four general categories: 47 smart materials, 48
sensors, 49 biomedical applications, 50 and optics and electronics. 51 [*93] A "smart" material incorporates in its design a capability to perform several specific tasks. 52 In nanotechnology,
that design is done at the molecular level. 53 Clothing, enhanced with nanotechnology, is a useful application of a smart material at the nanoscale. Certain nano-enhanced clothing contains
fibers that have tiny whiskers that repel liquids, reduce static and resist stains without affecting feel. 54 Nano-enhanced rubber represents another application of a nanoscale smart material.
55 Tires using nanotech-components increase skid resistance by reducing friction, which reduces abrasion and makes the tires last longer. 56 The tires may be on the market "in the next few
years" according to the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). 57 Theoretically, this rubber could be used on a variety of products, ranging from tires to windshield wiper blades to athletic
shoes. 58 A more complex nanotechnology smart material is a photorefractive polymer. 59 Acting as a nanoscale "barcode," these polymers could be used as information storage devices with
a storage density exceeding the best available magnetic storage structures. 60 Nano-sensors may "revolutionize much of the medical care and the food packaging industries," 61 as well as the
environmental field because of their ability to detect toxins and pollutants at fewer than ten molecules. 62 As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes: Protection of human
health and ecosystems requires rapid, precise sensors capable of detecting pollutants at the molecular level. Major improvements in process control, compliance monitoring, and
environmental decision-making could [*94] be achieved if more accurate, less costly, more sensitive techniques were available. Nanotechnology offers the possibility of sensors enabled to be
selective or specific, detect multiple analytes, and monitor their presence in real time. 63 Examples of research in sensors include the development of nano-sensors for efficient and rapid
biochemical detection of pollutants; sensors capable of continuous measurement over large areas; integration of nano-enabled sensors for real-time continuous monitoring; and sensors that
utilize "lab-on-a-chip" technology. 64 All fundamental life processes occur at the nanoscale, making it the ideal scale at which to fight diseases. 65 Two quintessential examples of biomedical
applications of nanotechnology are advanced drug delivery systems and nano-enhanced drugs. 66 The promise of advanced drug delivery systems lies in that they direct drug molecules only to
where they are needed in the body. 67 One example is focusing chemotherapy on the site of the tumor, instead of the whole body, thereby improving the drug's effectiveness while decreasing
its unpleasant side-effects. 68 Other researchers are working to develop nanoparticles that target and trick cancer cells into absorbing certain nanoparticles. 69 These nanoparticles would then
kill tumors from within, avoiding the destruction of healthy cells, as opposed to the indiscriminate damage caused by traditional chemotherapy. 70 Nano-enhanced suicide inhibitors 71 limit
enzymatic activity by forcing naturally occurring enzymes to form bonds with the nanostructured molecule. 72 This may treat conditions such as epilepsy and depression because of the
enzyme action component involved in these conditions. 73 Lastly, nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize the electronics and optics fields. 74 For instance, nanotechnology has the
potential to produce clean, [*95] renewable solar power. 75 Through a process called artificial photosynthesis, solar energy is produced by using nanostructures based on molecules which
capture light and separate positive and negative charges. 76 Certain Swiss watches and bathroom scales are illuminated through a nanotech procedure that transforms captured sunlight into
an electrical current. 77 In the electronics field, nanostructures offer many different ways to increase memory storage by substantially reducing the size of memory bits and thereby increasing
the density of magnetic memory, increasing efficiency, and decreasing cost. 78 One example is storing memory bits as magnetic nanodots, which can be reduced in size until they reach the
super-paramagnetic limit, the smallest possible magnetic memory structure. 79 Advances in electronics and computing brought on by nanotechnology could allow reconfigurable, "thinking"
spacecraft. 80 Some uses of nano-products already on the market include suntan lotions and skin creams, tennis balls that bounce longer, faster-burning rocket fuel additives, and new cancer
treatments. 81 Solar cells in roofing tiles and siding that provide electricity for homes and facilities, and the prototypic tires, supra, may be on the market in the next few years. 82 The industry
expects advanced drug delivery systems with implantable devices that automatically administer drugs and sensor drug levels, and medical diagnostic tools such as cancer-tagging mechanisms
to be on the market in the next two to five years. 83 It is nearly impossible to foresee what developments to expect in nanotechnology in the decades to come. 84 Nonetheless, the book
Engines of Creation presented one vision of the possibilities of advanced nanotechnology. 85 Nano-machines could be designed to construct any product, from mundane items such as a chair,
to exciting items such as a rocket engine. 86 These "assemblers" could also be programmed to build copies of themselves. 87 Known as "replicators," these nano-machines could alter the
world by producing an exponential quantity of themselves that are to be put to work as assemblers. 88 The development of assemblers could advance the space [*96] exploration program, 89
biomedical field, 90 and even repair the damage done to the world's ecological systems. 91 Over time, production costs may sharply decrease because the assemblers will be able to construct
With the good, however, comes the bad. The "gray
goo problem," the most well-known unwanted potential consequence of the spread of nanotechnology, 93 arises when replicators and assemblers produce almost anything,
and subsequently spread uncontrolled , obliterating natural organisms and replacing them with nano-enhanced organisms. 94 A more foreseeable
issue is environmental contamination. 95 The EPA noted As nanotechnology progresses from research and development to commercialization and use, it is likely that
manufactured nanomaterials and nanoproducts will be released into the environment... . The unique features of manufactured nanomaterials and a lack of
all future products from an original blueprint at virtually no additional cost. 92 Part III: Nanotechnology's Side-Effects
experience with these materials hinder the risk evaluation that is needed to inform decisions about pollution prevention, environmental clean-up and other control measures, including
regulation. Beyond the usual concerns for most toxic materials ... the adequacy of current toxicity tests for chemicals needs to be assessed ... . To the extent that nanoparticles [*97] ... elicit
novel biological responses, these concerns need to be accounted for in toxicity testing to provide relevant information needed for risk assessment to inform decision making. 96 In addition,
nanotechnology could change the face of global warfare and terrorism. 97 Assemblers could be used to duplicate existing weapons out of
superior materials, and chemical and biological weapons could be created with nano-enhanced components. 98 Modern
detection systems would be inadequate to detect nano-enhanced weapons built with innocuous materials such as carbon. 99 Luckily, nanotechnology offers
responses to these problems, and researchers are already tackling these issues. 100 "Labs-on-a-chip," a sensor system the size of a microchip, could be woven into soldiers' uniforms to detect
toxins immediately. 101 Adding smart materials could make soldiers' uniforms resistant to certain chemical and biological agents. 102 Nanotechnology also enhances threats against citizens.
Drugs and bugs (electronic surveillance devices) could be used by police states to monitor and control its citizenry. 103 Viruses could be created that target specific genetic characteristics. 104
Not only is the development of technologically advanced, devastating weaponry itself a hazardous effect of nanotechnology, but also, millions of dollars have already been spent researching
potential uses of nanotechnology in the military sphere, 105 thus diverting funds from more beneficial uses such as biomedical applications and clean energy. However, these negative effects
are not inevitable. By analyzing the scope of potential drawbacks accompanying these research investments, lawmakers can institute regulatory controls that could mitigate these problems.
To minimize or eliminate the problems associated with nanotechnology, while
maximizing the beneficial effects, nanotechnology research and development should be monitored and regulated by
"trustworthy systems." 106 Currently, the federal government oversees a massive funding and research program with
the purpose of "ensuring U nited S tates global leadership in the development and application of nanotechnology." 107 Nonetheless, as
nanotechnology becomes more prevalent, more thorough regulation may be necessary. 108 Nanotechnology may greatly impact some of the largest revenue
[*98] Part IV: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Catastrophe
producing industries in the United States, such as the pharmaceutical and medical fields, utilities and power generation, and computer electronics. 109 Thus, it is clear that nanotechnology will
likely touch every facet of human life. In addition, these powerful industries have been known to promote profits over human safety, 110 one of the reasons for their stringent regulation. [*99]
The federal government must regulate nanotechnology for the public good as it pertains to these industries. The form and scope of the
trustworthy systems are being debated. 111 Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. 112 The system should be accountable to judicial review and
public comment, as well as transparent, 113 while minimizing "the traditional laments of the bureaucratic agency: lack of efficiency, duplication of effort, and subjection to Congressional and
judicial requirements in enacting regulations." 114 Certain proposals are outlined briefly in this article as examples of what can be done to regulate nanotechnology.
Each scenario causes extinction
Bostrom 2 (Nice, Ph.D, Professor – Oxford University, and Winner – Eugene R. Gannon Award for the
Continued Pursuit of Human Advancement, “Existential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and
Related Hazards”, Journal of Evolution and Technology, 9, March,
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)
In a mature form, molecular nanotechnology will enable the construction of bacterium-scale selfreplicating mechanical robots that can feed on dirt or other organic matter [22-25]. Such replicators
could eat up the biosphere or destroy it by other means such as by poisoning it, burning it, or
blocking out sunlight. A person of malicious intent in possession of this technology might cause the
extinction of intelligent life on Earth by releasing such nanobots into the environment.[9] The
technology to produce a destructive nanobot seems considerably easier to develop than the
technology to create an effective defense against such an attack (a global nanotech immune
system, an “active shield” [23]). It is therefore likely that there will be a period of vulnerability
during which this technology must be prevented from coming into the wrong hands. Yet the
technology could prove hard to regulate, since it doesn’t require rare radioactive isotopes or large,
easily identifiable manufacturing plants, as does production of nuclear weapons [23]. Even if
effective defenses against a limited nanotech attack are developed before dangerous replicators are
designed and acquired by suicidal regimes or terrorists, there will still be the danger of an arms race
between states possessing nanotechnology. It has been argued [26] that molecular manufacturing
would lead to both arms race instability and crisis instability, to a higher degree than was the case
with nuclear weapons. Arms race instability means that there would be dominant incentives for
each competitor to escalate its armaments, leading to a runaway arms race. Crisis instability means
that there would be dominant incentives for striking first. Two roughly balanced rivals acquiring
nanotechnology would, on this view, begin a massive buildup of armaments and weapons
development programs that would continue until a crisis occurs and war breaks out, potentially
causing global terminal destruction. That the arms race could have been predicted is no guarantee
that an international security system will be created ahead of time to prevent this disaster from
happening. The nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR was predicted but occurred
nevertheless.
Leadership IL – Key to Regulation
Nanotech is inevitable – US leadership ensures regulation
Vandermolen 6 (Thomas D., Officer in Charge – Maritime Science and Technology Center (Japan),
Intelligence Officer – Carrier Wing Five (Navy), “Molecular Nanotechnology and National Security”, Air
and Space Power Journal, Fall,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/fal06/vandermolen.html#vandermolen)
MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY (MNT), when fully developed, will provide the basis for the next
technological revolution, possibly the most beneficial and yet most disruptive in human history. By
allowing inexpensive mass production with atomic-level precision, this infant technology has the
potential to create whole new classes of weapons and economic, political, and social disruptions serious
enough to threaten international security. To minimize the threats while maximizing the benefits of
MNT’s impending development, the U nited S tates should take the lead in creating a cooperative
strategy of international regulation and do so as soon as possible. MNT’s arrival will cause an avalanche of
problems and threats, many of which the human race has not yet encountered ; the control strategy must
therefore be ready before that day arrives.
U.S. leadership causes safe development of nanotech
Mendis 4 (Dr. Patrick, Professor of Economics and Management – University of Maryland, “Science,
Technology, And Intellectual Property Rights In American Foreign Policy”, Journal of Technology Law &
Policy, June, 9 J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 17, Lexis)
The intrinsic nature of science and technology (S&T) is global and increasingly collaborative with international partners. As a global enterprise, S&T have not only
added the commercial value of their innovations to economic growth and development of both the United States and other countries but have also addressed
critical research areas in biodiversity and the environment, global climate change and alternative energy sources, HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases,
international oceans and fisheries, safety in chemical and biological terrorism, nanotechnology, nuclear energy, and medical applications, all of which are inherently
these areas of advanced research and commercialization, the U nited S tates provides the needed
global S&T leadership that is driven largely by global market forces and domestic political and economic
realities. For the United States, the Department of State negotiates and administers government-to-government routine international S&T frameworks or
transnational. In
umbrella agreements with other countries. Seven U.S. government departments and technical agencies directly administer over five hundred ongoing S&T
agreements. They also manage their own implementing agreements with over fifty countries and more than twenty international organizations and groups of
organizations. 1. Who owns the science-related IPRs resulting from publicly funded government owned and operated facilities or from research laboratories
operated by public universities such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory? 2. Should the technology-related IPRs be owned by the private sector even
though they are initially developed by government funded joint venture projects? 3. Can we separate science (largely funded by the public sector) from technology
(mainly funded by private investment) when mutually inclusive projects yield more innovations? These and other important issues are cited in the National
Research Council's book, A Question of Balance. B. Model IPR Annex for International Science and Technology Agreements Since 1990 U.S. government agencies
have incorporated the Model IPR Annexes in many international S&T agreements. Some agencies in consultation with the USTR and the Patent and Trade Office,
have developed their own flexible approaches to IPR issues. For example, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Energy
(DOE) have their own "preferred texts" to the 1990 IPR Annex. To strengthen S&T capacity, American embassies and other executive departments and technical
agencies must continue to monitor partner countries' international S&T activities and programs under the U.S. cooperative agreements and implementing
arrangements. The 1987 Executive Order also stipulates the results of overseas S&T research and development activities must be reported to federal agencies,
academic institutions, and the private sector through the Science and Technology Reporting Information Dissemination Enhancement (STRIDE) Program. Moreover,
U.S. government agencies must engage in more cooperative activities in other developed and developing countries where science and technological talents,
facilities, and commitments reside to resolve these global issues. The American involvement in S&T collaborative activities in less developed countries must be
pursued through humanitarian, defense, and development assistance programs to address global issues that have a direct link to American national security and
international terrorism. A recent bilateral S&T agreement with Bangladesh illustrates an example of evolving asymmetrical strategies to assist friendly countries in
capacity building and economic development. 4. By implementing the Agenda 21 of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 in Brazil and subsequently the World Summit on
Sustainable Development of 2002 in Johannesburg in South Africa, the United States helped efforts to create a series of MEAs that will demand transnational
solutions in science and technology fields. The American
leadership in new geospatial technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology will not
only promote economic growth domestically but also enhance the stewardship of the global environment and
sustainable development strategies.
That solves nano-war – outweighs nuclear war
Gubrud 97 (Mark, Physicist – University of Maryland, “Nanotechnology and International Security”,
Center for Superconductivity Research,
http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/)
The greatest danger coincides with the emergence of these powerful technologies: A quickening succession of
"revolutions" may spark a new arms race involving a number of potential competitors. Older systems,
including nuclear weapons, would become vulnerable to novel forms of attack or neutralization. Rapidly
evolving, untested, secret, and even "virtual" arsenals would undermine confidence in the ability to retaliate
or resist aggression. Warning and decision times would shrink. Covert infiltration of intelligence and sabotage
devices would blur the distinction between confrontation and war. Overt deployment of ultramodern weapons,
perhaps on a massive scale, would alarm technological laggards. Actual and perceived power balances
would shift dramatically and abruptly. Accompanied by economic upheaval, general uncertainty and
disputes over the future of major resources and of humanity itself, such a runaway crisis would likely erupt into
large-scale rearmament and warfare well before another technological plateau was reached . International
regimes combining arms control, verification and transparency, collective security and limited military
capabilities, can be proposed in order to maintain stability. However, these would require unprecedented
levels of cooperation and restraint, and would be prone to collapse if nations persist in challenging each
other with threats of force. If we believe that assemblers are feasible, perhaps the most important
implication is this: Ultimately, we will need an integrated international security system. For the present,
failure to consider alternatives to unilateral "peace through strength" puts us on a course toward the next
world war.
Nanotech IL – Visas Key
Nanotech leadership is failing --- visas are key
Nordan 8 (Matthew M., President – Lux Research Incorporated, “Nanotechnology Reauthorization
Act”, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4-24, Lexis)
The Dominant Position of the U.S. Is Being Eroded Each year, Lux Research conducts an annual assessment of
international competitiveness in nanotechnology, ranking 19 nations worldwide on their nanotechnology
activity and technology commercialization strength. On an absolute basis, the U.S. remains the world
leader in nanotech. Two factors, however, should give U.S. policymakers pause: -- The U.S. does not lead
on a relative basis. Relative to our population and the size of our economy, the U.S. pales in comparison
to other countries when it comes to nanotechnology activity. For example, when government funding is
considered on an absolute basis, the U.S. topped the charts in 2007. However, when the same figures
are considered on a per capita basis at purchasing power parity, the U.S. takes eighth place, with
funding half that of Taiwan, and behind Germany, Sweden, and France (see Figure 6). -- Other countries
are catching up. Since we began performing our international competitiveness rankings in 2005, the
position of the U.S. has remained static while other countries have vaulted upwards in their
nanotechnology activity (see Figure 7). For example, nanotech funding is growing in the EU at twice the
rate in the United States, putting the EU on track to claim the mantle of nanotechnology leadership due
to a renewed focus on nanoscale science and engineering in the 7th Framework Programme for
research. Russia recently funded a state nanotechnology corporation with $5 billion of public financing.
And scientists in China published nearly as many scientific journal articles on nanoscale science and
engineering in 2007 as those in the U.S. did, at 7,282 to 7,528 (see Figure 8). While the quality of these
market introduction for nanotechnology applications. Most of these changes are not specific to
nanotech, although a few key ones are. Nanotech's Pervasiveness Means that Most Required Changes
are General Many of the changes that will help transition NNI-funded research to market have nothing
to do with nanotechnology specifically, but address broader issues in technology commercialization.
Given nanotechnology's diversity, and the breadth of product categories that it touches, this is to be
expected: As goes technology in general, so goes nanotech. These changes include: -- Attracting U.S.
students to science and engineering, and retaining foreign ones. Funding for nanotechnology R&D will amount
to nothing without a steady stream of trained scientists and engineers entering the workforce. The U.S. should
strengthen programs designed to inspire students with wonder for the physical sciences in K-12 and
undergraduate education to nurture homegrown talent. But it should also reconsider the effect of visa
tightening on the inflow of foreign science and technology graduate students, and expands H1-B visa
programs to allow students that have earned advanced degrees in science and engineering in the U.S. to
remain here - rather than repatriating taking with them the skills they acquired in the U.S. The lesson of
A123Systems is instructive: Had Yet Ming-Chiang returned to his native country, its 1,000 employees
would likely be in Taiwan.
Nanotech Lshp Good – Disease
Stable nanotech development solves new diseases that risk extinction
Treder 5 (Mike, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 1-17,
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/what_we_ believe/index.html)
The second major reason to favor early development is -- if it's done right -- molecular
manufacturing could save millions of lives per year and greatly decrease the environmental
damage we're already doing. The costs of delay (opportunity costs) are significant, and may even
outweigh the risks of development. This issue of potential humanitarian benefits is highlighted by
the current concerns over a feared pandemic of an especially deadly avian flu virus. "We at WHO
[World Health Organization] believe that the world is now in the gravest possible danger of a
pandemic," states Dr. Shigeru Omi, the WHO’s Western Pacific regional director. He says the world is
"now overdue" for an influenza pandemic, since mass epidemics have occurred every 20 to 30
years. It has been nearly 40 years since the last one. For many reasons, including thronging urban
populations and high rates of overseas travel, health and government officials fear that an imminent
flu pandemic could kill many millions. New diseases such as the avian flu continue to be a threat to
the human race. Naturally occurring diseases could be more devastating than any pandemic in
decades, and an engineered disease could conceivably wipe out most of the human race. It is
becoming increasingly important to have a technology base that can detect new diseases even
before symptoms appear, and create a cure in a matter of days. Molecular manufacturing will
enable such a rapid response. With complete genomes and proteomes for humans and for all known
pathogens, plus cheap, highly parallel DNA and protein analysis and sufficient computer resources
along with new MM-based monitoring and diagnostic tools, it will be possible to spot any new
pathogen almost immediately and begin aggressive countermeasures. This isn't a guarantee that
diseases and epidemics won't occur, but clearly it could save millions of lives and untold human
suffering.
Nanotech Lshp Good – Precise Weapons
Increasing visas spurs military nanotech --- key to precise weaponry
Carafano 7 (James, Ph.D., Deputy Driector – Institute for International Studies and Director of the
Center for Foreign Policy Studies – Heritage Foundation, and Andrew Gudgel, “Nanotechnology and
National Security: Small Changes, Big Impact”, Heritage Backgrounder, 9-21,
http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/09/Nanotechnology -and-National-Security-Small-ChangesBig-Impact)
The U nited S tates is the
world's acknowledged leader in nanoscience, but stiff international competition is narrowing America's lead.
Many other countries, specifically European nations and China, have large, established nanotechnology
initiatives. Most commercial applications of nanotechnology are still nascent. In the near term, the most promising developments for national security will likely
Nanotechnology is an emerging transformational technology that promises wide and dual-use applications in many fields, particularly national security.
come from government research rather than from the application of commercial off-the-shelf nanotechnologies. To meet national security needs in the near term, the U.S. government needs
to adopt new legislative and policy innovations, including promoting long-term research, distributing federal grants more widely, and promoting scientific travel and exchanges to maintain a
Over the long term, the government should remove capital and regulatory barriers to lower the cost of
research and emerging technologies and should address safety and environmental issues. What Is Nanotechnology? "Nanotechnology" is derived from "nano," the Greek word for dwarf.
supply of skilled experts.
It involves manipulating and manufacturing particles at the microscopic and even atomic levels, between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers. By comparison, a human hair is roughly 100,000
nanometers wide. Combining the ability to manipulate molecular structures with advances in genomics and other biological sciences has created a wealth of new research opportunities. By
putting these unique properties to work, scientists are developing highly beneficial dual-use products in medicine, electronics, and many other industries that will also provide enormous
defense and homeland security capabilities. These scientific developments are creating new industries. The market opportunities are so substantial that many government and business leaders describe nanotechnology as "the next industrial revolution." Nanotechnology was incorporated into manufactured goods worth more than $30 billion in 2005, and this figure is projected to
reach $2.6 trillion by 2015.[1] However, since nanotechnology is relatively new, government research is critical for developing applications of this new technology, particularly in the field of
national security. A Small Beginning The birth of nanotechnology can be traced to 1981, when Gerd Binning and Heinrich Rohrer, scientists at IBM Research, Zurich, created the scanning
tunneling microscope (STM). The STM was the first instrument capable of performing operations at the atomic scale, such as adding or removing individual electrons to or from atoms and
molecules. It gave researchers the unprecedented ability to change materials "from the bottom up." The two scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics for their invention in 1986.[2] Within a
few years, scientists had demonstrated the capability to manufacture nanoparticles. The discovery of fullerines (isomers or molecules of pure carbon that can be manipulated into unique
structures, such as "buckyballs") in 1985 and carbon nanotubes (manufactured one-atom-thick sheets of carbon rolled into cylinders) in 1991 sparked further interest in nanotechnology. These
molecules have novel properties that make them potentially useful in a wide variety of applications, including electronics, optics, and other fields of material science. They also exhibit
extraordinary strength and unique electrical properties. Carbon nanotubes are 100 times stronger than steel at one-sixth the weight, while buckyballs are hollow, making them well-suited for
use as carriers of drugs or other materials.[3] Nanotechnology Today Current commercial nanotechnological products are limited to first-generation passive applications, such as nanoparticles,
coatings, catalysts, and nanocomposites (materials formed from organic and inorganic components at the nanoscale). Products include cosmetics, automobile parts, clothing, and sports
equipment. Research is quickly leading nanotechnology to converge with other fields, including biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science. Using techniques commonly
found in semiconductor manufacture, researchers have created adjustable "quantum dots" by making "wells" and "corrals" on silicon chips where individual electrons can be trapped and held.
The shell of electrons around every atom determines its properties, such as color and electrical conductivity. By filling these quantum corrals with differing numbers of electrons, researchers
can create artificial "atoms" that have the same properties as any element on- or beyond-the periodic table, although these "atoms" are temporary and lack nuclei. Simply adding or
subtracting electrons from these wells changes the type of "atom." Grids of quantum corrals built across the surface of a silicon semiconductor chip would allow the creation of artificial
molecules, which would theoretically allow the entire chip to have-at least on its surface-the physical properties of almost any material imaginable. Some aspects of current nanotechnology
also blur the line with biotechnology. For example, nanoparticles (clusters of tens to hundreds of individual atoms) have been used in medical research to fight diseases, including cancer.
Researchers are also exploring ways to manipulate the genetic code that have tremendous implications in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. A nanoparticle that encapsulates medication
with biomolecules could be designed to bind only to the cells that need the medicine. Such research could also affect other disease research and possibly change the medical response to
national catastrophic disaster.[4] Nanophotonics is another growing field of nanotechnology research. Photonics, which uses light, is the ability to control photons for the purpose of carrying,
processing, storing, or displaying information. Well-known applications of photonics include fiberoptic cable, television screens, computer displays, and laser and imaging systems. In
nanophotonics, scientists control the morphology of materials and, as a result, can now change how a material refracts light. Thus, nanophotonics is not simply the scaling-down of existing
systems, but utilizing physics, functionalities, and design strategies that are different from regular photonics to produce tiny waveguides, microscopes on a single chip, better optical
communications equipment, and chemical and biological sensors.[5] National Security Implications In 2000, the federal government established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to
promote nanotechnology research at the federal level. The NNI is managed by the Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology
Council, an interagency organization of 26 federal agencies that coordinates planning, budgeting, and program implementation among defense and national security stakeholders. This
structure is vital to disseminating information and fostering cross-disciplinary networks and partnerships. Both the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
are NNI members. In addition to funding research, federal support through the NNI provides crucial funds for the creation of nanotech support infrastructure, such as nanoscale research labs,
and for educational resources to develop a skilled workforce capable of advancing nanotechnology. These programs encourage business, including small business, to pursue nanotechnology
Military Applications All branches of the U.S. military are
conducting nanotechnology research
opportunities.[6]
.
currently
,
including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Army Research Office (ARO), and Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The Air
Force is heavily involved in research of composite materials.[7] Among other projects, the Navy Research Laboratory's Institute for Nanoscience has studied quantum dots for application in
nanophotonics and identifying biological materials.[8] In May 2003, the Army and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, a joint research
collaboration to develop technologies to protect soldiers better.[9] Nanotechnology has numerous military applications. The most obvious are in materials science. Carbon nanotubes and
diamond films and fibers have higher strength-to-weight ratios than steel, which allows for lighter and stronger armor and parts for vehicles, equipment, and aircraft. Such upgraded military
Humvees would better protect soldiers from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and small-arms fire. In another application, adding nickel nanostrands (ropes of material no wider than a few
molecules), which can conduct electricity, could make aircraft more resistant to lightning strikes. The nickel strands also have magnetic properties that may prove useful in filters and energy
storage devices.[10] The U.S. Army is actively pursuing nanotechnology for use in soldiers' uniforms, equipment, and armor. As part of the planned Objective Force Warrior Soldier Ensemble,
the Army hopes to create a uniform that provides flexible armor protection for soldiers' limbs through the use of shear thickening liquids that solidify when force is applied to them. This would
greatly reduce the weight that a soldier must carry. (Current body armor weighs around 25 pounds.) Other features of the planned uniform include medical sensors, medical treatment
capabilities, communications, and individual environmental control for the soldier and integrated thermal, chemical, and biological sensing systems woven into the garment's fabric.[11]
Nanotechnology would allow for more precise control of fuel combustion and detonation of explosives.
Explosives and propellants could be constructed atom by atom to optimal particle sizes and ratios of ingredients so that
the materials approach their theoretical limits of energy release. This would lead to smaller, more powerful rockets,
propellants, warheads, bombs, and other explosive devices. For slower release of energy, nanotechnology would allow for more powerful batteries, fuel cells, photovoltaic panels,
and perhaps even more exotic methods of generating electrical power. Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology recently developed piezoelectric fibers, which someday may be used
in fabrics that generate their own electricity, completely eliminating the need for batteries.[12] In electronics, nanotechnology would allow the creation of ever-smaller computers and sensors,
leading to integrated packages that could sense, discriminate, decide, report information, and provide control input to other devices. For example, tires that sense the surface over which they
are traveling could automatically adjust tire pressure to maintain optimal traction. Smart sensors could be used in single-chip chemical and biological agent laboratories that would be smaller,
faster, and more accurate than current testing methods. They could also be attached to miniature disposable sensor platforms, allowing monitoring of a large battlespace at minimal cost,
effort, and danger to soldiers. In the more distant future, combining nanocomputers, sensors, and nanomechanical architectures into one system would make possible autonomously targeted
and guided projectiles, such as bullets and rockets. Nanotechnology could also improve communications and information processing, whether on the battlefield or with the Oval Office,
through microscopic computers, switches, lasers, mirrors, detectors, and other optical and electrical devices. The laws of physics and optics change fundamentally at the near-atomic level.
Instead of being masked by the manipulation of particles on the surface, materials can be changed at the optical electronic level. Materials that display one optical or electronic property at the
macro level may display a different property at the nanometer level. Remarkable mechanisms become possible, such as negatively refractive optics that bend light at angles and in directions
otherwise impossible.[13] Such devices could lead to the development of lenses that focus almost instantaneously and light-bending camouflage that changes as the solider or vehicle moves.
One theoretical and exotic use of nanophotonic materials would be fiberoptic waveguides that actually strengthen the light beams passing through them. These could be used for longdistance, strategic-level communications systems or high-power narrow-beam lasers. With nanophotonics, optical computing, data storage, and signal processing become possible. If the
Defense Department is to remain a leader in exploiting nanotechnology, the Pentagon must ensure that it adequately understands how nanotechnology could be exploited for U.S. security and
competitive advantage. Homeland Security Applications. Only 0.25 percent of the government's 2004 funding for nanotechnology goes to the Department of Homeland Security. This is
inadequate given that nanotechnology could play a major role in advancing the DHS capabilities. Nanomaterials could be used to create highly sensitive sensors capable of detecting hazardous
materials in the air. For example, carbon-based nanotubes are relatively inexpensive and consume minimal power. Other areas of nanotechnology pertinent to homeland security are
emergency responder devices. Lightweight communications systems that require almost no power and have a large contact radius would give rescuers more flexibility. Nanotech robots could
be used to disarm bombs and save trapped victims, reducing the risks to rescue workers. Enlisting the Private Sector In the United States, the commercial nanoscience industry is composed of
traditional industrial sectors, newly formed startups, Fortune 500 companies, and academic research institutions. These groups will play a significant role in future developments of
nanotechnology. The most recent analysis estimates that nanoscience will produce $2.6 trillion in economic output by 2015.[14] The U.S. is currently the global leader in nanotechnology. The
National Nanotechnology Initiative coordinates over $1 billion in annual federal research and grants. Total U.S. public and private spending on nanotechnology research and development
totals about $3 billion annually, or one-third of the estimated $9 billion that is spent worldwide.[15] Global competition in nanotechnology is fierce, and many countries are challenging the
U.S.'s supremacy, specifically in the European Union and Asia. The EU is strengthening its research and development capabilities by promoting partnerships among companies and universities
through its Nanosciences/Nanotechnology Action Plan for Europe. The Chinese government has implemented initiatives that employ over twice as many engineers as are working in nanotechnology in the U.S.[16] Thus, U.S. government-sponsored research is still vital if America is to remain a global leader in the national security applications of nanotechnology. Toward the
Future Congress and the Administration have done much to encourage the development of nanoscience. The challenge is to maintain this momentum, facilitating commercial innovation and
the application of new advances for national security purposes. A few key initiatives would bolster America's global leadership in the science of small things. Smarter Funding. In the near term,
government research and development funds will continue to play a critical role in jump-starting national security innovations in nanotechnology. Congress should continue to provide strong
support for nanoscience research programs in the Department of Defense and other federal agencies that support national security purposes. Big Industry is currently averse to risk and is not
providing the innovations needed for national security. In fact, investments in the private sector have been concentrated in just a few mature nanotech companies. In the first quarter of 2005,
almost all of the venture capital invested in the nanotech industry went to four companies: NanoTex ($33 millon), Nanomix ($17 million), Nantero ($17 million), and NanoOpto ($12
million).[17] The NNI needs to focus grants on the companies willing to pursue national security research. In doing so, however, it must walk a fine line between fostering cutting-edge
technology advances and establishing a form of corporate welfare. Funding of the private sector should be limited to projects with such prohibitive risk and entry costs that companies would
otherwise be unable to pursue them on their own. Interagency Coordination. The DOD recently cited maintaining a consistent vision and stable funding as critical to future nanotechnology
research and development.[18] Although federal agencies continue to coordinate through the NNI, each agency retains full control of its own budget decisions and sets its own research
priorities. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the "NNI is successfully establishing R&D programs with wider impact than could have been expected from separate agency
funding without coordination." Increased coordination within the NNI would produce a centralized list of priorities and leverage resources even more effectively.[19] Reform of Visa Issuance
Current visa
policies are making it increasingly difficult to recruit students and scientists and to hold scientific conferences in
the U nited S tates. The nation's security and competitiveness relies heavily on people's ability to travel to the U nited S tates, but the
current visa system is unnecessarily challenging, depriving the U nited S tates of many of the world's best and
brightest scientists, students, and entrepreneurs. Long wait times for personal interviews are among the most frequently cited factors that
make travel to the United States difficult.
and Management. Congress needs to promote policies that continue to bring the best and the brightest in nanotechnology to study and work in the United States.
Precise weaponry solves global conflict escalation --- particularly in the Balkans
O’Mara 3 (Major Raymond P., “Stealth, Precision, and the Making of American Foreign Policy”, Air &
Space Power Journal, 6-9, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/omara.html)
Perhaps the single most critical element shaping public support in the decision to intervene is American
historical tolerance for anticipated and actual casualties during military action. In 1989, the United States
introduced a powerful new weapons system during Operation Just Cause, the invasion of Panama to
apprehend dictator Manuel Noriega. The F-117 stealth fighter, employing laser-guided bombs, had an
inauspicious start in that operation but became the centerpiece of American military power in two short
years. Its ability to precisely deliver munitions while affording the pilot a previously unthinkable level of
protection from harm presented the president with a far less risky means to apply military force. It was now
possible to use America’s military might with a greatly reduced chance of suffering friendly casualties or
equipment loss. The reduction in American casualties afforded by the marriage between stealth aircraft
and precision guided munitions has had a profound effect on America’s willingness to intervene militarily.
Stealth gives aircraft the ability to penetrate much deeper into enemy air defenses, getting closer to the
desired target and increasing the likelihood of a successful attack. PGMs are so accurate that fewer
weapons are required to destroy that target, reducing the number of aircraft that must go into harm’s
way. This combination reduces not only the risk of (and so far actual) combat deaths, but it greatly
increases the chance of a successful military operation, given that the political objectives are attainable by
military means. This has had a positive effect on American public support for military intervention that, in
combination, has made the president’s decision to use force in pursuit of policy easier. Figure 2 illustrates
this, with the heavier arrows indicating the compounding effect of stealth and precision through public
support. Military intervention has become less an option of last resort and hence, more likely. The
United States presently has a clear military technological advantage over every country on the planet
and, barring China, a military size advantage as well.2 It is clear that military capability influenced foreign
policy after the Cold War, at least as far as military intervention was concerned. But foreign policy
should not be driven by capability, military or otherwise. Of course, policy makers should consider
capability when making policy, but it should not be the prime determinant. As an example, nuclear
weapons were a crucial part of our engagement strategy against the Soviet Union during the Cold War,
but they were an integral part of a larger plan. In contrast to the present, there was a strategic balance
of terror between the United States and Soviets. Nuclear weapons were successful because they were
not used. Stealth and precision have been successful because they have been used, but there have been
unintended political and military consequences. The challenge for policy makers is determining how to
integrate our current capability advantage into an overall global engagement strategy. Successfully
answering this requires thorough evaluation of how the advantage has affected the foreign policy
process, both positively and negatively. Reduced risk of casualties during military action obviously gives
policy makers a freer hand with respect to the use of force. It is now possible to intervene because we can, not
because we have to. Before the end of the Cold War, the use of force was closely associated with vital
national interest. Although the definition of vital was stretched in many cases, American military
intervention was always presented as necessary to protect or attain a vital national interest. This was
not the case in the 1990s. With no vital interest at stake, President Bush committed forces to the United
Nations humanitarian operation in Somalia. American public support dropped dramatically when
American lives were lost.3 Later, in the Balkans, Operations DELIBERATE FORCE and ALLIED FORCE showed
how Americans could tolerate military action in pursuit of less-than-vital interests for an extended period as
long as no lives were lost in the process. Although Somalia ended in failure, as arguably did Operation
RESTORE HOPE in Haiti, successes in Panama, the Persian Gulf War, and the Balkans may encourage the
U nited S tates to act militarily more often. While military success is more certain, political success will be a
more difficult challenge. Continued military success comes at the price of increased responsibility. As
more trouble spots appear, the demand for American action will rise . Policy makers will face difficult choices
as to whether to apply force. During NATO’s military action in Kosovo, brutal civil wars in eastern Africa
took the lives of countless hundreds of thousands. Why was it appropriate to intervene in the Balkans
and not Africa? In 1994, terrible atrocities were committed in Rwanda. Again, hundreds of thousands
died. Although there was nothing that the United States could have done to prevent the tragedy, blame
was later assigned on the international stage for its inaction. As the capability gap grows between the
United States and the rest of the world, there will be more pressure to intervene militarily. While our
military capability is superior, it is not unlimited. It is now more important than ever to have a wellformed, clear international engagement policy. American interests must be defined so that there is
some visible criteria for military action. This requires a thorough understanding of the capabilities and
limitations of military power. Violence is a tool, not a mechanism of change in itself. Applied to the
correct situation, it can be very effective. Incorrectly applied, the results can be disastrous. We need
only look back to the Vietnam War to realize this. A mismatch between political objective and military
capability led to a national disaster. While rigid guidelines for intervention are impossible, policy makers
must understand that the tool must match the objective and resist the impulse to intervene militarily
merely because we can. The military must also wrestle with the ability to intervene more freely.
Traditionally, the defense establishment has advocated military action only in cases where vital national
interests are threatened and there is a clear, obtainable objective. This was enunciated most clearly by
former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and expanded upon by former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell. The Weinberger Doctrine called for clear objectives, decisive action,
and a clearly defined end state and termination criteria. In the Cold War-world, where the enemy was
clearly identified and the possible consequences of military action included many American dead, this
was a more-than-reasonable approach. In today’s world, however, there is no unifying enemy
threatening our existence. The potential cost (in lives) of military action is much lower. While it is
unreasonable to think that we can abandon our role of defending the nation, or world, against a rising
hegemonic threat, the military must also adapt to its new role as a tool of choice, rather than a tool of
last resort. The military, notably airpower, is a victim of its own success. With specialized weapons
designed to defeat the great Communist threat, it has shown great success in flexible application.
Precision weapons delivered by stealth aircraft will continue to be a desired option. Realizing this, Congress
and the military must budget appropriately, focusing on maintaining our technological lead while producing
enough of the desired systems to be able to handle the diverse threats that face us. This shift from a
uniform funding approach, where each service receives a relatively stable portion of the defense
budget, to one where a single service (the Air Force) receives a larger share will be met with resistance.
It is, however, not without precedent. President Eisenhower provided the Air Force with the majority of
defense funding in the early stages of the Cold War, establishing the foundation of the force that
eventually won that war. Funding priorities must match political priorities (and realities). The military
also must posture itself to face a busier future by maintaining flexible doctrine and training to meet a
more uncertain threat.
Balkan conflict causes global nuclear war
CDH 99 (Chicago Daily Herald, 5-9, Lexis)
We hear the grim rationale for sending in ground troops "to salvage the credibility of the NATO Alliance." I
don't want any American servicemen/women to die for the idea that once you have embarked on a disastrous
course of action, you can only continue on ... that's nonsense. On a recent news program the Italian and
German foreign ministers stated troop deployment is not acceptable as part of their national defense - the
French representative waffled. Both France and Germany have large Muslim populations. The German
official said the NATO Alliance weapons, planes, missiles are primarily American with minimum
involvement of NATO allies. Let's not forget that Russia has warned NATO countries that this action could
culminate in a third world war. The war in the Balkans could easily become the flash point of world
conflict resulting in nuclear war and incalculable self-destruction.
Nanotech Lshp Good – War
Nanotechnology risks global arms races and wars
Mike Treder, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 1-18-2005
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/what_we_believe/index.html
In today’s world, even though each nation is politically independent, they all rely to some degree on other nations for trade or security,
or both. No
nation -- at least no nation of even minimal significance -- exists free from this interdependence. But
has the potential to change all that, and not for the better. When individual
countries are able to provide all their own goods and services, and no longer have need for import or export
trade, they will have less incentive to maintain good relations with others. When economic security is no longer
an issue, the only remaining security concern will be military . Now we have all the makings of a
terrible new arms race. Every country possessing unrestricted molecular manufacturing capability will have the
ability to design, test, and stockpile massive amounts of small, cheap, frighteningly powerful weapons.
Assuming nanotechnology development is allowed to proliferate, we can expect that many countries will achieve
economic independence and unprecedented military prowess. Will we then see a stable
equilibrium, a tenuous balance of power similar to the "mutually assured destruction" of the Cold War? Not likely.
Nuclear weapons require massive research effort and industrial development, which can be tracked far more
easily than nanotech weapons development. Molecular manufacturing will enable nanotech weapons to be
developed much more rapidly due to faster, cheaper prototyping. It will be nearly impossible to know with any certainty
how much war-making capability your enemy, or your neighbor, possesses. Less response time to
an attack, and better-targeted destruction of the enemy's resources during an attack, will make these
new arms races highly unstable. Unless nanotechnology is tightly controlled, the number of nanotechpossessing nations in the world could be much higher than the number of nuclear nations,
increasing the chance of a regional conflict blowing up. Greater uncertainty of the capabilities of the
adversary could promote caution -- but could also increase the temptation for preemptive strikes to prevent
proliferation. Worse still, this opens the door for the development of rival groups within countries. We
might see repeated military coups , devastating civil wars , and dissolution of nations into
large numbers of hostile, unpredictable, immensely powerful tribes. Another concern is that radical
molecular manufacturing
transnational groups bound by religious, cultural, or ideological extremism might make use of molecular manufacturing toward
terrorist ends.
Russian Relations
2NC
U.S. visa restrictions block science collaboration with Russia
Ehlers 8 (Rep. Vernon J., R-MI, “Visas for Foreign Scholars and Students”, Federal News Service, 2-7,
Lexis)
The international students and scholars are an important part of our science and technology economy and
diplomacy. Whether U.S. scientists and engineers are traveling abroad, or foreign scientists and engineers are
coming here, the facilitation of global scientific exchange is necessary to overcome many of our global
technology problems. In this flat world, we must indeed figure out a way to keep our country safe, but
open it to those with no ill intent. Only a small fraction of international students and scholars receive the
opportunity to study or teach in the United States. The lucky ones often leave behind spouses and children
to pursue multi-year programs and appointments. In recent years, some students have avoided retuning
home for long periods of time because they fear possible delays and a maze of red tape associated with
getting back into the U.S. Consequently, many of these students experience personal hardship and
sacrifice to follow their dream of studying at one of our institutions. I think we are all aware of the
impacts this can have on universities and scientific progress. But the human factor of this issue is often
overlooked. I know many of our witnesses has been working on a solution to this problem. In the post
9/11 world, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State have worked diligently
to ensure that students who pose no security risk to the U.S. can still attend our higher educational
institutions. None the less, the last six years have been challenging for both students, scholars, and the
government, to find a critical balance of interest. It is encouraging to see the numbers indicating that
international student interest and attendance at U.S. universities has rebounded. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today about the progress and challenges still facing our visa system. Just
finally add two more personal notes. The first, when I was a student at Berkeley, we were -- as scientists
throughout the country were eager to get Russian scientists into our nation , because they were very capable
people, had much to contribute to our learning; and the soviet government wouldn't let them go. And
we thought it was horrible. Now it's reversed. Now the union no longer exists. Russia allows their
scientists to come here. We don't let them get in. And it's just absolutely ridiculous our country has gone 180
degrees on this. I also have personal interest in this. My son, who is a scientist, married a scientist from
Europe, and they are having incredible problems with the United States in terms of her coming here, her
staying here, her going back to Germany for the summer, as they are doing, and whether or not she can
get back in. It's just horrendous, the hoops that anyone has to jump through. If we really want to attract
scientists from other countries, we have to deal with these problems, and deal with them properly .
This collapses joint non-proliferation activities
Holdren 4 (John P., Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science,
Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School – Harvard University, et al., Overcoming
Impediments to U.S-Russian Cooperation on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, p. 27-28)
Visas
Nationals of the Russian Federation and the United States must obtain visas to visit one another's countries.
Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 2001 in the United States, obtaining entry visas was, at times,
difficult Several meeting participants noted that the challenge has increased since September 2001, as
the United States has tightened visa policies under the USA PATRIOT Act, expanding the use of
procedures such as interviews and fingerprinting, and broadening the scope of agency review of visa
applications. Several Russian participants noted that, although they understood the reasons for tightening
immigration controls since the events of September 2001, they were concerned about the effects on
cooperative nuclear nonproliferation programs of recent changes in United States immigration policy. Russian
citizens, including those working on nuclear nonproliferation, undergo increasingly complicated procedures for
obtaining entry visas as a result of new visa restrictions. Some workshop participants pointed out that this is
negatively effecting the quality of cooperative programs as well as their implementation schedules, and
suggested that the problem needs to be addressed at a high level. Many Russian participants noted that the
requirement that all applicants for a visa to visit the United States be interviewed in person is especially
problematic. This often causes additional expenses for interviewees if a trip to a U.S. consular office
requires travel. It is also irksome because the United States approach seems unbalanced. Because
American project participants who hold diplomatic or government passports do not need to be
interviewed when applying for a visa to Russia, the U.S. government recently began replacing passports
of their specialists with the "right" ones, exempting them from the interviews in the Russian Consulate.
Further, some American participants noted that the new procedures appear to have eliminated mechanisms for
expediting visas for Russians working with the United States to control nuclear proliferation, including those
who have previously visited the United States for that purpose. New applications for Russian partners
seeking entry to the United States often take months rather than weeks to be approved or rejected. In fact,
rejections and delays beyond requested entry dates have prevented Russian partners from participating in
meetings that promote, or even directly support, cooperative efforts on mutual and international security .
The American background paper noted that the problem is now being compounded as other governments ,
including that of the Russian Federation, respond to the imbalances in visa requirements by increasing the
rigor of their own visa approval processes and imposing restrictions upon Americans traveling in their
countries. Several workshop participants expressed the opinion that it should be possible to meet the
need for enhanced visa screening without imposing undue burdens on beneficial international
collaborations, especially those that support national and international security. Visa application
procedures for specialists from both the United States and Russia could be simplified if they are wellknown persons (e.g., included in some pre-agreed lists) involved in the implementation of known
(intergovernmental and interdepartmental) projects. The current visa system, however, interferes with
both the specific and general goals of U.S.-Russian security collaboration.
That causes war and instability in Central Asia
Troitskiy 6 (Mikhail, Associate Professor at MGIMO-University and Deputy Director of the Academic,
“Institutionalizing U.S.–Russian Cooperation in Central Eurasia”, Kennan Institute Occasional Papers,
293, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/OP293.pdf)
DEFINING A COMMON AGENDA FOR RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES IN CENTRAL EURASIA It has
become conventional wisdom that the United States and Russia share the goals of combating terrorist
networks, preventing proliferation of dangerous materials originating in Central Eurasia, and containing
religious extremism and drug transit in the region. U.S.- Russian cooperation in addressing these challenges
has been extensively reviewed elsewhere and therefore will not be discussed at length in this paper.21
There are, however, several broader strategic considerations that, if properly understood in both
Washington and Moscow, can extend their cooperative agenda beyond the mentioned areas.
Strategically, Russia and the U.S. appear to be natural partners in the “upper tier” of Eurasia, encompassing
the Russian territory and the eight former Soviet republics of Central Asia and the South Caucasus. One
only needs to consider the “axes in the making” along Eurasia’s “lower tier”: China, India, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and Iran. Both China and India are vying for a closer energy partnership with Iran. India is
seeking to construct an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline to satisfy its soaring need for energy. To supply
oil from the Caspian basin, India is considering the idea of a pipeline from Baku—a mirror image of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Such a project would inevitably involve Iran as a major contractor and
stakeholder.22 In its turn, Pakistan is lamenting its lack of oil and gas resources, which makes an
expansion of Pakistani ties with Iran very likely. These developments, along with continued instability in
Afghanistan, do not bode well for the United States, which seeks to isolate Iran, or at least prevent a
massive inflow of investment into the Iranian energy sector from such emerging economic giants as
China and India. As a natural response, Washington pursues the policy of ensuring a reasonably-sized
American presence in Eurasia’s “upper tier”. In a long-term perspective, it is too costly and therefore hardly
expedient for the U.S. to indulge in policies that would antagonize rather than engage Russia in Central Asia and
the Caucasus—provided, of course, that Russia is responsive. The hardest test for Russian-American
cooperation in the “upper tier” is likely to remain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which are castigated by the
U.S. and only mildly scolded by Russia.
That goes nuclear
Blank 99 (Steven, Professor of Research – Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Oil and
Geopolitics in the Caspian Region)
Past experience suggests Moscow will even threaten a Third World War if there is Turkish intervention in the
Transcaucasus and the 1997 Russo-Armenian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance
and the 1994 Turkish-Azerbaijani Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation suggest just such a possibility.
Conceivably, the two larger states could then be dragged in to rescue their allies from defeat. The RussoArmenian treaty is a virtual bilateral military alliance against Baku, in that it reaffirms Russia’s lasting
military presence in Armenia, commits Armenia not to join NATO, and could justify further fighting in
Nagorno-Karabakh or further military pressure against Azerbaijan that will impede energy exploration
and marketing. It also reconfirms Russia’s determination to resist an expanded U.S. presence and remain
the exclusive regional hegemon. Thus, many structural conditions for conventional war or protracted
ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the Transcaucasus. Many Third World conflicts
generated by local structural factors have great potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often fear obliged
to rescue their proxies and protégés. One or another big power may fail to grasp the stakes for the other
side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence, commitments involving the use of nuclear
weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or
clear as in Europe. For instance, in 1993 Turkish noises about intervening in the Karabakh War on behalf of
Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in such a case. This confirms the observations of
Jim Hoagland, the international correspondent of the Washington Post, that “future wars involving
Europe and America as allies will be fought either over resources in chaotic Third World locations or in
ethnic upheavals on the southern fringe of Europe and Russia.” Unfortunately, many such causes for
conflict prevail across the Transcaspian. Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally but probably could not
prevail in a long war against Russia, or if it could conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small
possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’s declared nuclear strategies), the danger of major war is higher here
than almost anywhere else in the CIS or the so-called arc of crisis from the Balkans to China.
Relations IL – Visas Key
Increasing visas is a symbolic move --- crucial to bilateral relations
Stringer 4 (Dr. Kevin D., Visiting Professor – Thunderbird School of Global Management and Ph.D. in
History and International Security – University of Zurich, “The Visa Dimension of Diplomacy”, Discussion
Papers in Diplomacy,
http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20040300_cli_paper_dip_issue91.pdf)
The consular element of national diplomatic power plays an essential, but often underrated and overlooked
role in international relations. This consular dimension of diplomacy has often taken the backseat to the
political and military aspects of foreign policy in the past. This situation has changed dramatically with the end
of the Cold War and the rapid globalization of the world economy. This shift to a unipolar world, but global
marketplace, emphasizes the increasing importance of so-called 'low politics' - trade, commerce, tourism,
migration - all traditional consular areas of interest. While one superpower, the United States, may
currently dominate the military and political aspects of the international environment, the economic and
commercial interplay among nations is more diffuse and requires a nuanced and multilateral diplomatic
approach. This environment is caused largely by the increasingly complex interdependencies among the
world's economies, which no longer recognize political, commercial, geologic, or technological borders
as barriers. The line between domestic and foreign events has been blurred by the impact of external
forces ranging from diseases like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) to technological
developments like Chat. Indeed, technology has tended to transcend borders, crossing them and turning
them into obstacles to progress.1 In this type of international world, a nuanced and multilateral
approach requires the flexible application of a variety of diplomatic instruments, either In solo or in
unison with other countries, to influence positively or negatively, the actions of other state actors and
non-state actors, to achieve national interest goals. This type of environment places emphasis on all
operative aspects of diplomacy, one of which is its consular component. With the use of force between
stairs more and more restricted as a policy option in the International system, alternative diplomatic
options must be sought. Nowhere is the partial fulfillment of this need for a variety of diplomatic
instruments better illustrated than in the often overlooked, and seemingly mundane area of consular visa
operations. The lowly visa serves an important purpose in international relations and is a well-used, but little
studied, instrument of foreign policy in today's system of sovereign states.' In fact, its use may be more
diplomatically opportune when other, blunter instruments are nor available or possible. This paper will
attempt to illustrate the practical uses of 'visa diplomacy" as an integral device in the conduct of
international relations. Visa diplomacy is defined as the use of visa issuance or denial at an individual,
group or interstate level, to influence another state's policies. The first section will provide a brief overview
of consular visa diplomacy. The second section will focus on examples of visa issuance as a symbolic
diplomatic measure to express a shift in foreign policy to greater cooperation or recognition. The third
section will consider examples of diplomatic retorsion1 with visa usage as an expression of protest, a
step in conflict escalation, a measure for diplomatic coercion, or as part of a wider sanctions package
targeted towards specific, decision-making groups. Visa regimes as a component of the national security
system and border control will not be addressed in this paper'. The conclusion will assess where the use
of visa diplomacy seems most effective in international relations. 1. Consular Visa Diplomacy in General
The Importance of consular services as an integral part of a country's diplomacy in general is
insufficiently understood and appreciated. It is insufficiently understood not only by the general public
but also by persons who make the study of foreign policy their specialty - even by many practitioners of
diplomacy/ Consular operational services generally divide themselves into two areas: the provision of
assistance to citizens abroad and the issuance of visas to qualified foreigners seeking entry Into the
represented state. The first area plays an important role in how a country's consular service is perceived
in domestic politics. This citizen service will not be addressed in this paper. The second area, visas,
influences how a country is perceived abroad and serves as a tool in a country's overall foreign policy. Broadly
speaking, the consular aspects of foreign policy issues have become much more prominent and complex
in the 20th and 21st centuries. The movements of people - voluntary and forced, individual and mass - are
a growing international phenomenon caused by global trends in technology and demography, income
disparities, and political instabilities.6 The division of the world between developed and developing
countries, coupled with advanced telecommunications and internet technology which allows both
camps to view each other instantaneously, encourages both legal and illegal migration from one to the
other. This trend is abetted by an ease of travel that puts any destination within reach of a long haul
flight. In taking the United States example, many people wish to come to the United States, not Just to
travel, but for business, study, family visits, and of course immigration.' This interest makes the use of visa
denial or issuance an influential tool - but not necessarily a powerful one in comparison to force or trade
sanctions - for foreign policy applications. The visa component of consular diplomacy can be visualized as
the foreign policy bridge between the foreign individual and his government. The application of a specific
visa policy can affect international relations between states at a personal (individual applicant), group
(tourists, businessmen, students, government officials) or intergovernment level. Briefly viewing visa
diplomacy at these three levels gives an Indication of its influence on international relations. From the
first level perspective, consular work should be esteemed in the diplomatic service because it concerns
the individual. Consular officers are the first, and sometimes only people who represent their country to
foreigners abroad.5 Consular officers may well be the first government representatives aliens abroad
will meet. The impression consular officers make on these people may be lasting. The skill, the patience,
the civility, the decency they bring to their tasks in dealing with foreigners can do much to enhance the
image of a government, institution, society, or people.3 At this level, consular diplomats are exposed to
local people, culture, and language directly through visa application interactions."0 A foreign culture and
society are intensively learned by interviewing visa applicants. One could argue that the consular visa
interview is the most basic level of bilateral diplomatic interaction between two countries. This
viewpoint is buttressed by Herbert Butterfield's emphasis on the importance of individual personalities
in shaping events, because "every public action which was ever taken can be regarded as a private act.
the personal decision of somebody'." Nowhere Is this more true than at the level of the visa interview,
where the foreign policy of a government is directly communicated to and affects the individual
foreigner. As one foreign service officer noted. 'Consular officers affect lives retail, in concrete terms,
one body at a time'. The issuance or withholding of visas is retail diplomacy at its best. Yet this form of
retail diplomacy can have serious bilateral implications – both political and economic – in terms of visa
issuance or denial at the private citizen, governing elite, or state level. This position is echoed by US
Congressman Peter Rodino, who stated, the exercise of those powers, duties, and functions conferred
upon consular officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas has far reaching effects on the lives of
persons seeking admission to the U nited S tates: it affects our foreign policy and foreigners' perception of this
nation: and most importantly, it affects our national security and national interest." Thousands of visa
cases are sensitive in political and foreign policy terms. The issuance or refusal of a visa to a controversial
person invariably embroils a nation in foreign policy issues.14 Long lines of visa applicants snaking through
the streets, beginning at ridiculously early hours, can lead to public relations problems in host countries.15
Restrictions on visas for specific groups like students or athletes can also have implications ranging from
demonstrations to host government intervention. In one anecdotal example, when the visa of a noted
South African boxer was revoked during the apartheid era. the Foreign Minister of that country
telephoned the US Secretary of State to point out that unless reversed, that action could have a deleterious
effect on the ongoing Namibian negotiations.16 Clearly then, a nation's visa policy towards another state,
and hence its citizens, has both symbolic diplomatic inferences and practical economic implications.
Particularly for Russia --- restrictions crush overall relations --- it’s a vital issue
DP 3 (Diplomatic Panorama, “Russian Ambassador Critical of U.S. Visa Policy”, 8-21, Lexis)
Russia's Ambassador to the United States has suggested that U.S. visa policy is harmful for Russian-U.S.
relations . "The U.S. visa policy is actually delivering a blow to the public dialogue between Russia and the
U nites S tates, since it leads to an unjustifiable reduction of business, scientific, tourist and other trips by
Russian citizens to the U nited S tates. Even official delegations have been denied visas or faced delays. As a
consequence, visas now represent one the biggest challenges facing our bilateral relations," Ushakov said in a
Washington Post article. The ambassador noted that "everyone in Russia realizes why the
United States should be careful after[ the September 11 terrorist attacks]. But Russians still cannot
understand why Russian university students can be considered a threat to U.S. security." He said that
"hundreds of students seeking summer jobs in the United States and who have applied for U.S. visas
are still waiting for them, although the summer is nearly over. Every third Russian student who
applied for a visa has been denied." In addition, visa refusals prevented a number of high-ranking Russian
officials from attending a summit in Washington. The same thing happened to members of the Russian
Academy of Sciences and other experts who were invited to various events. "We are even more
seriously concerned about the fact that visa denial can prevent people from joining with their families
in the United States or visiting sick relatives," Ushakov said. He noted that "both ordinary citizens and
State Duma deputies are concerned about the situation with visas and fear certain unpredictable
consequences." He cautioned that "all the recent steps taken by the U.S.
authorities to make it more difficult to obtain U.S. visas may, unfortunately, lead to retaliatory moves ."
Russian Relations Good – Overview
US-Russia war first- only existential risk- causes extinction
Bostrom 2
(Nick, PhD Philosophy – Oxford University, “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios”,
Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March,
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)
The unique challenge of existential
risks Risks in this sixth category are a recent phenomenon. This is part of the reason why it is
useful to distinguish them from other risks. We have not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or culturally, for managing such
risks. Our intuitions and coping strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostile individuals or
tribes, poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World
War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and our cultural
attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately
affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are
mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. They haven’t significantly affected the total amount of human
suffering or happiness or determined the long-term fate of our species. With the exception of a species-destroying comet or
asteroid impact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential risks in human history until the mid-twentieth
century, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about. The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural
detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by “igniting” the
atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the
time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some subjective probability of an adverse
outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad happening. If we don’t know whether something is
objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any
given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the objective risk factors are.[3] A much greater existential risk
emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with
both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and
terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon
would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large
nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other
states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for
instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war
might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet
or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
Relations good- laundry list
Atlantic 8.
[November 2008, Medvedev Spoils the Party, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811u/medvedevobama]
Like it or not, the United States cannot solve crucial global problems without Russian participation. Russia commands the
largest landmass on earth; possesses vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and other natural resources; owns huge stockpiles of weapons and
plutonium; and still wields a potent brain trust. Given its influence in Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of its potential as a
spoiler of international equilibrium elsewhere, Russia is one country with which the United States would do well to
reestablish a strong working relationship—a strategic partnership, even—regardless of its feelings about the current Kremlin
government. The need to do so trumps expanding NATO or pursuing “full-spectrum dominance.” Once the world financial crisis passes, we
will find ourselves returning to worries about resource depletion, environmental degradation, and global warming – the
greatest challenges facing humanity. No country can confront these problems alone. For the United States, Russia may just prove
the
“indispensable
nation” with which to face a volatile future arm in arm.
Warming causes extinction
Cummins 10
(Ronnie, International Director – Organic Consumers Association and Will Allen, Advisor – Organic
Consumers Association, “Climate Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century”, 2-14,
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6)
The hour is late. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that the world needs to
reduce emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid climate chaos , crop
failures , endless wars , melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we radically
reduce CO2 and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently at 390 parts per million and
rising 2 ppm per year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide pollution, or else
survival
for the present and
future generations is in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen, business as usual and a corresponding 7-8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in
global temperatures means that the carrying capacity of the Earth in 2100 will be reduced to one billion people. Under this hellish scenario,
billions will die of thirst, cold, heat, disease, war, and starvation. If the U.S. significantly reduces greenhouse gas
emissions, other countries will follow. One hopeful sign is the recent EPA announcement that it intends to regulate greenhouse gases
as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately we are going to have to put tremendous pressure on elected public officials to force the
EPA to crack down on GHG polluters (including industrial farms and food processors). Public pressure is especially critical since "just say no"
Congressmen-both Democrats and Republicans-along with agribusiness, real estate developers, the construction industry, and the fossil fuel
lobby appear determined to maintain "business as usual."
Iran
Sokolsky 3
(Henry, Exec Dir – Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Policy Review, 10-1, Lexis)
If nothing is done to shore up U.S. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states
and with Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt, Iran's acquisition of even a nuclear weapons breakout capability could
prompt one or more of these states to try to acquire a nuclear weapons option of their own. Similarly, if the
U.S. fails to hold Pyongyang accountable for its violation of the NPT or lets Pyongyang hold on to one or more nuclear weapons
while appearing to reward its violation with a new deal--one that heeds North Korea's demand for a nonaggression pact and
continued construction of the two light water reactors--South Korea and Japan (and later, perhaps, Taiwan) will have powerful
cause to question Washington's security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. In such a world,
Washington's worries would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile, nuclear, or nearnuclear-armed nations. In addition, it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear
friends. Washington might still be able to assemble coalitions, but with more nations like France, with nuclear options of their
own, it would be much, much more iffy. The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily
exceed what our diplomats and leaders could manage or track. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing
another Vietnam, Washington and its very closest allies are more likely to grow weary of working closely with others and view
military options through the rosy lens of their relatively quick victories in Desert Storm, Kosovo, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
Just Cause. This would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would
be spring-loaded to go nuclear.
Korea
Hamel-Green and Hayes, 10
(Michael, Dean and Prof. Faculty of Arts – Victoria U., and Peter, Nautilus Institute, Special Report
100-001, “The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and
Northeast Asia”, 2010, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)
he 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.
Russian Relations Good – Democracy
Relations key to Russian democracy
Kramer 9/15/06
(David, HERITAGE, “Russia Cannot Be Isolated”)
There are areas where our two presidents don’t see eye to eye, including on Russia’s democratic development. President
Bush has a
regular dia-logue with President Putin on the internal dynam-ics in Russia. Promoting civil society
in Russia is key and will over the long run help transform Rus-sia into a country where our values converge,
which will make it easier and more productive for us to work together. We know that nations that share values also share interests. A
Russia that embraces pluralistic political institutions, personal liberty, and a trans-parent,
empowering economic approach would be a Russia that shares European and American—and I believe
universal—values. Yet, to many Russians, democracy is a discredit-ed concept because it unfortunately is associated with the chaos and
weakness of the 1990s. The col-lapse of the state in the 1990s under Yeltsin and now the reemergence of the state under President Putin
reflect the Kremlin’s tendency toward a pen­dulum approach in the way it exercises control. Because
promoting democracy is
central to the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, the Pres-ident has raised it with President
Putin in private meetings, which we believe is the most effective approach. Where necessary, we
speak out publicly on this issue, but we do so as a friend who raises concerns in a way designed to
steer development in Russia in a positive direction. The President underscored our concern by meet-ing with a diverse,
outspoken group of Russian civil society activists representing the democracy, human rights, environmental, and health communities in Russia.
The President’s meeting came after a meet­ing that was called “Other Russia” in Moscow that Assistant Secretaries Daniel Fried and Barry
Lowen-kron attended for the U.S. government. A vibrant civil society also requires a vibrant entrepreneurial sector rooted in the rule of law,
which can contribute to the modernization of the Russian economy. And to support one of the under-pinnings of democracy—a strong and
independent middle class—the President announced our inten­tion to create the “U.S.–Russia Foundation for Eco-nomic Advancement and the
Rule of Law,” which stands as a successor to the successful U.S.–Russia Investment Fund, known as TUSRIF, which was established in 1995 to
promote the growth of the Russian independent entrepreneurship and improve the climate for private investment.
Nuclear war
Mendelson 9
(Sarah, is director of Human Rights and Security Initiative, CSIS, “US-Russian Relations and the
Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit”, The Century Foundation,
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/InternationalAffairs/USRussianRelationsandtheDemocracyandRuleofLawDeficit.pdf, AD: 7/5/9) LS
What does any of this have to do with the Obama administration? The democracy and rule of law
deficit in Russia has a range of security and human rights implications for the United States and our
allies in Europe. For example, the Obama administration comes to office with a number of arms
control goals. These plans may be complicated by the absence of Russian military reform that, in
turn, correlates with abuse inside the army. (They are also complicated by continued government
reliance on nonconventional forces: in September 2008, President Medvedev committed to
modernizing the nuclear arsenal.30) Serious, joint counterterrorism efforts with the United States,
Europe, and Russia are likely to remain illusive as long as the police and security services are corrupt
and abusive, and the media, a potential source to expose that corruption, is largely controlled by
the government. Even at the nongovernmental, track-two level, it is now difficult to have the sort of transatlantic policy dialogue on terrorism that
has been common among other nations and societies since 2001.31 The most dire evidence suggests that security service personnel or contractors have been
deployed abroad, in European cities, to eliminate Kremlin enemies. In the most famous example, British authorities have sought the extradition from Moscow
of former KGB bodyguard and current Duma member Andrew Lugovoi for the murder by Polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London in November
2006.32 Kremlin proxies, such as Chechnya’s Ramzan Kadyrov, may have agents doing the same on his behalf on the streets of Austria, also with apparent
impunity.
Russian Relations Good – Disease
Relations check disease
DIPLOMAT 2007
(DIPLOMAT, A RUSSIAN MAGAZINE, “US RUSSIAN MUTUAL RELATIONS: FIVE MAJOR AREAS” JUNE 2007)
A fourth area of cooperation revolves upon the fight against infectious diseases, against which physical borders
offer little protection. Our Presidents have pledged to make the fight against HIV/AIDs a priority , recognizing this
illness for what it is: a national security threat to both nations. America and Russia have a unique advantage, in pooled
resources and knowledge, to slow the progress of the disease, to ease suffering, to develop a vaccine,
and to share our knowledge with partners around the world.
Disease causes extinction
Keating 9 (Joshua, Web Editor – Foreign Policy Magazine, “The End of the World”, Foreign Policy, 1113, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/the_end_of_the_world?page=full)
How it could happen: Throughout history, plagues have brought civilizations to their knees. The Black Death killed more off more
than half of Europe's population in the Middle Ages. In 1918, a flu pandemic killed an estimated 50 million people, nearly 3 percent of
the world's population, a far greater impact than the just-concluded World War I. Because of globalization, diseases today spread
even faster - witness the rapid worldwide spread of H1N1 currently unfolding. A global outbreak of a disease such as ebola virus -which has had a 90 percent fatality rate during its flare-ups in rural Africa -- or a mutated drug-resistant form of the flu virus on a
global scale could have a devastating, even civilization-ending impact. How likely is it? Treatment of deadly diseases has
improved since 1918, but so have the diseases. Modern industrial farming techniques have been blamed for the outbreak of diseases, such as
swine flu, and as the world’s population grows and humans move into previously unoccupied areas, the risk of exposure to previously unknown
pathogens increases. More than 40 new viruses have emerged since the 1970s, including ebola and HIV. Biological weapons
experimentation has added a new and just as troubling complication.
Russian Relations Good – Energy Security
Relations ensure energy security
Evans 2006
(JUSTIN, INDIANA LAW REVIEW, “A New Energy Paradigm for the Twenty-First Century: China, Russia,
and America's Triangular Security Strategy”)
A new international energy paradigm is emerging. The
United States will soon likely find itself engaged in an intense
competition with the next great [*658] power, China, in politics, economics, technology, and culture.
At the base of this competition-at the base of the very security and existence of both-is the ability of
each to fuel its economy and military. In this respect, a third crucial nation arises: Russia. The United
States must quickly forge a secure alliance with Russia and with other potential energy allies to fare well in this
competition. The time to do so is now. America's strategy will require a variety of legal devices and legal reforms; yet the ultimate success
or failure of the United States will rest with its powers of political persuasion. In pursuing closer ties to Russia, America
should seek greater economic relations. The United States should lobby Moscow for several general changes to Russian law,
including a more transparent and explicit recognition of the property and contract rights of foreign investors. The United States should also
seek a stable production sharing agreement law and legislation creating special economic zones. Both of these devices will promote investor
confidence by clearly delineating the rights of monetary contributors. America should also seek reforms to pipeline regulation, inducing foreign
investors to aid Russia in expanding its petroleum export capability…The new triangular security strategy proposed here accounts for three
states destined to play crucial roles in the twenty-first century. America's
fate now lies in its foresight and in its
dedication to achieving genuine security and prosperity for the free world.
Energy crisis causes extinction
Riddoch 4 (Dr. Malcolm, Faculty of Communications and Creative Industries – Edith Cowan University,
“Peak Oil: A Perfect Storm”, Energy Bulletin, 9-11, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2076)
Apparently an imminent peak and subsequent terminal decline in oil production may lead to a global economic collapse
with total war precluding any internationalist approach to either global warming, overpopulation, energy alternatives or
maintaining even the semblance of democratic order resulting in a globalised capitalist totalitarian feudalism, historically gigantic
population culls through war, famine and pestilence accompanied by accelerating biosphere destruction with the end
result that within 100 years or so a Permian style planetary extinction event will wipe out 90% or more of all life on earth
including us - unless we preempt nature through either adapting to the changes being forced on us or we commit the ultimate
genocide and destroy ourselves in a nuclear apocalypse. In the interest of public debate during this rather absurd and largely content
free election campaign I would like to put forward a possible worst case prognosis for our nation's future: Energy depletion leading to
economic collapse and total war in the context of global warming means extinction.
Russian Relations Good – Heg
Collapsing US-Russian cooperation will increase global missile sales and the risk of
conflict—it will destroy U.S. leadership
Simes 7 [Dimitri, President of the Nixon Center and Publisher of The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, “Losing Russia; The Costs of
Renewed Confrontation,” Nov/Dec -- lexis]
But if the current U.S.-Russian
relationship deteriorates further, it will not bode well for the United States and
would be even worse for Russia. The Russian general staff is lobbying to add a military dimension to the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, and some top officials are beginning to champion the idea of a foreign policy realignment
directed against the West. There are also quite a few countries, such as Iran and Venezuela, urging Russia to
work with China to play a leading role in balancing the United States economically, politically, and militarily. And postSoviet states such as Georgia, which are adept at playing the United States and Russia off against each other, could act in ways that escalate
tensions. Putin's stage management of Moscow's succession in order to maintain a dominant role for himself makes a major foreign policy shift
in Russia unlikely. But new Russian leaders could have their own ideas -- and their own ambitions -- and political uncertainty or economic
problems could tempt them to exploit nationalist sentiments to build legitimacy. If relations worsen, the UN Security Council may no
longer be available -- due to a Russian veto -- even occasionally, to provide legitimacy for U.S. military actions or to impose meaningful
sanctions on rogue states. Enemies of the United States could be emboldened by new sources of military hardware in Russia, and political and
security protection from Moscow. International
And the
terrorists could find new sanctuaries in Russia or the states it protects.
collapse of U.S.-Russian relations could give China much greater flexibility in dealing with the
United States. It would not be a new Cold War, because Russia will not be a global rival and is unlikely to be the prime mover in confronting
the United States. But it would provide incentives and cover for others to confront Washington, with
potentially catastrophic results.
Heg prevents global nuclear war
Arbatov 7 (Alexei, Member – Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor – Russia in Global Affairs, “Is a
New Cold War Imminent?”, Russia in Global Affairs, 5(3), July / September,
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html)
However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the collapse
of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in reality)
difficulties
and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage to both parties
and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar processes in Abkhazia, South
cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many
Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are supported by NATO.
Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kiev’s sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently sanctioned by the U.S.
Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the West to refrain from
interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to withdraw from the INF
Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar missiles in Europe,
which would dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russia’s strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This could make the
stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other “centers of power” would immediately derive benefit from the growing Russia-West
standoff, using it in their own interests. China
would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous positions
in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its influence in Central and
South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and some exalted
regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not moving toward nuclear
disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of
developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The
probability of nuclear weapons being used in a
regional conflict will increase significantly . International Islamic extremism and terrorism will increase
dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of globalization. The situation in Afghanistan,
Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant
separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and
other countries. The surviving disarmament treaties (the N on- P roliferation T reaty, the C onventional
Armed F orces in E urope Treaty, and the C omprehensive Nuclear T est B an T reaty) will collapse. In
a worst-case scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch
against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of
nuclear strikes between them . Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one or
several major capitals of the world.
Russian Relations Good – Prolif
Relations halt prolif
DIPLOMAT 2007
(DIPLOMAT, A RUSSIAN MAGAZINE, “US RUSSIAN MUTUAL RELATIONS: FIVE MAJOR AREAS” JUNE 2007)
Nuclear cooperation is the first of these opportunities. America and Russia have a unique history in
the nuclear field, with capabilities and responsibilities that no other two nations can match. Today, we
both face transnational terrorist and criminal networks trafficking in nuclear technology, as well as regimes that pursue nuclear
weapons under the cover of peaceful energy programs. Globalization has democratized access to nuclear weapons
technology. The challenge for U.S.-Russian nuclear leadership in such a world is how to best develop
peaceful nuclear technology, make it available to developing countries in a way which guards against proliferation of
weapons by states or terrorists, while demonstrating responsibility in the management of our own remaining nuclear arsenals. Toward
those ends, our two Presidents are leading a number of crucial and inter-related initiatives. Russia and the U.S.
have just launched a new Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and have already been joined by 11 other partners. We have begun a
new bilateral strategic security dialogue on how best to proceed after START's expiration in 2009. As we reflect on the 15 years of successful
joint efforts under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program - including the denuclearization of Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, the
deactivation of over 7000 nuclear warheads, the destruction of more than 600 ICBMs, the demolition of 600 submarine-launched ballistic
missiles, and the removal of highly-enriched uranium from more than a dozen sites around the world - we have much more work to do. At
the same time, we are negotiating for the first time in our history a bilateral agreement on peaceful
nuclear cooperation, and considering new ways in which we can collaborate on new civilian
technologies. We are also looking hard at ways in which we can reinforce existing non-proliferation regimes, even as we deal together
diplomatically with the extremely difficult challenges of Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions.
Extinction
Roberts 99, Researcher @ Institute for Defense Analysis (Brad; Research Staff ñ Institute for Defense
Analysis, Chair ñ Research Advisory Council for the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute) The
Nonproliferation Review Fall
This brings us then to the question of what
is at stake in the effort to combat proliferation. There are two standard
lives, and stability. Nuclear Biological Chemical weapons are weapons of
mass destruction, all of them, though in different ways. The most deadly of these weapons systems can kill millions, and much more
quickly than conventional weaponry(though it too is capable of killing millions).A regional war employing mass destruction as a matter
of course could cause suffering and death unknown in human experience. Such a war would cast a harsh light on the
answers to the question of whatís at stake: human
argument now in vogue that landmines, small arms, even machetes in the hands of drunk young men are the real weapons of mass destruction.
Strictly from the perspective of limiting the effects of war, then, the
world community has an interest in preventing the
emergence of an international system in which the possession and use of Nuclear Biological Chemical
weapons is accepted as normal and customary. The stability argument relates to the unintended consequences
associated with acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It focuses on the weapons-acquiring state and its neighbors and the risk of war
that grows among them, including both preemptive and accidental wars
Russian Relations Good – Russian Economy
Relations prevent Russian Economic collapse
DIPLOMAT 2007
(DIPLOMAT, A RUSSIAN MAGAZINE, “US RUSSIAN MUTUAL RELATIONS: FIVE MAJOR AREAS” JUNE 2007)
A third area for cooperation is the expansion of our commercial relationship and deepening of Russia's
integration into the global economy. Last November's bilateral agreement on Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization
was the biggest single achievement in our economic relationship in more than a decade, and Russia's entry into the WTO will be the
culmination of 15 years of revolutionary economic reform.
U.S. firms are among the most energetic investors in Russia,
with American direct investment increasing 50 percent last year alone. The range of American firms is dramatic
evidence of the diversification of Russia's economy. Alcoa, Citigroup, International Paper, John Deere, Dow, Cargill, Procter and Gamble, United
Technologies and General Electric are all increasing their presence. Intel, Motorola, Boeing and IBM are looking for new opportunities to
collaborate with Russia's well-trained engineers and scientists. Significantly, today's
Russia is an increasingly important
investor in the U.S. economy, with the $2.3 billion merger of Evraz and Oregon steel just the latest sign of the growing two-way
street in trade. Economic ties have a dollars and cents benefit, but equally important are the values that
the market rewards, including transparency and rule of law.
Extinction
David 99 – Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University [Steven R., “Saving America from
the Coming Civil Wars,” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, LN]
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the
GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many
economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $
70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout
privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of
life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the
current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people
will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed
forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a
dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an
ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political
fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and
local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve
closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and
Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of
the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever
more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond
Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With
the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less
incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own
constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet
policies may motivate non- Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt
against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the
country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia
succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major
power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian
Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour
into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from
the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe
and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the
privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the
violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever
fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000
nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the
country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however,
Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a
wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the
greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this
threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. Lack of attention to the threat of civil wars by U.S.
policymakers and academics has meant a lack of response and policy options. This does not mean, however, that Washington can or should do
nothing at all. As a first measure, American policymakers should work with governments of threatened states to prevent domestic conflict from
erupting. Though the inadvertent side effects of internal conflicts cannot be deterred, the outbreak of civil war itself may be discouraged. Doing
so may require unambiguous and generous American support for a regime that finds itself under assault. Or it may require Washington to ease
out unsustainable leaders (the Philippines' Marcos or Indonesia's Suharto) once their time has clearly passed. Either way, the difficulties of
preventing internal war pale in comparison to the problems of coping with its effects. The United States should take action now to prepare
itself for civil war in key states. To respond to conflict in Mexico, Washington will need feasible evacuation plans for hundreds of thousands of
Americans in that country. Contingency plans for closing the Mexican-American border should be considered. And the possibility of a Mexican
civil war raises the issue of American intervention. How and where the United States would enter the fray would of course be determined by
circumstances, but it is not premature to give serious thought to the prospect. To guard against a conflict in Saudi Arabia, the United States
should lead the effort to reduce Western dependence on Saudi oil. This will require a mixed strategy, including the expansion of U.S. strategic
oil reserves (which could be done now, while Saudi oil is cheap and available), locating new suppliers (such as the Central Asian republics), and
reviving moribund efforts to find oil alternatives. None of this will be easy, especially in an era of dollar-a-gallon gasoline, but it makes more
sense than continuing to rely on an energy source so vulnerable to the ravages of civil war. For Russia, America must reduce the chances that
civil conflict there will unleash nuclear weapons against the United States. First, Washington must do more to
reduce the amount of nuclear weapons and fissionable material that could be lost, stolen, or used in the chaos of civil war. The Nunn-Lugar
program, under which the United States buys Russian nuclear material to use and store in America, is a good start, but it must be accelerated.
America should not worry about making a profit on the plutonium and enriched uranium it buys, but just get the goods out of Russia as fast as
possible. Second, arms control initiatives that may have been unpalatable during the Cold War should now be reconsidered, given the risk of
accidental or unauthorized launchings. American policymakers should contemplate agreements to reduce the total number of Russian (and
American) nuclear weapons, to deprive the Russians of the ability to quickly launch a nuclear strike (for example, by contracting to store
warheads away from missiles), and should intensify efforts to develop an effective defense against missile attacks.
Russian Relations Good – War
Relations solve nuclear war and turn every impact
Cohen 12 (Stephen A., Professor of Russian Studies – New York University, “America's Failed (BiPartisan) Russia Policy”, Huffington Post, 2-28, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-f-cohen/usrussia-policy_b_1307727.htm l?ref=politics&ir=Politics)
First: Today, as before, the road to America's national security runs through Moscow. No
other U.S. bilateral relationship is more
vital . The reasons should be known to every policymaker, though they seem not to be: - Russia's enormous stockpiles of
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction make it the only country capable of destroying the U nited
S tates as well as the only other government, along with our own, essential for preventing the proliferation of
such weapons. - There is also Russia's disproportionate share of the world's essential resources, not only oil and natural gas but
metals, fertile land, timber, fresh water and more, which give Moscow critical importance in the global economy . In addition, Russia remains the world's largest territorial country. In particular, the geopolitical significance of its location on the
Eurasian frontier of today's mounting conflicts between Western and Eastern civilizations, as well as its own millions of
Islamic people, can hardly be overstated. - Not to be forgotten are Russia's talented and nationalistic people, even in bad times, and
their state's traditions in international affairs. This too means that Russia will play a major role in the world. - And, largely as a result of these
circumstances, there
is Moscow's special capacity to abet or to thwart U.S. interests in many regions of the
world, from Afghanistan , Iran , North Korea and China to Europe , the entire Middle East and
Latin America . In short, these inescapable realities mean that partnership with Russia is an American national
security imperative.
Semi Conductors
2NC
CIR and visas key to Semiconductor dominance
Rosso 13
[Dan, journalist for the Semiconductor Industry Association, “Senate Immigration Reform Bill Would
Help Spur Semiconductor Industry Growth, Innovation,” PR Newswire, 4/17,
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/senate-immigration-reform-bill-would-help-spursemiconductor-industry-growth-innovation-203400651.html]
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA),
representing U.S. leadership in semiconductor manufacturing and
design, today applauded the introduction of bipartisan Senate legislation that would reform America's
high-skilled immigration system by allowing graduate students born outside the United States to apply for a green card and
remain in the U.S. after receiving an advanced degree in a science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) discipline from an American
university, and by expanding the H-1B visa program. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act of 2013 was introduced today by the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" – Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Robert Menendez
(D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) – and now awaits
action from the Senate Judiciary Committee. ¶ "For
too long, America's outdated high-skilled immigration system
has been an obstacle to U.S. innovation, job creation and economic growth," said Brian Toohey, president and
CEO, Semiconductor Industry Association. "The
Gang of Eight legislation marks a critical and long-overdue step
toward fixing this broken system so that companies in the U.S. semiconductor industry and
throughout the broader technology sector have access to the best and brightest minds from around
the world. SIA commends the bipartisan group in the Senate for developing this compromise legislation, and we look forward to continuing
to work with leaders in Congress to improve the bill further throughout the legislative process."¶ The legislation would exempt
from the green card cap foreign nationals who graduate from an American university with a master's
degree in a STEM field or a Ph.D., allowing these students to apply for a green card and remain in the U.S. after receiving their
advanced degree. Under current law, many of these students are forced to leave the U.S. after graduation,
causing the U.S. to forfeit much-needed jobs and expertise to our competitors abroad.¶ The bill also
would expand the H-1B visa program for highly educated workers who want to fill open jobs in the
U.S. Earlier this month, the U.S. government reached the H-1B visa limit within one week of accepting
applications, illustrating the overwhelming demand for skilled immigrant workers in the high tech community.¶
Additionally, the legislation would ramp up efforts to increase the number of American STEM
graduates by raising employer green card fees to generate revenue for strengthening targeted STEM
education programs.¶ "The country's need for highly skilled and educated workers has never been
greater, and the time for meaningful immigration reform is now ," said Toohey. " This legislation helps
move the ball forward ; now we must work together to get high-skilled immigration reform over the goal line."
Key to radiation hardening
Lieberman 3 (Joseph, United States Senator, “White Paper: National Security Aspects of the Global
Migration of the U.S. Semiconductor Industry”, 6-5,
http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=86505&keyword=&ph rase=&contain=)
The Pentagon's Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) has warned that the Department of Defense
(DoD) faces shrinking advantages across all technology areas due to the rapid decline of the U.S. semiconductor
industry, and that the off-shore movement of intellectual capital and industrial capability, particularly in
microelectronics, has impacted the ability of the U.S. to research and produce the best technologies and
products for the nation and the war-fighter. This global migration has also been discussed in a recently
released National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences report on the U.S. semiconductor
industry, which details the significant growth in foreign programs that support national and regional
semiconductor industries. This support is fueling the structural changes in the global industry, and
encouraging a shift of U.S. industry abroad.
CRITICAL NATIONAL SECURITY APPLICATIONS
Studies have shown that numerous advanced defense applications now under consideration will require highend components with performance levels beyond that which is currently available. These cutting-edge
devices will be required for critical defense capabilities in areas such as synthetic aperture radar,
electronic warfare, and image compression and processing. Defense needs in the near future will also be
focused on very high performance for missile guidance ("fire and forget"), signal processing, and
radiation-hardened chips to withstand the extreme environments of space-based communications and tactical
environments. There are profound needs for much more advanced onboard processing capabilities for
unmanned aerial vehicles undertaking both reconnaissance and attack missions, for cruise missiles and
ballistic missile defense, and for the infrastructure that connects these systems.
As the military transforms to a "network-centric" force in the future, the DoD's Global Information Grid
will demand extremely high-performance computation to overcome the technical barriers to a seamless
communication network between terrestrial 24 and 48 color optical fiber and satellite platforms
transmitting in 100+Mbps wireless. Such performance will also be necessary for "last-mile" extremely
high-speed connectivity to platforms and to the soldier in the field, as well as for the high-speed
encryption requirements for a secure communication system. Intelligence agencies will increasingly
need the most advanced chips for very high-speed signal processing and data analysis, for real-time data
evaluation, for sensor input and analysis, and for encryption and decryption.
As studies for DARPA have indicated, the next several generations of integrated circuits, which emerge
at roughly eighteen-month intervals as predicted by Moore's Law, offer the potential for exponential
gains in defense war-fighting capability. It is erroneous to believe that future U.S. war-fighting capability
will be derived from chips one or two generations behind current state-of-the-art technology. Many of
the integrated circuits and processing platforms that are coming in to use, and which are at the heart of
DoD defense strategies, are clearly at the cutting edge in their capabilities.
With the dramatic new capabilities enabled by rapidly evolving chip technologies, DoD and the intelligence
agencies will need to be first adopters of the most advanced integrated circuits, and will be increasingly
dependent on such chips for a defense and intelligence edge. If the ongoing migration of the chip
manufacturing sector continues to East Asia, DoD and our intelligence services will lose both first access and
assured access to secure advanced chip-making capability, at the same time that these components are
becoming a crucial defense technology advantage. Informed elements of the intelligence community
therefore have made clear that relying on integrated circuits fabricated outside the U.S. (e.g. in China,
Taiwan and Singapore) is not an acceptable national security option.
Space weapons inevitable --- hardening is key to effectiveness --- solves global WMD
conflict --- particularly in South Asia
Miller 2 (John J., Senior Editor – National Review, “Our 'Next Manifest Destiny': America Should Move
to Control Space -- Now, and Decisively”, National Review, 7-15, Lexis)
The U nited S tates is the world's frontrunner in space, with about 110 military satellites in operation, compared with about 40 for
Russia and 20 for the rest of the world. Yet a leadership role in space is not the same as dominance, and the U nited S tates
today lacks the ability to defend its assets against rudimentary ASAT technology or to deny other countries their
own weapons in space. No country appears to be particularly close to putting weapons in orbit, though the Chinese are expected to
launch their first astronaut in the next year or two and they're working hard to upgrade their military space capabilities. "It would be a
mistake to underestimate the rapidity with which other states are beginning to use space-based systems to
enhance their security," says the just-released annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. At a U.N.
disarmament conference two years ago, Chinese officials called for a treaty to keep weapons out of space -- a possible sign that what they
really want is some time to play catch-up. The private sector also requires a secure space environment. When the Galaxy IV satellite failed in
1998, paging services shut down, affecting an estimated 44 million customers. Banks and credit-card companies also were affected, along with
a few television and radio stations. Saddam Hussein may lack the rocket power to lob a nuclear warhead halfway around the world, but he
could mount one on top of a Scud and fire it straight upward. A nuclear explosion in low orbit could disable scores of satellites and wreak havoc
on modern economies everywhere -- an example of space-age terrorism. Plenty of people inside the government already recognize how much
the United States relies on space. There's a U.S. Space Command headquartered in Colorado Springs, and each branch of the military is to some
extent involved in space power. In 1999, secretary of defense William Cohen called space power "as important to the nation as land, sea, and
air power." His successor, Donald Rumsfeld, chaired a commission on space and national security right before joining the Bush administration.
The panel's report, issued last year, warned of a "Space Pearl Harbor" if the country doesn't develop "new military capabilities." While Cohen's
rhetoric was fine, his boss, Bill Clinton, didn't seem to agree with it. Rumsfeld is friendly to the notion of space power, but President Bush so far
hasn't talked much about it. When Bush gave his missile-defense speech at the National Defense University a year ago, he spoke of land-, sea-,
and air-based defenses -- but made no mention of space. "A lot of us noticed that," says one Air Force officer. The Rumsfeld commission also
emphasized defense: how to protect American satellites from foreign enemies. It had almost nothing to say about offense: how to use space for
projecting American power around the globe. The commission was a creature of consensus, so this does not necessarily represent Rumsfeld's
own thinking. And defense certainly is important. Military satellites are tempting targets because they're so crucial to the United States in so
many ways. They are protected by their remoteness, but not much else. Their frail bodies and predictable flight paths are a
skeet shoot compared with hitting speedy ICBMs, an ability that the United States is just starting to master. They're also
vulnerable to jamming and hacking. Hardening their exteriors , providing them with some maneuverability, and having launchon-demand replacements available are all key ingredients to national security. Yet defense doesn't win wars. In the future, the
mere act of protecting these assets won't be enough to preserve American military superiority in space. In addition to an assortment of hightech hardware, the United States could use an Alfred Thayer Mahan for the 21st century. In 1890, Mahan was a captain in the Navy when the
first edition of his book, The Influence of Sea Power on World History, was published. Today it ranks among the classic texts of military theory.
Mahan argued that nations achieve greatness only if they dominate the seas and their various geographic "pressure points," holding up the
example of the British Royal Navy. One of Mahan's early readers was a young man named Theodore Roosevelt, who began to apply these ideas
while working in the Department of the Navy during the 1890s, and later as president. Mahanian principles shook the country loose from its
traditional strategy of coastal defense and underwrote a period of national dynamism, which included the annexation of Hawaii, victory in the
Spanish-American War, and the construction of the Panama Canal. No writer has clearly become the Mahan of space, though one candidate is
Everett C. Dolman, a professor at the Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, in Alabama. Dolman's new book Astropolitik offers a
grand strategy that would have the United States "endeavor at once to seize military control of low-Earth orbit" and impose "a police blockade
of all current spaceports, monitoring and controlling all traffic both in and out." Dolman identifies low-Earth orbit as a chokepoint in the sense
of Mahan -- anybody who wants access to space must pass through it. "The United States should grab this vital territory now, when there's no
real competition for it," Dolman tells me. "Once we're there, we can make sure the entry cost for anybody else wanting to achieve space
control is too high. Whoever takes space will dominate Earth." Dolman would benefit from a political benefactor. Mahan enjoyed the
patronage of Roosevelt, who took a scholar's ideas and turned them into policies. Space has a number of advocates within the military
bureaucracy, mostly among its younger members. It does not have a political champion, with the possible exception of Sen. Bob Smith, a New
Hampshire Republican who has made the subject a personal passion. Smith calls space America's "next Manifest Destiny" and believes the
Department of Defense should establish an independent Space Force to serve alongside the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Smith, however, may
not stay in the Senate much longer, facing stiff political challenges at home. With the right mix of intellectual firepower and political muscle,
the United States could achieve what Dolman calls "hegemonic control" of space. The goal would be to make the heavens safe for capitalism
and science while also protecting the national security of the United States. "Only those spacecraft that provide advance notice of their mission
and flight plan would be permitted in space," writes Dolman. Anything else would be shot down. That may sound like 21st-century imperialism,
which, in essence, it would be. But is that so bad? Imagine that the U nited S tates currently maintained a battery of space-based
lasers. India and Pakistan could inch toward nuclear war over Kashmir, only to be told that any attempt by either
side to launch a missile would result in a boost-phase blast from outer space. Without taking sides, the U nited S tates
would immediately defuse a tense situation and keep the skies above Bombay and Karachi free of mushroom clouds .
Moreover, Israel would receive protection from Iran and Iraq, Taiwan from China, and Japan and South Korea from
the mad dictator north of the DMZ. The U nited S tates would be covered as well, able not merely to deter aggression, but also to
defend against it.
IL – CIR K2 Semiconductor Industry
High skilled immigration key to semi-conductor leadership
Sweeney 8 (Eddie, Chair – Semiconductor Industry Association Semiconductor Workforce Strategy
Committee, “Need for Green Cards for Skilled Workers”, CQ Congressional Testimony, 6-12, Lexis)
The need for a U.S. innovation agenda is becoming more evident every day. Better, faster, and cheaper chips are driving increased productivity and create jobs
throughout the economy. For over three decades the industry has followed Moore's Law, under which the industry has doubled the number of circuits on a single
Given the ubiquity of semiconductor devices, and its central
position in the U.S. economy, it is critical that the U.S. continues to lead in this technology. Yet, increasingly
other nations are challenging along various points in the value chain. For example, in 2002 31 percent of new semiconductor
chip so that today the cost of making one million circuits is one penny.
manufacturing equipment was sold in the U.S., an indication that the U.S. was maintaining a reasonable share of leading edge semiconductor manufacturing
We are approaching a critical crossroad. The semiconductor
technology advances that have enabled the information age are projected to end around 2020 as we reach the
physical and other limits of our ability to pack more circuits on each semiconductor chip using current technology. At that point,
revolutionary new nanotechnologies will be needed. The basic research discoveries on which these new technologies depend
must be made today if the technologies will be available for commercialization about a decade from now. Simply
put, as we approach the fundamental limits of the current technology which has driven the high tech industry, the country whose companies are
first to market in the subsequent technology transition will likely lead the coming nanoelectronics era the way the U.S. has
led for half a century in microelectronics. Immigration reform plays a critical role in ensuring that America earns
this leadership position. With this broader context in mind, I would now like to move to the specifics of the immigration issue, focusing on three specific
capacity. Today, a mere five years later, only 16 percent is sold in the U.S.
topics: --The critical role that immigrants play in maintaining U.S. leadership and how U.S. immigration policy is undermining our ability to compete; --SIA's work
Immigrants play a
critical role in maintaining U.S. leadership, yet U.S. immigration policy undermines our ability to compete The
with the IEEE-USA to develop a consensus position on green card reform, and --SIA's support for the H.R. 5882, H.R. 5921, and H.R. 6039.
number of foreign engineers hired by the semiconductor industry is relatively small - about 1,628 new H-1B hires (as opposed to lateral hires) in 2007. The number
would, of course, be larger if the H-1B was not subject to a cap, but even in past years when the cap was substantially higher, the industry's H-1B hires were around
3,000. The relatively small numbers belie the important role that foreign workers play in the success of the semiconductor companies. Foreign
nationals
comprise half of the masters and 71 percent of the PhDs gradating from U.S. universities in the engineering
fields needed to design and manufacture the complex circuits that are embodied in silicon chips. They play an
important role in performing the research to continue to increase the density of circuits on each chip, finding ways to
lower manufacturing costs, developing and launching new products, and providing applications expertise to help
customers to design-in new semiconductors in their electronic systems . By lending their particular talents, our foreign employees
are creating the jobs in other parts of the company such as administration and production. Since foreign workers are vital to the success of
semiconductor companies, they try to incorporate them as a permanent part of the workforce. SIA's workforce committee survey found that
companies are seeking permanent resident status for 97% of their HB hires . The caps on green cards are thus a
major problem for the industry. The industry is currently seeking permanent residency for about 3,800 employees. About 20% of these employees
were hired four or more years ago. While waiting, these employees continue to be under the restrictions of the H-1B visas program such as limitations
on their ability to move or be promoted and on their spouse's ability to work. Needless to say, individuals become frustrated and some seek
alternatives - either with another employer or with the same employer's offshore operations. One SIA member, LSI Corporation, reported that within the past
year it had six employees leave the country based on the fact that they grew tired of the green card process, several of whom went to work for another company.
Another SIA company, Texas Instruments reports that four years ago it hired a design engineer with a masters in electrical engineering from Georgia Tech. He is now
the lead designer on some key new products in a growing business segment and his impact on net revenue has been close to $1.75M with projections to go up to
$5M in the next few years. He was hired on an H-1B visa while awaiting permanent resident status. Originally from India, he likely faces several more years of wait
time. My company, National Semiconductor, has a Product Quality Management engineer with a masters degree from the University of Texas at Arlington who is an
Indian national. He was hired in 2001 and had worked at National Semiconductor's chip fabrication plant in Arlington, Texas for 6 years. His skill and expertise from
working at this facility made him an ideal candidate for a position that National had open for over six months which involved ensuring that new products can be
efficiently manufactured at National's factories. A number of American jobs in our product design group and our factories depend on the efforts of this engineer.
Since the position involved a promotion and relocation, the person had to start the green card process anew last year and absent passage of green card reform bills
will likely face another four years of waiting. Our problems are not restricted to nationals facing country quota backlogs. National Semiconductor hired a design
engineer 5 years ago with a masters degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University. Originally from France, he is a lead designer providing critical high
speed analog design knowledge that will allow future cell phone towers to handle more data. These products are providing approximately $2M annual revenue,
with a projected cumulative revenue of $15M over the next five years. He was hired on an H-1B visa and soon after a traditional labor certification application was
filed on his behalf. However the Labor Department did not respond with recruitment instructions until last year, slowing the process considerably. His application
Many U.S. companies are finding
"work around" solutions that often involve R&D sites overseas, meaning that the downstream benefits are not
flowing to the U.S. economy. We may be seeing evidence of work-arounds in the semiconductor industry, as the
for an Adjustment of Status (I-485) was finally able to be filed last summer, but he is still waiting for an approval.
percent of H-1Bs hired compared to total college hires has dropped from 57% in 2005 to 40% in 2007. The decrease is not a result of universities graduating a
smaller percent of foreign students. A more likely explanation is that companies are hiring foreign students and placing them at offshore facilities. Other nations
recognize the dilemma facing U.S. companies and their foreign national employees. The European Commission has recently announced its intent to issue "blue
cards" which were inspired by our green cards. In announcing the plan to provide a fast and easy path to stay in Europe, the President of the European Commission
declared "With the EU Blue Card we send a clear signal: Highly skilled people from all over the world are welcome in the European Union." SIA work with the IEEEUSA on broader reform Last summer, following the Senate's determined but ultimately unsuccessful effort to pass a comprehensive immigration package, the SIA
concluded that the problems created by our current outdated policies regarding highly skilled immigration were too important to abandon and decided to consider
new approaches to the issue. Given the difficult political issues surrounding changes to immigration policy, SIA determined that it is all the more important for
parties with different viewpoints to come together and seek common understanding. With this in mind, the SIA approached the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers - United States of America (IEEE-USA), an organization whose differences with high tech associations on H-1B issues were often highlighted in
media stories. Electrical and electronics engineers design the complex circuits that are embodied in silicon chips, and represent about half of the semiconductor
industry's engineering workforce, making the IEEE- USA an appropriate organization to engage. IEEE-USA agreed to work with SIA to define areas of common ground
focused on the ability of highly-talented individuals to get permanent resident status (green cards) in an expedited manner. In October 2007, SIA and IEEE-USA sent
a letter to the House Judiciary Committee majority and minority leadership supporting efforts to attract and retain foreign professionals with advanced degrees in
STEM fields as legal permanent residents. The letter specified that SIA and
IEEE-USA both "support legislation that will strengthen
America's high tech workforce by: --Raising the employment-based immigrant visa cap, including an exemption for foreign
professionals with advanced degrees in STEM fields from U.S. universities,
Semiconductor Leadership Good – Alt Energy
Semiconductor leadership is key to alt energy adoption
Dewey and LeBoeuf 9 (Law Firm – Semiconductor Industry Association, “Maintaining America’s
Competitive Edge: Government Policies Affecting Semiconductor Industry R&D and Manufacturing
Activity,” Semiconductor Industry Association, White Paper, March, http://www.siaonline.org/galleries/default-file/Competitiveness_White_Paper.pdf)
In addition to the direct and indirect economic benefits of the semiconductor industry itself,
semiconductors are a key technology for addressing the energy challenges that face the United States and the
world. Semiconductors will enable society to harness alternative energy sources more effectively, distribute it
efficiently and intelligently and consume it in the most efficient manner , providing an important component to
our nation’s efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change and to increase our
energy security. Applications include power management and virtualization in computers and data centers,
electronic controlled efficient motors in factories, light emitting diodes to replace compact florescent and
incandescent bulbs in offices and homes, plug-in electric vehicles on highways, solar panels and wind turbines
generating electricity, smart meters and sensors monitoring power lines .
Semiconductors already are responsible for significant energy savings, and further advances in chip
technology could greatly increase energy efficiency. In the home, semiconductor-enabled motor
control technologies increasingly allow consumers to use smaller, more efficient motors with greater
levels of performance in many household appliances, including refrigerators, dishwashers, and washing
machines.
Similarly, the dramatic improvements in automobile fuel efficiency and emissions control that have
been witnessed over the past decades have largely been delivered by changes in engine control
electronics. Today’s vehicles have countless chip-enabled features such as gasoline direct injection,
knock detection, oxygen sensors, exhaust gas recirculation, evaporative emission control systems,
misfire detection, and secondary air systems. Semiconductors also play an integral role in energyefficient hybrid cars and further advances in semiconductor technology will be critical to expanding the
utility of plug-in electric vehicles by substantially extending their range and performance.
Going forward, further advances in chip technology could produce substantial additional energy efficiencies .
Semiconductor technologies are currently in development that would allow a mobile phone to run off a
single battery for extended periods of time, perhaps even years. Advances in chip technologies are also
being applied to solar power systems. This will enable tomorrow’s laptops and other more power intensive
portable devices to recharge using solar power and to operate in dim ambient indoor light.
Semiconductor technology advances in two areas of data center server activity (computation and
memory) have the potential to significantly lower the energy used and heat generated by servers.
During computations, which account for about 35 percent of a server’s energy draw, new chip
technologies allow those parts of the processor and the server not fully engaged in an application to
transition to draw reduced amounts of energy. Meanwhile new chips can also reduce energy use by up
to 40 percent, even in the less energy-intensive memory arena. In addition to the direct energy savings
resulting from these chip-enabled server and system efficiencies in today’s data centers, chip
technologies also improve the efficiency of the industrial cooling systems that are used to ensure
optimal data center service and also allow intelligent sensing, control and communication capabilities to
exist in the other equipment found in the data center.
Industrial applications of new energy-saving chip technologies could improve energy efficiency in
industrial settings by up to 88 percent due to more efficient motor control and power management.
Chip-enabled motion and video sensors are increasingly being used in commercial and industrial
settings to control lights and heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems based on movement
within a room or building. Such smart facilities take on the task of making sure the environment is
suitable for the worker while saving energy.
Semiconductors also play a key role in the electronics used in both solar and windgenerated power systems ,
including solar inverters and wind turbines, which convert direct current from solar panels or turbines into
usable household alternating current. With the latest chip technologies, system efficiency is maximized so
it can be productive even on cloudy and low wind days. Chip technologies are also being researched to
better use solar power – both natural sunlight and indoor ambient – in recharging the batteries of portable
devices. The advances in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies already achieved, and those
projected for the future, all depend on continued innovation in semiconductor technology , as discussed
below.
Extinction
Wood 10 (Duncan, Director – Program in International Relations and Canadian Studies Program –
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico
Cooperation in Renewable Energies,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars – Mexico
Institute, May,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/U.S.%20Mexico%20Cooperation%20in%20Renewable%20En
ergies.pdf)
It is by now common knowledge that the world is facing a climate change crisis caused by the effects of fossil
fuel driven industrialization. A significant rise in global temperatures, combined with more severe weather
conditions, more frequent floods and droughts, are bringing a paradigm shift to the way we think about our
relationship with the planet. For the first time in over 150 years policy makers are thinking seriously about
decreasing dependency on fossil fuels and looking for alternatives that may be more expensive in the
short and medium terms, but ultimately more sustainable. 7 All of this has happened at the same time
as two other, related phenomena. The first is that the global population is reaching new highs and by 2040‐
50 will total over 9 billion people. Experts predict that 85% of the world’s population will be located in the
developing world, which will mean a rapidly growing demand for goods and for energy . Both of these factors
will result in a need to increase energy efficiency as well as find new sources of energy. What’s more, this
massive jump in population will coincide not only with climate change but also with increasingly difficult
conditions for hydrocarbons exploration and production. As most of the world’s “easy” oil has already
been discovered, oil companies and nation states are turning to alternatives such a non‐conventional oil
reserves (tar sands, complex fields) and reserves that in the past would have been considered
unrecoverable, such as in very deep ocean waters. Furthermore, political conditions in many of the
world’s oil rich regions are uncertain, unstable and often unfriendly to private oil companies and to the
countries of the West. Climate change and natural disasters The urgency of finding alternatives to fossil fuels
has been confirmed in recent years by mounting scientific evidence that we are undergoing a noticeable
anthropogenic shift in the world’s weather and temperature. Not only are a range of indicators showing that
the planet is warming, but the retreat of the polar ice caps, the melting of glaciers, and most importantly in the
short term extreme weather conditions and increased incidence of natural disasters have highlighted the
consequences of maintaining the status quo in our patterns of energy consumption and industrial
development. It is estimated that we have experienced a 1 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures
over the past 100 years and that by the end of the current century global temperatures may have risen
by as much 7 or 8 degrees. Even with the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is contemplated by
the most ambitious mitigation strategies, global temperatures may rise by as much as 6%. This would
have a dramatic and disastrous impact on both developed and developing nations and will threaten the
existence of both humans and animal and plant species. Though the connection between man‐made
greenhouse gases and global warming was denied for many years by industry and governments alike, it
has now been accepted that something must be done to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases
released into the atmosphere. Given that 86% of all global energy comes from fossil fuels, and that
these fossil fuels produce 27,000,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually, finding alternative sources of
energy is a crucial component of climate change mitigation strategies.
Semiconductor Leadership Good – Economy
Semiconductor leadership is key to the economy – jobs and exports
Dewey and LeBoeuf 9 (Law Firm – Semiconductor Industry Association, “Maintaining America’s
Competitive Edge: Government Policies Affecting Semiconductor Industry R&D and Manufacturing
Activity,” Semiconductor Industry Association, White Paper, March, http://www.siaonline.org/galleries/default-file/Competitiveness_White_Paper.pdf)
The semiconductor industry is critically important to the U nited States. It is the second largest U.S. exporting
industry, a major source of high-wage employment, a stimulus to development in a number of U.S. regions, and
provides critical enabling technology for the rest of the U.S. and global economy, for national defense, for
lowering the cost and improving the delivery of health care services and for advancing overall quality of life .
Semiconductors are also the enabling technology that will allow increased efficiencies for alternative
energy sources, a new Smart Grid to distribute electricity, and applications such as power management
that reduce energy consumption. The U.S. semiconductor industry directly employs about 200,000 people in
the United States and is the world semiconductor market share leader with 48 percent of world wide sales.
Semiconductors have consistently been the first or second top U.S. export category over the past six years.
This export performance reflects the fact that 85 percent of global semiconductor consumption occurs
outside of the United States and 80 percent of the U.S. Industry’s sales are overseas. Despite this
business imperative to operate globally, about three-quarters of U.S. semiconductor industry R&D
spending, 77 percent of U.S.-owned production capacity, 51 percent of U.S. industry worldwide
employment, and 74 percent of the compensation and benefits paid by the U.S. industry are in the
United States today. The industry will be able to continue to generate these economic drivers in the U nited
S tates if appropriate U.S. government policies are pursued so that U.S. producers can compete on a level
playing field with their foreign competitors, whose cost structures have benefited from very favorable
foreign government tax policies and other incentives. Data indicate that an increasing number of the U.S.
semiconductor industry’s manufacturing and research facilities are being established outside the United States,
giving rise to concerns that the United States is in danger of losing this critical aspect of its technological
leadership. Overall, the share of worldwide wafer fabrication capacity in the United States has declined
from 42 percent in 1980 to 16 percent in 2007. This reflects the growth of indigenous semiconductor
industries in several Asian countries as well as a shift in the U.S. industry’s investment patterns over
time. While some analysts believe that it makes no difference whether this industry (or any other
industry) is located in the United States, that view is not shared abroad, where an intensive competition
is being waged by national and regional governments to attract semiconductor manufacturing and research and
development (“R&D”) investment. Companies – and governments – are operating in an increasingly
competitive global marketplace. In this environment, there is tremendous pressure for governments at all
levels to devise winning strategies to attract new investments. Economic development is a top priority
for most governments and the creation of a value proposition to attract foreign direct investment
involves many factors, including skills, available infrastructure, incentives, and tax policies. Successful
examples, both in the United States and outside the United States can be found in this paper. The
question for the United States is what needs to be done in order to be more competitive and attract
critical domestic and foreign investment in the United States.
Sustained growth solves extinction
Austin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident
Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6,
http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social
and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe,
from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests
that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is
the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust
in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern . China, until last year the world's
fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush
times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave
and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a
choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's
neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far
East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties
while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside
Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently
stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's
exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency
economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part
of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the
end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as
occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the
streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants,
largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades.
Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have
foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not
bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise
tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States,
unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world
leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a
big bang .
Semiconductor Leadership Good – EMP
Lack of hardened semiconductors encourages EMP attacks against the U.S.
Spring 94 (Baker, Researcher – Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG987.cfm)
In addition to ensuring the reliability of the existing stockpile, testing has other important and practical
uses. Nuclear tests will be required to field new systems as previous generations of weapons become
old and obsolete. No testing means no modernization, which means, ultimately, no nuclear stockpile.
Moreover, testing is used to "harden" conventional weapons and non-nuclear defenses by exposing
them to the effects of nuclear explosions. If these systems are not hardened, a regional adversary will be
tempted to explode a nuclear weapon in the air in order to knock out these non-nuclear systems. (The U.S. ability
to produce semiconductors that are hardened against the radiation emitted by nuclear weapons is weakening. For a
discussion of this alarming problem, see: Lt. Col. Bill Swiderek, "Evaluating the Viability of Rad-Hard Fab
Lines," Military & Aerospace Electronics, September 20, 1993, pp. 4, 14-15.)
An EMP attack is likely – it causes meltdowns, economic collapse, and resource
shortages
Cooper and Pfaltzgraff 12-14 (Henry F., Chairman of the Board of Directors of High Frontier and
Chairman Emeritus of Applied Research Associates – Empact America, and Robert L., President –
Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies –
Tufts University, “A Dangerous Gap in Our Defenses?,” National Review Online, 12-14,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255192/dangerous-gap-our-defenses-henry-f-cooperbrrobert-l-pfaltzgraff-jr)
The 2004 Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic
Pulse (EMP) Attack observed that a single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United
States will interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetic field and can produce a
damaging electromagnetic pulse over hundreds of square miles. This could shut down, for an indefinite period,
telecommunications and electrical-power grids, as well as the electronics-dependent transportation systems
that support the “just-in-time” marketing, manufacturing, and delivery of essentially all commodities upon
which we are dependent. It could cut off water and food supplies to urban areas and create chaos that would
return the United States to 19th-century life, but without the life support then provided by an indigenous
agricultural society. It could also hobble banking and related business transactions, which in turn could extend
the catastrophic effects into the global economy. Disabling even one of our critical infrastructure elements
would have severe consequences for others — effects from which advanced, technologically
interdependent societies might not easily recover.
This threat is not merely hypothetical. Several years ago, Iran tested a short-range ballistic missile in a way
that indicated an interest in developing an EMP capability. Even terrorists might purchase such missiles,
possibly armed with nuclear weapons. Furthermore, recent reports that Iran has agreed to install ballistic
missiles in Venezuela suggest that we could face a threat via future pathways across the Caribbean . This could
become a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet no national strategy addresses this threat or
underwrites a serious program to counter its effects — though such a capability would be possible as an
inexpensive adjunct to existing and planned missile-defense programs.
[Continues]
America’s current state of essentially complete vulnerability to the EMP threat is unacceptable , especially since
relatively inexpensive steps can be taken now to build missile-defense systems that would begin to
counter this 21st-century threat. Existing, already-funded programs will improve possible near-term
capabilities, which can begin initial operations by 2015. The confusion over what produced the vapor
trail off the California coast in early November, along with the potential threat from Venezuela, should
inspire action to fill a gap that, if unaddressed, could have catastrophic consequences for our security.
Semiconductor Leadership Good – Space
Semiconductor leadership is key to space colonization
Kranz 8 (Gene, Staff Writer – San Jose Mercury News, “Silicon Valley, the moon and Mars”, 5-14, Lexis)
NASA hosts a forum today in San Jose to preview its ambition to return America to the moon and propel
us to Mars and beyond. The setting is ideal - in the heart of Silicon Valley. Much of the innovation and
creativity in the nation's space program over the past 50 years can be tied directly to Silicon Valley, a model
for technical progress and economic growth. There's a tradition of space research leading to advances in
commercial technology, and of commercial technology benefiting space research . This reciprocal relationship
is as strong as ever today, bolstering this nation's position as a powerhouse of innovation. Leading-edge
research The collaboration is evident at NASA/Ames Research Center in Mountain View. Ames is
carrying out leading-edge research in high-performance computing, networking, advanced numbercrunching software, visual displays, 3-D graphics and artificial intelligence. Work is also under way on
tele-operations - linking the human touch to the work of a robot far off Earth - as well as telepresence
that allows a person to feel as if he or she is actually present in a different place or time. Projects like
these have the potential to create "disruptive technologies" benefiting humankind. The efforts support
NASA's aeronautical and space agenda, but they also have the potential to be spun off into commercial
technologies. Ames also runs a cooperative laboratory, dubbed CoLab, in which partnerships between
space agency projects and tech-savvy communities are fostered. In collaboration with Bay Area
entrepreneurs, CoLab is developing open-source software, permitting teams of NASA and non-NASA
participants to brainstorm and execute new initiatives in what's being called "participational space
exploration." For example, the social networking site and virtual community Second Life has been used
to engage the public in space exploration. In yet another collaboration, Ames and Google have signed a
Space Act Agreement to work together on a variety of challenging technical problems ranging from
large-scale data management and massively distributed computing to human-computer interfaces.
Ames is located amid the high-tech companies, universities and laboratories that define Silicon Valley.
It's natural that Silicon Valley would be at the forefront of blending space exploration with cutting-edge
information technology work. Space meets cyberspace. There's been a long and rich history of space
research leading to advances in commercial technology, with much of the spinoff benefits evident in the
valley. Reaching for the moon in the 1960s was not only a challenge for NASA, but also for early semiconductor
companies. Integrated circuitry had to be "space-qualified." That standard called for extremely high-quality
electronics, packing more power than ever before while being packaged in ultra-small formats. As companies
perfected production techniques, prices for integrated circuits dropped. Apollo's legacy The Apollo
program helped spur developments from cordless tools and hospital monitoring equipment to water
purification technologies. Even the Apollo flight simulator - which used a fraction of the computing
power of today's Microsoft Xbox or Nintendo game systems - can be linked to the popularization of
video games, now a multibillion-dollar industry. NASA marks its 50th anniversary this year. It's a good
time to reflect on the trailblazing space research that both drew from and helped stimulate this
country's technological aptitude. Bringing space down to Earth, for the benefit of our economy,
productivity and knowledge, can boost U.S. leadership in an increasingly competitive world.
Solves inevitable extinction
Carreau 2 (Mark, Winner – 2006 Space Communicator Award, MA in Journalism – Kansas State
University, “Top Experts See Space Study As Key to Human Survival”, The Houston Chronicle, 10-19,
Lexis)
With Apollo astronaut John Young leading the charge, top aerospace experts warned Friday that
humanity's survival may depend on how boldly the world's space agencies venture into the final frontier. Only a
spacefaring culture with the skills to travel among and settle planets can be assured of escaping a collision
between Earth and a large asteroid or devastation from the eruption of a super volcano, they told the World
Space Congress. "Space exploration is the key to the future of the human race," said Young, who strolled on the
moon more than 30 years ago and now serves as the associate director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. "We should be
running scared to go out into the solar system. We should be running fast." Scientists believe that an asteroid wiped out the
dinosaurs more than 60 million years ago, and are gathering evidence of previously large collisions. "The civilization of Earth
does not have quite as much protection as we would like to believe," said Leonid Gorshkov, an exploration strategist with RSC
Energia, one of Russia's largest aerospace companies. "We should not place all of our eggs in one basket."
Space Science
2NC
Visa limits send a signal that crushes international cooperation essential to space
science – certainty is key
Abbey and Lane 5 (George, Senior Fellow in Space Policy – Baker Institute and Neal, Professor of
Physics – Rice University, “United States Space Policy: Challenges and Opportunities”,
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications /wp_aaas_spacePolicy.pdf)
individuals are an integral part of the continued success of the U nited St ates in scientific
and technological endeavors, export controls inhibit precisely the type of study that attracts these talented individuals and the research collaboration
that benefits U.S. science and technology. While not the subject of this paper, the cumbersome and slow visa approval process
compounds the problem by making it much less attractive for foreigners to come to the United States to study, attend
conferences, or collaborate on research projects. In a survey of 126 institutions released in October of 2004, the Council of Graduate Schools found
Though these foreign-born
an 18-percent decrease in admissions of foreign graduate students in the fall of 2004 compared with the fall of 2003. The graduate school council expected actual
enrollments of new foreign graduate students to be down by an amount similar to the 18-percent fall in admissions.16 The NSB identifies three possible outcomes
of these trends in the growth and composition of the S&E workforce: “ The
number of jobs in the U.S. economy that require science
and engineering training will grow; the number of U.S. citizens prepared for those jobs will, at best, be level; and
the availability of people from other countries who have science and engineering training will decline , either
because of visa restrictions or because of intense global competition for people with these skills.”17 The NSB report also notes that actions taken today
to alter trends in the U.S. S&E workforce may require 10 to 20 years to take effect. “The students entering the science and engineering workforce in 2004 with
advanced degrees decided to take the necessary math courses to enable this career path when they were in middle school, up to 14 years ago. The students making
that same decision in middle school today won’t complete advanced training for science and engineering occupations until 2018 or 2020. If
action is not
taken now to change these trends, we could reach 2020 and find that the ability of U.S. research and education
institutions to regenerate has been damaged and that their preeminence has been lost to other areas of the
world.”18 Comparison between the U.S. and other industrial nations, as shown in Table 2, clearly illustrates this critical national problem. Concurrent with
these educational challenges, the
U nited S tates faces daunting demographic shifts. The American workforce is aging; over the past
20 years the prime-age (25–56) workforce grew 44 percent, but it will have zero growth over the next twenty years .19 In addition, the
increase in the share of workers with post–high school education grew 19 percent during the last twenty years and is projected to grow only 4 percent over the next
twenty years. These
statistics, when compared to numbers from the NSB’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, raise concern about future
S&E needs. The report notes that the number of jobs requiring S&E skills in the U.S. labor force is growing almost 5 percent per year. By comparison, the rest of
the labor force is growing at just over 1 percent. Before September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projected that S&E occupations would increase at
three times the rate of all occupations. The rise projected by the BLS was 2.2 million, representing a 47-percent increase in the number of S&E jobs by 2010. The
rates of increase between 1980 and 2000 ranged from 18 percent for the life sciences to 123 percent for jobs in math and computer science.20 The average age of
the S&E workforce is rising. Many of those who entered the expanding S&E workforce in the 1960s and 1970s (the baby boom generation) are expected to retire in
the next 20 years. The children of that generation are not choosing careers in S&E in the same numbers as their parents. During the 1950s and 60s, the U.S.
government invested heavily in research and development (R&D). Government research laboratories and agencies conducted a substantial amount of in-house
research. This led to the creation of a workforce with significant technical and management capabilities. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics had
outstanding technical skills and potential. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency, formed with Werner Von Braun and his team of scientists and engineers, was equally
well qualified. These two groups formed the nucleus of NASA. Within the contractor community, there was a highly qualified workforce that had conducted
aeronautical research from the end of World War II through the 1960s. They pushed the limits of aeronautical research with their aircraft and research vehicles and
arrived at the edge of space with the X-15. NASA grew to approximately 36,000 employees during the 1960s. That organization today employs approximately 18,000
people. Over
the past few years, the aerospace industry has been unable to develop the experienced workforce that
they had during the 19 60s due to consolidations and the absence of new programs. These are important factors in assessing
whether the skill base exists to implement a major new space program. ¶ [CONTINUES]¶ One of the most important questions plaguing the
the degree to which other nations will be invited to join the U nited S tates as true partners and to
participate in the early planning stages of future human exploration missions . President Bush, in his speech of January 14, 2004,
current NASA Plan is
appeared to invite other nations to share the challenges and opportunities of his vision and the new era of discovery. However, NASA leadership subsequently
contradicted that promise when then-NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe stated that the new space initiative was “very much going to be a U.S. led endeavor. That’s
our intent. And, again, much of what we had been directed and what the President envisions we do is to achieve this set of American, U.S. exploration
objectives.”23 This is not an invitation to partnership. Partnership, of course, does not exclude national objectives, but it does require a sharing of vision, objectives,
and commitments, at the earliest stages of planning. Otherwise, the United States cannot expect other nations to participate enthusiastically and to provide the
necessary staffing and funding. Based on the authors’ conversations, it is clear that scientists,
engineers, and policy makers around the
world perceive that the U nited S tates has no interest in bringing other nations into the planning process, though it
expects them to take on the operation of the space station and to provide assistance for other U.S.-led space efforts when asked. Given the present
limited U.S. capability to undertake a major program such as returning humans to the Moon and sending them,
eventually, to Mars, it is clear that international cooperation is necessary for these missions. Furthermore, even
if the United States had all the necessary resources, why would it make sense to go it alone in the scientific and human exploration of space? For
international cooperation to be a realistic possibility the U nited S tates will have to take a very different approach
to prospective partnerships, in tone and in substance . Whatever path the United States chooses to follow with its policies,
America does not have a future in space—human exploration, space science, or commercial space activities—
without considerable international cooperation. The degree of cooperation that will be necessary will not be
possible under current export control and other restrictive policies. The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle programs, as well as
many of the most successful robotic science missions, were accomplished with considerable international involvement and the free exchange of data and technical
information. Neither of these programs could have been successful under any other conditions. The
creation of complex systems, which operate in
support human life in a hostile environment, requires an international partnership, with
open discussions and sharing of information and technology. As important a role as these matters play in discouraging cooperation with
an integrated fashion in order to
the United States in space, the issue most threatening to cooperation may well be a growing international perception that the United States intends to control
space militarily. Although it is not the subject of this paper, military space policy is a matter of profound importance to the future of U.S. civilian space programs and
the space programs of other nations.24 In recent years, the United States has accelerated its efforts to put in place a primitive missile-defense system. The decision
was made apparently without any international consultation and before adequate R&D and testing had shown the feasibility of such a system. This action suggested
that the United States is impatient to signal to the rest of the world that it intends to treat space differently in the future than it has in the past. Many members of
Congress who have been advocating for a missile-defense system for several decades heartily endorsed the decision. Powerful industrial interests are also at stake.
Missile defense is only one aspect of the increased military use of space. “The Report of the Commission to Assess the United States National Security Space
Management and Organization,” published in 2001, identifies the importance of space to national security and outlines a series of recommendations for the future
of military space activities.25 The report proposes, among other things, that the military vigorously pursue capabilities that would enable the President to deploy
weapons in space “to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests.”26 This proposal represents a departure from President Kennedy’s
vision of 1962, when he vowed, “We shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.”27 Placing
offensive weapons in space would be a cause for alarm throughout the world and, in the context of the issues addressed in this paper, would create a major
obstacle to international cooperation in space. American companies could expect an even more restrictive U.S. export control policy. Such restrictions could further
damage commercial space activities and preclude the willingness of other nations to join U.S.-led programs for both human and robotic space science and
exploration missions. The placement of weapons in space would reinforce in the world community the feeling that the United States increasingly is basing its foreign
policy on unilateral initiatives. As such, it would severely impact the progress that has been made over the last fifty years towards multilateral international
cooperation. RECOMMENDATIONS The four barriers to progress in the U.S. space program described in this paper need not remain obstacles to future U.S. efforts in
remove them, the U nited S tates will need to
reassess current space policy and, where necessary, make corrections. The world has changed in fundamental ways in the forty years since
space commerce, science and technology, and human exploration. However, in order to
President Kennedy challenged the American people to take humans to the Moon and return them safely to Earth. The fear of the Cold War adversary, the Soviet
Union, has been replaced by a very different, largely decentralized, fear of terrorism. The response of the U.S. government to 9/11 has been to take visible
measures to improve the personal safety of American citizens. Some of those measures are placing unintended barriers in the way of progress for the U.S. space
program. There is no question that the United States must, as its highest priority, protect its citizens from attacks by terrorists and other hostile forces. However,
this can and should be accomplished in a manner that does not damage other national interests. Get Knowledge In and Peaceful Technologies Out The
U nited
S tates should base its export control and visa policies on reason and common sense. Clearly, the government must identify and protect
critical technologies, but policies should recognize that the strength of U.S. industry depends on its ability to compete effectively in the world market. This requires
exporting goods and cooperating with other countries when doing so is beneficial to American companies. Just as clearly, the United States should prevent
individuals who intend to do harm from entering the country; however, the government should put in place a rational and efficient process for making that
determination. The
future vitality of the U.S. aerospace industry in the increasingly competitive world market and
the ability of the U nited S tates to undertake major cooperative space-science and human-exploration endeavors,
as suggested by the President, depend on the revision of American export controls and other overly restrictive policies. The
international community believes that U.S. rules currently display arrogance and a mistaken assumption that
the development of advanced technologies is unique to the U nited S tates. That the United States is alone in its level of technological
development clearly is not the case, nor has it been for some time. The United States must protect its citizens and prevent the proliferation of potentially dangerous
technologies. However, restrictions on U.S. products are ineffective, even counterproductive, when substitutes for regulated products exist on the world market. In
this situation, embargos and regulations serve no purpose. The United States should identify satellite technologies and processes that are unique and vital to
national security interests, hence appropriate for licensing by the State Department under ITAR. All other exports of satellites and satellite components and
technologies should be licensed by the Commerce Department. If rational steps are taken to review and modify the U.S. policy on export controls, not only will
satellite and related industries be better positioned to compete in the world space market, but such actions might also foster U.S. cooperation with other nations in
space activities. As the United States prepares for future space science and human exploration, possibly with an expanded role for industry, as outlined in “A
Journey to Innovate, Inspire, and Discover,” the report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, the best route
will be through strong international cooperation, where collaborators share the costs as well as the benefits.28 While the commission did not address export
controls, a serious weakness of their report, it is clear that present export control policies should be changed.
Effective space science solves extinction
Killeen 5 (Timothy L., Director – National Center for Atmospheric Research, “NASA Earth Science”, CQ
Congressional Testimony, 4-28, Lexis)
The first example is probably well known to you. The ozone
"holes" in the Antarctic and Arctic were monitored from space by various NASA
satellite systems, including the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). The diagnosis of the physical and chemical mechanisms responsible for these
dangerous changes to our protective ozone shield was made possible by the combination of observations, modeling, and theory supported by NASA. In fact, it was a
NASA high-altitude aircraft that made the "smoking gun" measurements that convinced the scientific and policy
communities that chlorine compounds produced by various human activities were centrally responsible for the observed ozone loss.
Following these observations, international protocols were put in place that are beginning to ameliorate the globalscale ozone loss. The TOMS instrument has provided an ongoing source of data that permits us to track the level of ozone in the stratosphere, the annual
opening and closing of the "ozone hole," and how this phenomenon is changing over time. These continuing measurements and analyses and the
effective regulatory response have led, among other things, to a reduction in projected deaths from skin cancer worldwide. Last week,
President Bush mentioned proposed rules to limit air pollution from coalfired power plants. Air pollution is clearly an important concern. NASA
has played a major role in the development of new technologies that can monitor the sources and circulation
patterns of air pollution globally. It is another tremendous story of science serving society through innovation. In this case, through an international
collaboration, NASA deployed a one-of-a-kind instrument designed to observe global carbon monoxide and its transport from the NASA Terra spacecraft. These
animations show the first global observations of air pollution. Sources of carbon monoxide include industrial processes (see, for example, source regions in the
Pacific Rim) and fires (for example in Amazonia). These global-scale data from space have helped change our understanding of the relationship between pollution
and air quality - we now know that pollution is not solely or even primarily a local or regional problem. California's air quality is influenced by industrial activity in
Asia, and Europe's air quality is influenced by activities here in America. From such pioneering work, operational
systems can now be designed to
observe pollution events, the global distribution of chemicals and particulate matter in the atmosphere, and the ways in which
these substances interact and affect the ability of the atmosphere to sustain life - such a system will undoubtedly underpin future
efforts to understand, monitor, and manage air quality globally. Without NASA's commitment to innovation in the Earth sciences, it
is hard to believe that such an incredible new capability would be available today.
The Promise of Earth Observations in the Next Decade The achievements of
the last several decades have laid the foundation for an unprecedented era of discovery and innovation in Earth system science. Advances in observing technologies have been accompanied by vast improvements in computing and data processing. When the Earth Observing System
satellites were being designed, processing and archiving the data was a central challenge. The Terra satellite produces about 194 gigabytes of raw data per day, which seemed a daunting prospect at the time of its definition. Now laptop memories are measured in gigabytes, students can
work with remote sensing datasets on their laptops, and a large data center like NCAR increases our data holdings by about 1000 gigabytes per day. The next generation of high performance computing systems, which will be deployed during the next five years or so, will be petascale
systems, meaning that they will be able to process millions of gigabytes of data. The ongoing revolution in information technology has provided us with capabilities we could hardly conceive of when the current generation of Earth observing satellites was being developed. We have just
begun to take advantage of the synergies between these technological areas. The U.S., through NASA, is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this technological opportunity. Example 3: Weather Forecasting Weather forecasting in the Southern Hemisphere has been dramatically
improved through NASA's contributions, and this experience illustrates the power of remote sensing for further global improvements in weather prediction. The lack of surface- based data in the Southern Hemisphere once meant that predictive skill lagged considerably behind that
achieved in the Northern Hemisphere. The improvement in the accuracy of Southern Hemisphere weather forecasting is well documented and almost entirely due to the increased use of remote-sensing data. But improvements in the quality of satellite data were not sufficient.
Improvements in data assimilation a family of techniques for integrating observational results into predictive models were also necessary. The combination has resulted in rapid improvement in Southern Hemisphere forecasting, which is now nearly equal to that in northern regions. Data
assimilation capabilities continue to advance rapidly. One can now easily conceive of forecast systems that will fuse data from satellites, ground-based systems, databases, and models to provide predictions with unprecedented detail and accuracy - perhaps reaching natural limits of
predictability. A new generation of weather forecast models with cloud-resolving spatial resolution is coming on line, and these models show significant promise for improving forecast skills across the board. Use of new NASA remote sensing data from upcoming missions such as Calipso
(Cloud- Aerosol and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite) and CloudSat will be essential to fully validate and tune these new capabilities which will serve the nation in providing improved hurricane and severe storm prediction, and in the development of numerous decision support systems reliant
on state-of-the-art numerical weather prediction capabilities. Example 4: Earth System Models Data from NASA missions are central to constructing more comprehensive and detailed models that will more realistically repres ent the complexity of the Earth system. Cloud observations
from MODIS (the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) and precipitation measurements from GPM (the Global Precipitation Mission), for example, are critical to improving the representation of clouds and the water cycle in such models. Observations from MODIS and
Landsat are fundamental to the development of more sophisticated representation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems and atmosphere-land surface interactions. The inclusion of this detail will help in the creation of true Earth system models that will enable detailed investigation of the
interactions of Earth system processes and multiple environmental stresses within physically consistent simulated systems. In general terms, Earth system observations represent the only means of validating Earth system model predictions. Our confidence in short-term, regional-scale
weather predictions is based on how closely they match observed regional conditions. Assessing the performance of global-scale, longer-term model predictions likewise depends on comparing model results with observational records. Scientific confidence in the ability of general
circulation models to represent Earth's climate has been greatly enhanced by comparing model results for the last century with the observational records from that period. At the same time, the sparse and uneven nature of past observational records is an ongoing source of uncertainty in
the evaluation of model results. The existence of much more comprehensive and consistent global measurements from space such as the data from the NASA Terra, Aqua, and Aura satellites is a giant step forward in this regard, and, if maintained, will enable much more rigorous
evaluation of model performance in the future. In summary, Earth system models, with increasing temporal and spatial resolutions and validated predictive capabilities, will be used by industry and governmental decision makers across a host of domains into the foreseeable future. This
knowledge base will drive new economies and efficiencies within our society. I believe that requirements flowing from the needs and capabilities of sophisticated Earth system models will be very useful for NASA in developing strategic roadmaps for future missions. C. The Im portance of
Careful Planning The central role of NASA in supporting Earth system science, the demonstrated success and impact of previous and current NASA missions, and the promise of continued advances in scientific understanding and societal benefits all argue for a careful, analytical approach
to major modifications in the NASA Earth science program. As noted above, the development of space systems is a time-consuming and difficult process. Today's actions and plans will have long-term consequences for our nation's capabilities in this area. The link between plans and
actions is one of the most important points I want to address today. From the outside, the interagency planning process seems to be experiencing substantial difficulties in maintaining this link. The NASA Earth science program is part of two major Presidential initiatives, the Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP) and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). With regard to the CCSP, it is not apparent that the strategies and plans developed through the interagency process are having much impact on NASA decision-making. In January 2004, thenAdministrator of NASA, Sean O'Keefe, called for acceleration of the NASA Glory mission because of the direct relevance of the mission to understanding the roles of aerosols in the climate system, which is one of the highest-priority science questions defined in the CCSP research strategy.
NASA is now proposing cancellation of the mission. As I have emphasized throughout this testimony, the progress of and benefits from Earth system science research are contingent upon close coordination between research, modeling, and observations. The close coordination of
program planning among the agencies that support these activities is also a necessity. This coordination currently appears to be fragile. The effect of significant redirections in NASA and reduction in NASA's Earth science effort are equally worrisome in the case of the Administration's
GEOSS initiative, which is focused on improving the international coordination of environmental observing systems. Both NASA and NOAA satellite programs are vital to this effort. The science community is very supportive of the GEOSS concept and goals. There are over 100 space-based
remote-sensing systems that are either operating or planned by various nations for the next decade. Collaboration among space systems, between space- and ground-based systems, and between suppliers and users of observational data is critical to avoiding duplication of effort and to
getting the most out of the investments in observing technology. The tragic example of the Indian Ocean Tsunami demonstrates the need for such coordination. The tsunami was detected and observed before hitting land, but the absence of effective communication links prevented
warnings from reaching those who needed them in time. A functioning GEOSS could lead to major improvements in the rapid availability of data and warnings, and the U.S. is right to make development of such a system a priority. But U.S. credibility and leadership of this initiative will be
called into question if our nation is unable or unwilling to coordinate and maintain the U.S. programs that make up the core of our proposed contribution. D. Answers to Questions Posed by the Committee My testimony to this point has outlined my views on a series of key issues for the
NASA Earth science program. Much of the text found above is relevant to consideration of the specific questions posed by the Committee in its letter of invitation. In this section, I provide more direct answers to these questions to the extent possible and appropriate. How should NASA
prioritize currently planned and future missions? What criteria should NASA use in doing so? I believe that NASA should work with the scientific and technical community and its partner agencies to define a NASA Earth science plan that is fully compatible with the overall CCSP and GEOSS
science strategies. In my view, the interaction with the scientific and technical community should include both input from and review by the National Research Council (NRC) and direct interaction with the strong national community of Earth science investigators and the aerospace
industry who are very familiar with NASA capabilities and developing technological opportunities. Competitive peer review processes should be used appropriately in assessing the merit of competing approaches and in key decision- making. I believe NASA should also find a means of
involving users and potential users of NASA-generated data in this process, perhaps through public comment periods or a series of workshops. Sufficient time should be allotted to this process for a careful and deliberative evaluation of options. This science plan should then guide the
process of setting mission priorities. Defining criteria to use in comparing and deciding upon potential missions would be a n important part of this planning exercise. I would recommend consideration of a set of criteria that include: -- compatibility with science priorities in the CCSP and
GEOSS science plans -- potential scientific return from mission -- technological risk -- direct and indirect societal benefits -- cost. I believe that the decadal planning activity underway at the NRC in response to a request from NASA and NOAA is a valuable step in this process. What are
the highest priority unaddressed or unanswered questions in Earth science observations from space? I believe this question is most appropriately addressed through the community process suggested above. There are many important Earth science questions, and prioritizing among them
is best done in a deliberative and transparent process that involves extensive input from and discussion by the science community. I would personally cite soil moisture, three-dimensional cloud characteristics, global vector tropospheric winds, pollutant characteristics and transport,
Earth science
programs have played a key role in developing our understanding of the Earth as a coupled system of inter- related parts, and in the
identification and documentation of a series of global-scale changes in the Earth's environment, including
carbon fluxes, and aerosol distributions as all high priority measurements to make on a global scale. What have been the most important contributions t o society that have come from NASA Earth sciences over the last decade (or two)? NASA
ozone depletion , land use and land cover change, loss of biodiversity , and climate change . Other examples of societal
contributions include improved weather forecasting, improved understanding of the large-scale climate variations, such as the El Nino- Southern Oscillation and the
North Atlantic Oscillation that alter seasonal patterns of rainfall, and improved understanding of the status of and changes in marine and terrestrial ecosystems that
contributes to more effective management of natural resources. What future benefits to the nation (societal applications) are possible that NASA Earth sciences
Earth science activities are
provide ongoing and accurate information about the status of and changes in the
could provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we fill before those future benefits are possible? In a broad sense, NASA
part of developing a global Earth information system that can
atmosphere, oceans, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems that sustain life , including the impact of human
activities. The continued development of observation systems, sophisticated Earth system models, data assimilation methods, and
information technologies holds the promise of much improved predictions of weather and climate variations and much more effective
prediction and warning of natural hazards. Much has already been accomplished to lay the groundwork for such a system, but many important
questions remain. Some of the most important have to do with the functioning and human alteration of the Earth's carbon,
nitrogen, and water cycles, and how these cycles interact; the regional manifestation of global scale climate change; and the reactions of ecosystems to
simultaneous multiple stresses.
Space Cooperation Good- Asteroids
International space cooperation is key to effective asteroid deflection --- solves
inevitable extinction
Schweickart 7 (Russell L., Formerr Apollo Astronaut and Chair – B612 Foundation, New York Times, 316, Lexis)
AMERICANS who read the papers or watch Jay Leno have been aware for some time now that there is a slim but real possibility -- about 1 in
45,000 -- that an 850-foot-long asteroid called Apophis
What few probably realize is that there are thousands
cause
severe damage, if not
could strike Earth with catastrophic consequences on April 13, 2036.
of other space objects that could hit us in the next century that could
total destruction . Last week two events in Washington -- a conference on ''planetary defense'' held by
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the release by NASA of a report titled ''Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection
Analysis of Alternatives'' -- gave us good news and bad on this front. On the promising side, scientists have a good grasp of the risks of a
cosmic fender-bender, and have several ideas that could potentially stave off disaster. Unfortunately, the government doesn't seem
to have any clear plan to put this expertise into action. In 1998, Congress gave NASA's Spaceguard Survey program a mandate of ''discovering,
tracking, cataloging and characterizing'' 90 percent of the near-Earth objects larger than one kilometer (3,200 feet) wide by 2008. An object
that size could devastate a small country and would probably
destroy civilization . The consensus at the conference was that the
initial survey is doing fairly well although it will probably not quite meet the 2008 goal. Realizing that there are many smaller but still terribly
destructive asteroids out there, Congress has modified the Spaceguard goal to identify 90 percent of even smaller objects -- 460 feet and larger
go a long way toward protecting life on the planet in
the future. The good news is that scientists feel we have the technology to intercept and deflect many asteroids headed
toward Earth. Basically, if we have early enough warning, a robotic space mission could slightly change the orbit of a dangerous
asteroid so that it would subsequently miss the planet. Two potential deflection techniques appear to work nicely together -- first we
-- by 2020. This revised survey, giving us decades of early warning, will
would deflect the asteroid with kinetic impact from a missile (that is, running into it); then we would use the slight pull of a ''gravity tractor'' -- a
satellite that would hover near the asteroid -- to fine-tune its new trajectory to our liking. (In the case of an extremely large object, probably
one in 100, the missile might have to contain a nuclear warhead.) To be effective, however, such missions would have to be launched 15 or
even 30 years before a calculated impact. The bad news? While this all looks fine on paper, scientists haven't had a chance to try it in practice.
And this is where NASA's report was supposed to come in. Congress directed the agency in 2005 to come up with a program, a budget to
support it and an array of alternatives for preventing an asteroid impact. But instead of coming up with a plan and budget to get the job done,
the report bluntly stated that ''due to current budget constraints, NASA cannot initiate a new program at this time.'' Representative Bart
Gordon, Democrat of Tennessee, was right to say that ''NASA's recommended approach isn't a credible plan'' and that Congress expected ''a
more responsive approach'' within the year. Why did the space agency drop the ball? Like all government departments, it fears the dreaded
''unfunded mandate''; Congress has the habit of directing agencies to do something and then declining to give them the money to do so. This is
understandable. But in this case, Congress not only directed NASA to provide it with a recommended program but also asked for the estimated
budget to support it. It was a left-handed way for the Congress to say to NASA that this is our priority like it or not. But for some reason NASA
seems to have opted for a federal form of civil disobedience. Another problem with the report was that, while it outlined other possibilities, it
estimated that using a nuclear-armed missile to divert an asteroid would be ''10 to 100 times more effective'' than non-nuclear approaches. It is
possible that in some cases -- such as an asteroid greater than a third of a mile across -- the nuclear option might be necessary. But for the
overwhelming majority of potential deflection cases, using a nuclear warhead would be like a golfer swinging away with his driver to sink a
three-foot putt; the bigger bang is not always better. Why the concern? First, even with good intentions, launching a nuclear-armed missile
would violate the international agreements by which all weaponry is banned from space. Second, the laws of probability say we would be
struck by such a large asteroid only once every 200,000 years -- that's a long time to keep a standing arsenal of nuclear asteroid-blasters, and
raises all sorts of possibilities of accidents or sabotage -- the old ''cure being worse than the disease'' phenomenon. In the end, of course, this is
not just America's problem, as an asteroid strike would be felt around the globe. The
best course is international
coordination on deflection technology, along with global agreements on what should be done if a
collision looks likely. Along these lines, the Association of Space Explorers, a group of more than 300 people from 30 nations who have
flown in space (of which I am a member), is beginning a series of meetings in cooperation with the United Nations to work out the outlines of
such an agreement. Still, as
with many global issues, little will be accomplished unless the U nited S tates takes the lead.
With the entire planet in the cross hairs , NASA can't be allowed to dither. If Congress's mandates and budget requests
aren't energizing the agency, perhaps public hearings would shame it into action.
Space Science Good – Extinction
NASA earth science programs are key to check extinction
Krishna Ramanujan, NASA Goddard, 6-3-2004, “NASA plans to put an Aura around the Earth,”
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Aura_feature1.html
When people search for conditions that might support life on other planets, one of the first things they look for is water. Right now, NASA is
searching for signs of water on Mars as a precursor to whether life may have been possible there. But the thin sliver of gases and air that make
an atmosphere around a planet is just as necessary for life to exist. The atmosphere traps air around our planet, making it
possible to breathe and to have a climate. It also regulates the temperature within a range that allows life to exist, and our ozone layer blocks
life-threatening ultraviolet radiation from the sun from reaching earth's surface. Earth's atmosphere sustains life in all these ways, and by the
thinnest margins. If a person could cruise at a speed of 60 miles an hour straight up, it would take just 6 minutes to exit the air we need to
survive. Considering the relatively delicacy of this thin protective film, understanding
our atmosphere goes hand in hand
with protecting life as we know it. On June 19, NASA will launch Aura, a next generation Earth-observing
satellite that will make global observations of the ocean of air that surrounds our planet. Aura will supply the best
information yet about the health of Earth's atmosphere. Answering Key Science Questions Aura will provide an essential
component for understanding changes in our climate, our air quality, and the ozone layer that protects life from harmful solar radiation. In
doing so, it will help answer some fundamental questions regarding climate change. One question that researchers have asked is: Is the
stratospheric ozone layer is recovering? International agreements, like the Montreal Protocol, have banned ozone destroying chemicals like
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), but scientists are unclear about the effectiveness of these treaties. Aura
will accurately detect global
levels of CFCs, and their byproducts, chlorine and bromine, which destroy the ozone layer. Another question that researchers
need more information to: What are the processes controlling air quality? Aura will help greatly to unravel some of these mysteries by tracking
the sources and processes controlling global and regional air quality. When ozone exists in the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, it acts as an
air pollutant. Gasoline and diesel engines give off gases in the summer that create ozone and smog. Aura will help scientists follow the sources
of ozone and its precursors. Finally, Aura will offer insights into the question: How is the Earth's climate changing? As the
composition of Earth's atmosphere changes, so does its ability to absorb, reflect and retain solar energy. Greenhouse gases, including water
vapor, trap heat in the atmosphere. Airborne aerosols from human and natural sources absorb or reflect solar energy based on color, shape,
size, and substance. The impact of aerosols, tropospheric ozone and upper tropospheric water vapor on Earth's climate remains largely unquantified, but now Aura will have the unique ability to monitor these agents.
Space Science Good – Ozone
NASA-led monitoring key to continued ozone recovery
Aerospace Daily ‘95
(7-21, Lexis)
NASA-funded research results showing a marked decline in an ozone- depleting chemical since an international
treaty limiting its production come at an opportune time for agency lobbyists. Researchers at MIT
reported in the journal Science last week that methyl chloroform concentrations have dropped at a rate of
about 2% a year since mid-1990, the first measured decrease in an ozone-depleting atmospheric chemical
since the Montreal Protocol was established as an attempt to protect stratospheric ozone levels. NASA,
which faces a determined attack by House Republicans on its Earth Observing System (EOS), was quick to
issue a press release highlighting its role in the MIT research. Both the ground-based methyl chloroform
study and EOS are funded through NASA's Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) effort. "Continued monitoring of
ozone and the chemicals involved in ozone depletion will be crucial over the next several decades to ensure
that the treaties continue to work, so that ozone levels ultimately recover ," Robert Harriss, head of the Science
Div. in the MTPE headquarters office, said in the agency press release yesterday.
Ozone depletion causes extinction
Greenpeace 95 (Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer - A Greenpeace Report with contributions from Ozone Action,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html)
When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between
c hloro f luoro c arbon s and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken
seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone
layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the ozone
layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause
cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other
living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes
are literally the continuation of life on earth.
A2: Impact Turns
General – Uniqueness Trick
Immigration inevitable – it’s a question of legal or illegal – CIR ensures legal
Cárdenas 13
[Vanessa, Vice President of Progress 2050 for the Center for American Progress, “Current and Estimated
Future Immigration Based on the Senate’s Immigration Reform Bill,” Center for American Progress
Immigration Team, 4/30,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/04/30/61942/current-andestimated-future-immigration-based-on-the-senates-immigration-reform-bill/]
The bipartisan Senate “Gang of 8” immigration bill, S. 744, which was introduced in the Senate on April 16, 2013, lays out a clear road
map to citizenship for the 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States and creates a system to handle future
immigration in an orderly and fair way. The bill clears the backlog of green cards that has meant decades-long waiting times for families to
reunite and for America to benefit from critically needed workers. Most
importantly , it moves what has been a chaotic
process of unauthorized entry into legal channels by combining increased border security and
workplace enforcement with enhanced legal means to enter the country.¶ Opponents of the bill have and will continue
to insist that S. 744 will bring in large numbers of immigrants in an attempt to scare the public. In reality, however, approximately 150,000 fewer
people will enter the country each year under the Senate plan. (see table below)¶ While it is true that up to 11 million people
will be provided a road map to citizenship, these people are already living here. Likewise, anyone currently waiting for a green card
on a backlog has already qualified for a visa based on family or employment sponsorship, so these
people will come regardless of immigration reform . S. 744 simply shortens the waiting times for families and employers. Even
accepting that some small number of unauthorized immigrants will arrive in the future, the United
States will still see fewer people entering the country each year once the Senate immigration plan
becomes law.¶ The Senate bill provides a coherent and controlled admissions process that will ensure
that those entering the United States come through orderly channels.
Ignore short-term, descriptive snapshots – immigration’s historical context means it’ll
increase and only actions like CIR can channel it positively
Franco 12
[Jimmy, syndicated Latin American blogger, “Immigration: An Inevitable Cycle of History,” LatinoPOV,
7/6, http://www.latinopov.com/blog/?p=5550]
The current migration of people from south to north must be viewed from a global and historical
perspective rather than through the narrow and present-day prism of specific political borders and
restrictive laws.¶ Recent laws and court decisions that are related to immigration issues such as Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB
56 are a political reaction to a historical movement of humankind that artificial borders cannot
permanently hold back . Attempts by the U.S. government and some of its states along with numerous European countries to
totally prevent the migration of people into their territories is similar to trying to stop water from
eventually flowing. An overall political solution is needed and not more anti-immigrant laws and racial hatred. The
historical migration of different groups of people on this planet from one region to another over
hundreds of thousands of years is an irreversible trend motivated by a basic instinct for survival that
can be slowed or temporarily stopped, but not prevented. Today, this international movement of people from
the ex-colonies of the south to the northern regions is being propelled by various factors . These
include the strong economic forces of global capitalism whose international division of labor is causing
a displacement of societies and families, political and military conflicts, and the quest by
impoverished and desperate people from the underdeveloped part of the world to seek work and
opportunities for their families in the more prosperous northern hemisphere. The recent surge of discriminatory laws that attempt to
restrict such immigration accompanied by an increase of right-wing groups who spew racial hatred are an attempt by political extremists to
stem this northward flow of people without providing any meaningful solution.
It’s coming – demographics and history
Laursen 13
[Stine B, immigration columnist, “Mobility: Past, Present and Future – Inevitable and Desirable,” The
Migrationist, 3/26, http://themigrationist.net/2013/03/26/mobility-past-present-and-future-inevitableand-desirable/]
The last part of the book entitled “Future” is undoubtedly the most controversial part. Unlike many academics, Goldin et al. are unafraid to
engage in predictions and prescriptions for the future and they set out to argue that future immigration is
necessary, desirable and inevitable . Based primarily on demographic forecasts for both the
developing and developed world, the authors conclude that immigration is unlikely to subside in the
21st century. On the contrary, since sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are likely to go through a
“population hump” where a large number of people enter the labour force at the same time, creating
migratory pressures and migration is likely to increase [2]. Simultaneously, the developed world is
experiencing declining fertility and an aging population, this will eventually result in a contraction of
the labour force as well as an increase in the dependency ratio between those active in the labour market and those
outside of it (children and the elderly). This will also create a need for labour in sectors that hard to automate or outsource
such as elderly and social care. These developments combined are likely to make immigration and human
mobility necessary and inevitable in the 21st century .
Mass immigration will only increase – economics
Franco 12
[Jimmy, syndicated Latin American blogger, “Immigration: An Inevitable Cycle of History,” LatinoPOV,
7/6, http://www.latinopov.com/blog/?p=5550]
Strong economic forces are driving this present migration ¶ Today, we are witnessing one of the largest
mass migrations in history as people are seeking a better economic, political and social environment
to live in. Large numbers of people from Mexico, Central and South America are moving to the U.S.
and even Canada. People are migrating out of Asia and the Pacific Rim from countries such as India, Pakistan, Taiwan,
South Korea, the Philippines and Samoa destined for the U.S., England and Canada. This global activity also encompasses
immigration from the Middle East and Africa to Europe and the U.S. The fundamental and root cause of
this present movement of people is the economic division of the world into a wealthier and more industrialized
north and an underdeveloped and impoverished south. This deep economic divide is a remnant of the exploitative colonial period when the
world was forcefully and unequally divided into the exploited suppliers of raw materials and cheap labor and the dominant producers of
finished goods. A
related cause that is also fueling this latest migration of people is the economic and
social inequality that exists within these countries of the south and which stifles opportunity and
reinforces poverty. Emerging economic powers such as Brazil, China and India are surging forward
economically and beginning to change this situation, however, the rest of the countries in this part of
the globe still have a way to go in order to close this wide economic gap. Today, the ex-colonial peoples of the south
are not willing to work for cheap wages and endure a low standard of living and are immigrating to
the developed countries in search of better-paying jobs and economic opportunities. In addition, U.S.
intervention in certain countries and accompanying political and military conflicts have generated
out-migration from the Middle East, Asia and Central America to this country. This mass movement
of people is also being fueled by easier methods for exchanging information internationally and the
forging of a global culture among the young.
Brain Drain
Brain drain is inevitable --- swamps the plan
Beine ’06
(Michael,- professor of International Economics at University of Luxembourge “Brain drain and human
capital formation in developing countries: winners and losers .”
ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v118y2008i528p631-652.html)
The new reality is that the brain drain is part of the increasingly globalized world economy . While only 300,000 highly
skilled workers emigrated from all developing countries to the Western Nations during the period 1961-72 (UNCTAD, 1975), the US 1990
Census revealed that there
were more than two and a half million highly educated immigrants from
developing countries residing in the United States. This increased brain drain is also apparent from regional and national
…gures. The relative cumulative ”loss of brains” by region in 1990 has been estimated at 15% for Central
America, 6% for Africa, 3% for South America, and 5% for Asia (Carrington and Detragiache, 1998), with the latter
region providing by far the largest fraction of the total. For Africa, Haque and Jahangir (1999) indicate that the number of highly skilled
emigrants increased from 1,800 a year in average in 1960-75 to 4,400 in 1975-84 and 23,000 in 1984-87. Interestingly, Asian immigrants to the
US, Canada and Australia in the 1980s were typically better educated on average than the native population, and also than immigrants from
developed countries such as the United Kingdom (Ong et al., 1992). Country studies recently commissioned by the Inter- national Labor
Organization reveal that 40% of Philippines’ emigrants are college educated or that 12% of Uruguay’s professionals and technicians live abroad
(Lowell and Findlay, 2001). DO WE NEED ALL THESE FIGURES? Finally, recent comparative data show that during the 1990s, the
number
of skilled immigrants residing in the OECD area has increased by 70% against only a 30% increase for unskilled
immigrants, with the vast majority of the new skilled immigrants originating from developing and transition countries (Docquier and Marfouk,
2006) Traditional self-selection e§ects , on the supply side, together with quality-selective immigration policies recently introduced
in many OECD countries, on the demand side, explain the tendency for migration rates to be much higher for the
highly educated and skilled. Since 1984, Australia’s immigration policy ofcal favors skilled immigration and
immigrants are selected according to their prospective contribution to the Australian economy . Canadian immigration policy follows along
similar lines, resulting in more highly educated people among the immigrants selected; for exam- ple, in 1997, 50,000 professional specialists
and entrepreneurs immigration to Canada with 75,000 additional family members, representing 58% of total immigration. In the US, since the
Immigration Act of 1990 - followed by the American Competitiveness and Work Force Improvement Act of 1998 -, emphasis has been put
on the selection of highly skilled workers through a system of quotas favoring candidates with aca- demic degrees and/or speci&c
professional skills (H-1B visas). European countries are also leaning towards becoming quality-selective. For example,
Germany announced in May 2000 plans to recruit 10,000 additional specialists in the &eld of information technogy, and labor shortage
occupation lists have been introduced in countries such as the UK or Ireland (OECD, 2000). Finally, in the &rst quarter of 2006, the U.K. has
officially adopted the point-system as the new basis of its immigration policy and almost at the same time, during the second quarter of 2006,
the French Parlia- ment passed a new law promoting chosen immigration and aimed at modifying the skill-mix of immigrants towards more
quality.
Brain drain increases incentives for education and training --- stats prove it net
positive for human capital
Mayr and Peri ’09
(Karin,- Assistant Professor at Johannes Kepler University Giovanno,- associate professor at the
University of California, Davis, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank “Brain Drain and Brain
Return” http://www.econ.ucl.ac.uk/cream/pages/CDP/CDP_11_09.pdf)
The positive effect of increasing migration probability on average human capital and wages illustrated in
Table 2 (and Figure 3a) results from the fact that the education incentives plus the wage premium for
returnees reverse the loss of human capital due to skilled migration. Here we are interested in understanding: i)
how large the decrease in average human capital would be, if the two positive channels were not operating, and ii) what the effect would be if
no return migration was considered. To answer these questions we examine two alternative scenarios. Table 3 and Figure 3b show the
simulated values of schooling and wages as the probability of migrating increases, when we eliminate the return channel (by setting ? = 0 so
that there is no return premium and therefore no return). Since we only allow for permanent migration, the education incentive effect is
stronger. However, this is also a less plausible scenario as we have shown that between 20 and 30% of emigrants return. Next, Table 4 and
Figure 3c show the schooling and wage levels in the case of no incentive effects of permanent or temporary migration (as we impose a fixed
correspondence between ability and the schooling level, which is unaffected by the probability of migration) and no return migration. Panel B
of Tables 3 and 4 reports the difference of each variable from the baseline case with migration and return. From the comparison of these two
cases with the baseline, two facts become apparent. First, the presence of temporary migration modifies the effects of permanent migration
only slightly. In particular, since
return migration is especially beneficial at intermediate ability levels and
induces workers to pursue more schooling than stayers (but less than permanent migrants), the possibility of returning
attenuates the positive incentive effects of migration a little. However, the case with return migration looks quite similar to the case with only
permanent migration (Table 3 and Figure 3b): for plausible values of p (around 0.2) the possibility of return reduces the positive effect on
human capital by only about a fifth of one year of schooling, and wages are even closer to the baseline (1% difference) as the temporary
migrant, while having lower schooling than the average earns a premium that partly makes up for that. In contrast, the case with no incentives
and only permanent migration (Table 4 and Figure 3c) looks very different. In that case, selective migration (returns to schooling are still higher
abroad) only produces a drain of highly educated individuals, and for plausible values of migration probability (p = 0.2) the pure brain drain
effect reduces average schooling by 1.3 years and average wages by 7% relative to no migration. The percentage of emigrants under each
scenario is the same. What changes significantly is the education of those who do not migrate (incentive effect) and the percentage of those
returning (return is ruled out as in the case of Table 3). The
interesting quantitative insight of the exercise is that the
incentive effects of both temporary and permanent migration are strong enough to produce positive
human capital and wage effects in the Home country for the parameter combination used in the baseline case and for
reasonable values of p. This is interesting news since the positive incentive effect is at times considered simply as a theoretical curiosum,
whereas it seems quite plausible in our model for reasonable parameter values. Inspection of Figures 3a and 3b also reveals that there is a level
of p above which the ”brain drain” effect becomes stronger than the incentive plus return effect such that the average schooling and average
wage of the remaining workers decrease with p. For our chosen parameter configuration, however, this only happens at very high levels of p
(above 0.6), which represents a degree of free mobility that is far from that which currently exists. In the relevant range, the
incentive
effect on the schooling and wages of the remaining workers is clearly positive, even when augmented
for the possibility of temporary migration. As long as this exercise is illustrative of the potential effect of relaxing immigration
policies in Western Europe, we can say that Eastern Europe would even benefit, in net terms, from a doubling of the flow of migrants to the
West (even if those who migrate are among the best educated and even if migrants move only temporarily).
This is true for 127 developing countries
Beine ’09
(Michael et al,- professor of International Economics at University of Luxembourge “On the robustness
of brain gain estimates “ http://www.econ.ucl.ac.uk/cream/pages/CDP/CDP_17_09.pdf)
The brain drain has long been viewed as a serious constraint on poor countries development.
However recent theoretical literature suggests that migration prospects can raise the expected return
to human capital and foster gross (pre-migration) investment in education at home. This paper empirically
assesses the robustness and magnitude of this incentive mechanism, also referred to in the literature as a "brain gain". We Örst reproduced our
benchmark speciÖcation, as appeared in Beine et al. (2008), where we found evidence of a positive e§ect of skilled migration prospects on
human capital investment in a cross-section of 127 developing countries. In that benchmark model, we measure human capital formation by
the log variation in the proportion of highly-skilled workers among the native labor force. The elasticity of human capital growth to skilled
emigration prospects was found to be in the neigh- borhood of 5% and was very stable across speciÖcations and estimation methods (OLS and
IV). In this paper we check the robustness of these results and obtain similar qualitative resuts when using alternative brain drain estimates
controlling for whether migrants acquired their skills in the home or in the host country and when using a relative (instead of an absolute)
measure of migration propensity. We also regressed other indicators of human capital investment on skilled migration rates and found a
positive e§ect on youth literacy while the e§ect on school enrolment depends on the exact speciÖcation used. Notwithstanding the latter
Önding, which still needs qualiÖcation, and within the limits of a cross-sectional analysis, our
results point to a robust, positive
and sizeable e§ect of skilled migration prospects on human capital formation in developing countries .
The entire DA is wrong—3 reasons
-Brain drain is only true for a handful of countries
-Brain drain also  “brain gain”—motivates stay-behinds to do better
-Emigration from developing countries is inevitable
Haas 5
(Hein de, Centre for International Development Issues, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands,
“International migration, remittances and development: myths and fact”, April 2005,
http://www.gcim.org/attachements/GMP%20No%2030.pdf)
Perhaps the most frequently used argument against migration as a potential source of development is
that it provokes brain drain. This is the fourth migration myth. The reality seems more nuanced. First, not all migrants
are high-skilled. Secondly, the brain drain seems to be only truly massive in a minority of countries. In a
quantitative assessment of the brain drain, Adams (2003) concluded that international migration does not tend to take a very high proportion
of the best educated. In two-thirds of the 33 large labour-exporting countries he surveyed, less than 10 per cent of the best educated
population had migrated. The
emigration of higher educated migrants seems to be significantly harmful in a
limited number of countries. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to generalise about the precise
economic, social, and cultural effects of the out-migration of skilled and educated people. Furthermore, we
should acknowledge that the outcome of such analysis tends to be value-laden and is partly contingent on the level (e.g., individual or national)
at which “development” or “progress” is measured. Thirdly, brain
drain may be accompanied by significant brain gain
departure of the highly skilled may
have beneficial effects in the form of a counterflow of remittances, investments, trade relations, new
knowledge, innovations, attitudes and information. Moreover, there is some evidence that the
prospect of moving abroad stimulates the incentives to study among stay-behinds. Fourthly, labour
tends to be much more productive in wealthy, industrialised countries. In an increasing number of
developing countries there is mass unemployment among the higher educated. In those cases both
individual and collective gains seem to outweigh the costs of migration. Many governments consider
skilled labourers to be an export product and so willingly create surpluses of certain categories of the
higher skilled. This means that they are not automatically the passive victims of exploitation by the
West. For instance, the Philippines educates some categories of professionals, such as nurses, with the explicit purpose of generating
(Lowell and Findlay, 2002; Stark et al., 1997). In the medium to long term, in particular, the
remittances from abroad. Migrants have also played an important role as innovating and transnationally operating entrepreneurs and investors
in countries such as Mexico, Turkey and India. Besides their economic role, highly skilled migrants often play an important and positive role in
the societal and political debate, the development of a civil society in countries of origin, and the emancipation of women and minority groups.
The main reason for this is that they have more freedom to organise and express their opinion than is usually the case in sending countries. In
some countries, (return) migrants who studied and worked abroad have played an important role in reforming domestic policies (cf. Massey et
al. 1998). This underscores the fact that the development effects of migration not only entail than remittances and investments, but also
include an important socio-political dimension. Through such social and political investments, migrants can contribute to shaping a better
societal climate in countries of origin in general. This is not to say that the impact of migration is always positive and that brain drain does not
occur. However, it seems important to acknowledge that
it is virtually impossible to stop the migration of the highly
(and low) skilled. Stay-at-home policies pursued by emigration countries have not only proved to be
ineffective, but also and, more importantly, to be counterproductive through alienating migrants. In
Morocco, for instance, civil servants who emigrate tend to be excluded from the civil service for their lifetime. This means that they cannot
deploy their knowledge or skills upon return and will effectively reduce their inclination to invest and return. In this context, Bhagwati
(2003) recently argued that a more realistic response to emigration requires abandoning the ‘brain
drain’ approach of trying to keep the skilled at home. Instead, governments of sending countries
should encourage the brain gain referred to above. Instead of punishing emigrants through depriving them of rights, the
governments of sending countries should grant emigrants economic and political rights to increase their commitment and encourage
remittances, investments and their participation in public debate. Such an approach would appear to be more successful in preventing migrants
from turning their back on their home countries. Countries as diverse as India, South Korea, the Philippines, Mexico and Tunisia have shown
considerable success in policies aiming at fostering links with emigrant communities.
The plan doesn’t hurt the home country
Paschal O. Nwokocha, former Minnesota assistant attorney general who is now chairman of
Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of American Immigration Lawyers Association, 2008, William Mitchell Law
Review, Lexis Academic
benefits are realized by all involved parties: the individual migrating, the sending country,
and the receiving country. n193 The advantages to the individual are most obvious: higher wages, career advancement, and perhaps
better access to high-quality education and personal freedoms. n194 The country they left also stands to benefit.
Remittances to low income countries in 2006 totaled at least $ 240 billion, more than aid and foreign
investment combined for some countries. n195 It has been argued that shrinking work forces in
sending countries inflate wages for the remaining laborers. n196 The IMF states that "emigration from
Moreover, these
Belize, El Salvador, Guyana and Jamaica, for example, may have led to higher wages and less poverty."
n197 Migrants who go abroad for employment often return to their home countries with greater
[*63] knowledge, skills, and experience. n198 Returning employees transfer technology and are a
greater asset to their native country's workforce and economy.
Brain Drain – Caribbean
Caribbean brain drain inevitable—they go to the EU—assumes their distinction
Nurse and Jones 9
(Keith and Jessica, Shridath Ramphal Centre for International Trade Law, Policy and Services, UWI, Cave
Hill, Barbados, “Brain Drain and Caribbean‐EU Labour Mobility”, http://www.bridgeslac.org/redcat/assets/files/Final/6.2%20Brain%20Drain%20and%20Caribbean%20EU%20Mobility%20UWI.pdf)
Caribbean nationals are migrating and acquiring citizenship of their adopted countries. On average, the
Caribbean represented
1.5% of the persons who acquired EU citizenship from 2002‐2007 5 ,This is a significant amount for the
relatively diminutive Caribbean region. And while the data was not available to indicate the exact proportion attributable to
skilled migration, of those Caribbean migrants who acquire EU citizenship, research shows that even a
modest flow of highly educated emigrants can have an adverse effect on those left behind, whether there
are few or many tertiary educated persons in a sending country (Lowell and Findlay 2004). In the view of Lowell and Findlay (2001, p7), “[a]
brain drain can occur if emigration of tertiary educated persons for permanent or long stays abroad
reaches significant levels and is not offset by the “feedback” effects of remittances, technology
transfer, investments, or trade. Brain drain reduces economic growth through loss return on investment in education and
depletion of the source country’s human capital assets.
Debt
Immigrants key to start-ups – causes economic boom
Smith 12
[Gerry, technology reporter, "Brain Drain: Why We're Driving Immigration Talent Overseas" Huffington
Post -- November 5 -- www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/immigrant-entrepreneur_n_2077183.html]
Stories like his are not unique. They’re also troubling
for the U.S. economy, advocates say. For the first time, the number
of immigrant-founded startups is in decline, as foreign-born entrepreneurs struggle to obtain a limited
number of visas and green cards and decide to launch companies in other countries that offer perks to start
businesses there. Losing founders like Darash, who launch startups that create jobs, means that America risks losing a source of
employment and a competitive edge in the global economy as the country claws its way out of a
recession, they say.¶ For years, immigrant entrepreneurs have propelled the growth of Silicon Valley, building
some of the most successful tech companies in the world: Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was born in Russia; Elon Musk, co-founder of
PayPal and Tesla, was born in South Africa; Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, was born in India. When they immigrated, it was
likely easier for them because there was not a backlog that there is today, according to Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at the Pratt School of
Engineering at Duke University who researches high-tech immigration. Immigrants
are more than twice as likely to start a
business as native-born Americans, according to a report earlier this year by the Partnership for a New American Economy. And
their companies have produced sizable economic benefits. This year, engineering and technology
companies founded in the United States employed about 560,000 workers and generated $63 billion in sales,
according to Wadhwa. About a quarter of those companies had at least one foreign-born founder.¶ An estimated
three out of every four startups fail, if not more. But by the conventional wisdom of Silicon Valley, Darash’s chances were even slimmer. For
one, he does not have a co-founder. He insists he doesn’t need one. (Paul Graham, creator of the startup incubator Y Combinator, has said
having a co-founder is critical because “a startup is too much for one person to bear.”) Darash also never worked for a major tech company
before, so he did not have the network of contacts that help other entrepreneurs find engineers and meet investors.¶ But what he has lacked
in support and connections he has made up for through a work ethic that borders on obsession.¶ “Asaf is a stubborn guy,” said Adam Gries, a
childhood friend and founder of Smart Bites, a smartphone app that teaches people English. “He gets into his head that something is going to
happen and he’s tenacious.”¶ Darash awakes every morning at 4:30 a.m., takes the BART train from his home in Berkeley to San Francisco, and
arrives at the office by 6 a.m. He works for an hour, then walks across the street to the gym to swim and lift weights (A back injury he suffered
while serving in the Israeli army requires him to stay physically strong). He typically does not go home until 9 p.m., after his children have gone
to bed. Employees say he is a “total workaholic” who sends emails past midnight and sleeps just a few hours a night.¶ “I have a one-and-a-half
year old who sees his Daddy maybe three hours a week,” Darash said. “It’s hard to explain how much sacrifice you make to bring a company
from an idea to something real, especially if it’s a company with high-level technology.”¶ He is hands-on about all aspects of the company, from
courting new clients to writing code. But lately, Darash has been distracted, spending valuable hours gathering documents and talking to
lawyers, instead of running his company. His wife recently flew back to Israel to find housing and a school for their kids in case they have to
leave the United States. He describes feeling a range of emotions: anger, fear, frustration. Mostly, though, he is confused. In his homeland of
Israel, politicians fight over who can attract more foreign entrepreneurs. The United States, he says, should be rolling out the welcome mat for
him, not ushering him out the door.¶ “I could not even comprehend this would become a problem,” he said. “I’m creating a company. I’m
creating jobs. There’s nothing bad in what I’m doing and there’s nothing I’m taking away from someone else. The only thing I’m doing is
creating more!”¶ “SERIOUS ALARM”¶ Since
2005, the number of immigrant-founded startups in Silicon Valley
has declined from 52 percent to 44 percent, according to Wadhwa, who argues this drop is cause for “serious
alarm ” because America needs to attract immigrant entrepreneurs for its economy to recover.¶ “The
United States risks losing a key growth engine right at the moment when it’s economy is stuck in a
deep ditch, growing slowly and struggling to create jobs,” Wadhwa wrote in his new book, The Immigrant Exodus.¶
Their recent decline could be linked to entrepreneurs finding better business prospects abroad, especially in
countries with growing economies like India and China. But advocates say a major reason why immigrants are launching
fewer startups in the United States is because they are struggling to secure visas to remain in the country.
Helps jobs, innovation, and market demand
Krudy 13
[Edward, correspondent, "Analysis: Immigration reform could boost U.S. economic growth" Reuters -January 29 -- www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-usa-economyimmigrationidUSBRE90S06R20130129]
The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift if President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in what could
be the biggest overhaul of the nation's immigration system since the 1980s.¶ Relaxed immigration rules could encourage
entrepreneurship, increase demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit,
economists said.¶ By helping more immigrants enter the country legally and allowing many illegal
immigrants to remain, the United States could help offset a slowing birth rate and put itself in a
stronger demographic position than aging Europe, Japan and China.¶ "Numerous industries in the United States can't
find the workers they need, right now even in a bad economy, to fill their orders and expand their production as
the market demands," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute.¶ The emerging consensus among
economists is that immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation
and lowers prices, although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on economic growth.¶ President Barack Obama plans to
launch his second-term push for a U.S. immigration overhaul during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win
congressional approval of a reform package this year, the White House said.¶ The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday
when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become
American citizens.¶ Their proposals
would also include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This would be aimed both at foreign students attending American
universities where they are earning advanced degrees and high-tech workers abroad.¶ An estimated 40 percent of scientists in
the United States are immigrants and studies show immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses ,
said Nowrasteh.¶ Boosting legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S.
economy over the next 10 years, estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the University of California, Los
Angeles. That's an annual increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate, currently stuck
at about 2 percent.
Also key to competitiveness and growth
Palomarez 3-6
[Javier, President & CEO of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce., "The pent up
entreprenuership that immigration reform woudl unleash" Forbes, 2013,
www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/06/the-pent-up-entrepreneurship-that-immigration-reformwould-unleash/]
Out of countless conversations with business leaders in virtually every sector and every state,
a consensus has emerged: our
broken and outdated immigration system hinders our economy’s growth and puts America’s global
leadership in jeopardy.¶ Innovation drives the American economy, and without good ideas and skilled
workers, our country won’t be able to transform industries or to lead world markets as effectively as it
has done for decades.¶ Consider some figures: Immigrant-owned firms generate an estimated $775 billion in annual
revenue, $125 billion in payroll and about $100 billion in income. A study conducted by the New American Economy
found that over 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or children of
immigrants.¶ Leading brands, like Google, Kohls, eBay, Pfizer, and AT&T, were founded by immigrants. Researchers at the Kauffman
Foundation released a study late last year showing that from 2006 to 2012, one in four engineering and technology
companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder — in Silicon Valley it was almost half of new
companies.¶ There are an estimated 11 million undocumented workers currently in the U.S. Imagine what small business growth in the U.S.
would look like if they were provided legal status, if they had an opportunity for citizenship. Without fear of deportation or prosecution,
imagine the pent up entrepreneurship that could be unleashed. After all, these are people who are clearly entrepreneurial in spirit to have
come here and risk all in the first place.¶ Immigrants
are twice as likely to start businesses as native-born Americans, and
statistics show that most job growth comes from small businesses.¶ While immigrants are both critically-important
consumers and producers, they boost the economic well-being of native-born Americans as well.¶
Scholars at the Brookings Institution recently described the relationship of these two groups of
workers as complementary. This is because lower-skilled immigrants largely take farming and other manual, low-paid jobs that
native-born workers don’t usually want.¶ For example, when Alabama passed HB 56, an immigration law in 2012 aimed at forcing selfdeportation, the state lost roughly $11 billion in economic productivity as crops were left to wither and jobs were lost.¶ Immigration
reform would also address another important angle in the debate – the need to entice high-skilled
immigrants. Higher-skilled immigrants provide talent that high-tech companies often cannot locate
domestically. High-tech leaders recently organized a nationwide “virtual march for immigration reform” to pressure policymakers to
remove barriers that prevent them from recruiting the workers they need.¶ Finally, and perhaps most importantly, fixing immigration
makes sound fiscal sense. Economist Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda calculated in 2010 that comprehensive immigration reform
would add $1.5 trillion to the country’s GDP over 10 years and add $66 billion in tax revenue – enough to
fully fund the Small Business Administration and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce for over two years.¶ As Congress continues to
wring its hands and debate the issue, lawmakers must understand what both businesses and workers already know:
The American
economy needs comprehensive immigration reform.
CIR adds 1.5 Trillion
Escalona 13
[Alejandro, writer and editor, 01/24, "Time Is Ripe for Immigration Reform" Huffington Post -www.huffingtonpost.com/alejandro-escalona/time-for-immigration-reform_b_2533806.html]
As the U.S. economy continues to improve, there will be a greater need for labor and the deport-all approach
to illegal immigration will start to subside. Our country should not have millions living in the shadows. It is a matter of national security,
but also of economic opportunity.¶ In 2010, the Center for American Progress concluded that immigration reform would
lead to a $1.5 trillion growth in gross domestic product over the next ten years. Legalized immigrants would
buy homes and cars generating new revenues for the private sector and more taxes for governments. ¶
Comprehensive immigration reform makes sense. Obama should work with Congress to approve a
path to legalize those undocumented immigrants who work hard and have not committed serious crimes.
Economy General – Rector Specific
Rector study wrong – two reasons
Contreras 13
[Raoul Lowery, Political consultant specializing in immigration studies, “Why Heritage’s Rector and
Richwine Are Very, Very Wrong,” Fox News Latino, 5/13/13,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/05/13/why-heritages-rector-and-richwine-are-veryvery-wrong/#ixzz2WQBbcCmg]
a wide-eyed college freshman must learn is the difference between “macro” and “micro;”
then, if this naïve college freshman’s metamorphosis produces a learned person, the world benefits.¶ Case in point : The Heritage Foundation report
One of the first things
that alleges comprehensive immigration reform (SB 744) will cost the American taxpayer over $6 trillion dollars in the next 50 years. It maintains that the instant-legalized immigrants will only
Rector
have authored a laughable, defective
pay in $3 plus trillion in taxes in the next 50 years but will draw over $9 trillion in benefits. Thus, immigration reform will cost us $6 trillion dollars. The Heritage authors, Robert
(John Hopkins University Masters degree)
and Jason Richwine, pride of the Harvard Phd. program,
fictional “macro” study .¶ They project that below average annual incomes of the instant-legalized
people will continue for 50 years. They claim these people are not educated now and never will be,
and that their children will never be educated. The most egregious deficiency, however, is Richwine’s, who
believes that people from Latin America (read Mexicans) are of low intelligence (based on his “studies” of IQ test results) and that
they can never improve because they lack white Northern European genetics.¶ This study is bogus for
two reasons : Richwine’s defective analysis based on his race intelligence theory and Rector’s static
numbers that have little basis in history or experience.¶ If one believes a group can never improve its IQ, one can
posit they will never improve their economics and education. Rector believes in Richwine’s race-based
theories thus his projections are defective to begin with.¶ Rector/Richwine and their “macro” theory
logically produce the numbers they do because they do not take into account historical experience.¶ For
example: Do Hispanic immigrants create businesses? In the process of creating business, do immigrants create new jobs? Do immigrants and/or their
children accomplish better education as a group? Do immigrants spend money in the local economy from their job earnings? Do
immigrants pay any taxes, local state and federal at all?¶ If the answer were no to these questions,
Rector/Richwine’s theory and numbers might be “spot on.” The answer to these questions, however,
is YES, YES, and YES… Readers of the Heritage report would not know that the answers are YES because Rector/Richwine avoid these
questions.¶ Education: The famous RAND Corporation reports that in 1900 Mexican male immigrants had a 4th grade education level. Their grandchildren doubled that. In 1950,
conservative scholar Thomas Sowell writes, the California Mexican American averaged an 8th grade education — double that of their grandfathers.¶ The Pew Hispanic survey this week issued
the greatest educational news of the new century, to wit: 69 percent of Hispanic 2012 high school graduates entered college in the fall of the same year. That does not include future college
2012 Hispanic high school graduate college matriculation increased
to 69 percent in contrast to 67 percent non-Hispanic White 2012 college enrollment.¶ Will these
people earn more annually than the $10,000-a-year Rector/Richwine attribute to those who will be legalized by immigration reform? Of
matriculation of those men and women who joined the military.¶
course they will . How about the children of these 2012 graduates? Will they go to college? Will they have better employment and earn
Of course they will , just like their great-grandparents who had a 4th grade
education and whose descendents steadily rose through education and better jobs and employment.¶
Rector and Richwine have constructed a “macro” study that makes sense if one believes their
assumptions. Their macro study falls apart though when one uses RAND Corp studies to offset their
cute macro theories.¶ Micro story: Though my mother was born in San Diego, she was taken to Mexico City at 2-years-of-age and raised and schooled there through the 8th
more money than their grandparents?
grade. She birthed me at age 15; we came to America when she was 17, for all practical purposes like Mexican immigrants: no high school, no English and no experience. Working in tuna
processing plants for $25 a week was the job de jour.¶ She raised four boys, with one earning a community college two-year degree, two with bachelor degrees and one with a Masters
degree. Two worked in law enforcement and retired with combined pensions of over $70,000 yearly and one (me) retired as a bank executive; one is still working at $400,000 a year. As to
mom, she learned English, worked in restaurants until she passed a civil service test and worked at a career in public service that saw her retire as a Senior Clerk which is as high as one can go
in county service without college. Two grandsons have graduated from the University of California and one granddaughter is at Harvard. Another grand-daughter is a working political lobbyist
Multiply this “micro” story by millions of legal people and one can
easily see that Heritage’s Rector and Richwine are very, very wrong
in the 9th largest city in the USA earning a six-figure income.¶
Rector’s methodology is wrong – poor definition of “benefits” means the entire study
is invalid
Matthews 13
[Dylan, syndicated columnist, “Heritage says Immigration Reform Will Cost $5.3 Trillion. Here’s Why
That’s Wrong,” Washington Post, 5/6/13,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/heritage-says-immigration-reformwill-cost-5-3-trillion-heres-why-thats-wrong/]
But let’s pause
a second and look at what Rector and Richwine count as “benefits,” and what they
exclude. They break benefits into five broad categories: direct benefits (e.g. Social Security, Medicare), means-tested benefits (e.g. Earned
Income Tax Credit, Medicaid), public education, population-based expenditures (parks, police and fire departments, etc.), and interest
payments on past benefits. They exclude the latter from their calculations, as it’s not actually a benefit currently being enjoyed by residents.¶
From this, they subtract “pure public goods,” or government programs that are (a) nonrival (any number of people can use them without
diminishing others’ enjoyment) and (b) can be extended to new users at zero cost. Their main example is defense spending, the logic being that
the benefit of having a military to defend a country does not diminish when more people move there, but they
also include medical
research and veterans’ benefits.¶ The latter choice is utterly baffling . Veteran’s health care and benefits is
rival (people can’t enjoy it simultaneously), and it cannot be extended to new users at zero cost. By Rector and
Richwine’s own standards, it is absolutely not a pure public good.¶ Correspondingly, the choice to
exclude classic public goods like parks, police and fire departments, roads, and so forth from that
category is also questionable. The logic presented by Rector and Richwine is that those services expand with population. New York
has more police officers than Hanover, N.H., say. But the cost of many such goods don’t expand linearly with
population. Ten thousand people moving to New York may make Grand Central Park more expensive
to maintain, but one person moving there doesn’t increase the cost much at all. Depending on where
immigrants settle, the inclusion of these goods could artificially inflate the cost of immigration by
Rector and Richwine’s methodology.¶ Also notable is what benefits are excluded from Rector and
Richwine’s calculus. They don’t count tax expenditures, which economists of all stripes usually count
as spending, as constituting a benefit. Or, rather, they do, but only when they benefit poor people (as in the
EITC). The mortgage interest tax deduction, the charitable deduction, the employer health-care tax
exclusion, the preferential treatment of capital and dividend income — these are all massive benefits.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the benefit of the employer health-care exclusion at $760.4 billion over five years, and preferential
capital treatment at $616.2 billion over five years.¶ The
vast majority of these tax benefits accrue disproportionately
to wealthy Americans. That makes the overall tax and transfer system less progressive than it may
initially appear , according to Rector and Richwine’s methodology. They’re excluding the single
biggest category of benefits for the rich.¶ They also exclude regulatory restrictions that cost the public
billions but benefit a certain segment of the population. For example, intellectual property laws generate billions in revenue for contentcreating industries at the expense of consumers. The distributive impact of those regulatory frameworks is almost
certainly regressive. But it doesn’t count as a benefit to rich Americans according to Rector and
Richwine.¶ The rest of the study is only as good as the estimates of benefits-received and taxes-paid
that Rector and Richwine produce initially. And the benefit estimates are woefully incomplete .
Heritage study also gets reform’s mechanism wrong
Matthews 13
[Dylan, syndicated columnist, “Heritage says Immigration Reform Will Cost $5.3 Trillion. Here’s Why
That’s Wrong,” Washington Post, 5/6/13,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/heritage-says-immigration-reformwill-cost-5-3-trillion-heres-why-thats-wrong/]
Initially, Rector and Richwine estimate that, by requiring the payment of back taxes and putting
workers back “on the books”, the immigration reform bill will reduce the fiscal deficit for nowundocumented (then, presumably, documented) workers to $11,455. But then, by making these
immigrants eligible for means-tested benefits like Obamacare insurance premium subsidies and EITC,
and universal benefits like Social Security, that will increase to $28,000, or $22,700 a year for retired
workers. The per-household cost is increased by over 50 percent relative to pre-reform.¶ That sounds
really bad! But, unsurprisingly, it’s much more complicated than that . For one thing, Rector and
Richwine assume no income growth for affected immigrants. But that’s beyond implausible . Plenty of
studies has found that legalization increases immigrant incomes. One found that they grow by 15.1
percent due to legalization. That raises tax receipts, reduces benefit payouts, and generally makes the
fiscal picture less bleak than the one painted by Rector and Richwine.¶
Study ignores external benefits – outweighs CIR’s deficit
Matthews 13
[Dylan, syndicated columnist, “Heritage says Immigration Reform Will Cost $5.3 Trillion. Here’s Why
That’s Wrong,” Washington Post, 5/6/13,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/heritage-says-immigration-reformwill-cost-5-3-trillion-heres-why-thats-wrong/]
They also assume no other economic impact of any kind. That’s so implausible that even the CBO,
which is famously conservative with regards to incorporating economic effects of policies, took direct
economic effects of adding people to the workforce into account when evaluating the 2006-7 reform bill. They found
that legalization, even paired with increased border security spending, would mildly cut the deficit over 10 years, by
about $12 billion. If you take a broader, “dynamic scoring” approach, they estimated that the bill
would increase GDP by between 0.3 percent and 0.4 percent from 2007 through 2011 and by 0.8 percent to 1.3 percent from
2012 through 2016.
That’s a big deal , one that could reach tens if not hundreds of billions more in new
revenue and saved social spending.¶ This isn’t a really controversial point. Even critics
of immigration reform
like Harvard’s George Borjas admit that it increases the economy at large , with over $30 billion in gains
going to non-immigrants. To quote, er, the Heritage Foundation, “While the presence of low-skill
migrant workers can be construed as a challenge to low-skill native workers, the economic effects are
the same as the effects of free trade-a net positive and a leading cause of economic growth.”
Rector’s also wrong about world without CIR
Matthews 13
[Dylan, syndicated columnist, “Heritage says Immigration Reform Will Cost $5.3 Trillion. Here’s Why
That’s Wrong,” Washington Post, 5/6/13,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/heritage-says-immigration-reformwill-cost-5-3-trillion-heres-why-thats-wrong/]
The most bizarre portion of the Rector and Richwine study is how they construct their counterfactual
for what would happen absent reform. They seem to assume that a huge number of immigrants would
just…leave. On their own. No, for real, this is what the paper says. “If one assumes that under current law, most unlawful immigrants will
return to their country of origin around age 55, the lifetime fiscal costs of unlawful immigrants under current law are comparatively low: only
around $1 trillion,” they write.
Why would someone assume that ?¶ The authors justify this statement through reference to the
fact that there are very few immigrants over the age of 55. They theorize that “unlawful immigrants, being unable to access the U.S. welfare
and retirement systems under current law, simply go back to their country of origin as they get older.Ӧ The
alternative theory, they
note, is that “unlawful immigrants, arriving as young adults over the past 15 to 20 years, have simply
not yet reached age 50.” That seems by far the likelier theory, especially given that many older
undocumented immigrants were legalized by the 1986 amnesty law, and that the number of elderly
immigrants has been growing.¶ By the author’s own admission, by far the biggest cost source for
undocumented immigrants is public education. That isn’t affected by legalization .
Study’s so wrong Rector’s coauthor quit
AP 13
[“Heritage Foundation Official Resigns Amid Firestorm over Immigrant IQ Claim,” NY Daily News, 5/10,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/heritage-official-resigns-firestorm-immigrant-iq-claimarticle-1.1340818]
A co-author of a disputed Heritage Foundation report on a new immigration bill has resigned amid
controversy over claims he made about immigrants having low IQs.¶ A spokesman for the conservative think tank
confirmed Jason Richwine's resignation Friday without offering details.¶ Richwine was one of two authors of a report released Monday that
said immigration legislation pending in the Senate would cost $6.3 trillion over 50 years as immigrants
consumed federal benefits without making up for it in taxes. The report quickly came under attack as
critics from the left and right said it didn't account for economic benefits from immigration.¶ Attention
turned to Richwine when his 2009 Ph.D. dissertation from Harvard University came to light in which he asserted that: "The
average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native
population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations." He argued that the result is low
socioeconomic assimilation and other problems and argued that allowing in immigrants with high IQs would help solve the problems.
Costs wrong – ignores fiscal multiplier effect and overestimates
Hickey 13
[Walter, politics and economics reporter for Business Insider, “Here's The Massive Flaw With The
Conservative Study That Says Immigration Reform Will Cost Taxpayers Nearly $7 Trillion,” Business
Insider, 5/6, http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-biggest-single-mistake-with-the-heritagefoundations-laughable-anti-immigration-reform-study-2013-5#ixzz2WQLXpGlY]
The Heritage Foundation doesn't want comprehensive immigration reform. ¶ But there
are basic problems with the analysis to
conclusion implies that
begin with.¶ Given that Heritage claims an estimated 11.5 million unlawful immigrants in the country, their
every single immigrant is going to get around $546,000 worth of free stuff over the next five decades, which
is pretty high.¶
But the problems with the report
transcend back-of-the-napkin estimations . There's a
glaring and deliberate omission in the report's estimation. The paper pretty much omits any discussion of
any benefits. ¶ Here's how it works...¶ Buried on page 35 of the 38-page report, Rector and Richwine wave off a discussion of "Potential
Economic Gains and Losses from Unlawful Immigration."¶ Potential Economic Gains and Losses from Unlawful Immigration¶ While the fiscal
consequences of unlawful immigration are strongly negative, some argue that unlawful immigrants create economic benefits that partially
compensate for the net tax burdens they create. For example, it is frequently argued that unlawful immigration is beneficial because unlawful
immigrant workers expand the gross domestic product. ¶ It's
worth noting that right off the bat, Heritage is not
addressing the "potential" effects of unlawful immigrants, they're looking retrospectively. The whole
point of comprehensive immigration reform is to turn those unlawful immigrants into tax payers.
This section deliberately ignores that. ¶ The section continues:¶ While it is true that unlawful immigrants enlarge GDP by
roughly 2 percent, the problem with this argument is that the immigrants themselves capture most of the gain from expanded production in
their own wages. Metaphorically, while unlawful immigrants make the american economic pie larger, they themselves consume most of the
slice that their labor adds. ¶ This
seems to admit (immigrants consuming "most" of the economic slice) that the economic
impact of unlawful immigrants more than pays for themselves? It's unclear. ¶ That, or Rector and Richwine
are deliberately avoiding a discussion of fiscal multiplier effects . ¶ The central issue in the debate over the costs and
benefits of unlawful immigration is not whether such immigration makes U.S. GDP larger (clearly, it does), but whether unlawful immigration
raises the post-tax income of the average non-immigrant american. Given the very large net tax burden that unlawful immigrants impose on
U.S. society, such immigrants would have to raise the incomes of non-immigrants to a remarkable degree to have a net beneficial effect.¶ First
taken as a whole immigrants have a positive impact — neutral at worst — on average U.S. wages.¶ But
most importantly, observe that Rector and Richwine didn't address in this section what they claimed to
address. ¶ The most important part of the whole immigration issue — in fact, the entire reason we're talking about it — is that
the potential economic gains from immigration reform are substantial . ¶ Rector and Richwine are
off,
consciously, deliberately avoiding talking about that. ¶ They're talking about the economic impact that unlawful
not talking about the economic impact that unlawful immigrants
transitioning into tax-paying path-to-citizenship immigrants will have on the population. ¶ It's a subtle
immigrants have on the population.¶ They're
bait and switch.
It's waving off the primary argument in favor of immigration reform by not actually talking about immigration reform. ¶
Heritage is run by very intelligent people. They probably realize the
whole point of immigration reform is that the
economic impact by immigrants is very, very substantial, and proposals to turn unauthorized
immigrants into full-time taxpayers will have a very positive effect on the nation's fiscal situation. ¶ In
lieu of describing that positive economic impact, Rector and Richwine instead elected to deliberately obfuscate it . ¶
this means that the point of the study is diametrically incorrect . The report doesn't attempt
to describe the net impact of immigrants on the federal budget. It describes the gross effect.¶ To calculate
the net impact of unlawful immigrants on the federal budget, Rector and Richwine would have to incorporate the net
positive economic impact that immigrants will have on the economy. ¶ Unfortunately, Heritage won't do
What's more,
that because it will prove their point wrong . ¶ Here's the most flawed portion of their analysis, though. ¶
Heritage assumes that unlawful immigrants will take that $6.3 trillion in aggregate benefits over the next ten years
and just not do anything with it.¶ Without incorporating an economic analysis, Heritage appears to
assume that $6.3 trillion evaporates, burns, or just disappears. ¶ But instead — see page 14 of the study — we
see it's spent almost entirely on teachers, police, fire, and public safety. Mean-tested welfare — which
isn't saved and goes directly back into the economy — is the only substantial part.¶ Rector and Richwine pretend
there isn't a fiscal multiplier effect
in the U.S.¶ Assuming
their $6.3 trillion estimate is accurate — it's
probably not , but assuming it for the moment — that money doesn't go to illegal immigrants, it goes through them into
the greater U.S. economy where it is used to pay people, invest in things, and pay taxes. ¶ The main point is
Rector and Richwine's analysis is deeply flawed , and the Heritage Institute 's analysis isn't the "net" impact to
taxpayers.¶ It's an accounting ledger that only has costs and pretends there aren't revenues. ¶ In order to get the number that
immigration reform opponents desire, Rector and Richwine assumed that immigrants would receive
government benefits, but wouldn't spend them. They assumed that they would take money, but
wouldn't produce with it.
that
Environment
Increased consumption is offset by decreased birthrates – solves warming
McKibben 13
[Bill, syndicated, award-winning green journalist and Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury
College, “Immigration Reform -- For the Climate,” LA Times, 3/14/13,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/14/opinion/la-oe-mckibben-immigration-environment-20130314]
And many of us, I think, long viewed immigration through the lens of population; it was another part of the math problem .
I've always thought we
could afford historical levels of immigration, but I understood why some other environmentalists wanted tougher restrictions. More
Americans would mean more people making use of the same piece of land, a piece that was already pretty hard-used.¶ In recent years, though, the math
problem has come to look very different to me. It's one reason I feel it's urgent that we get real
immigration reform , allowing millions to step out of the shadows and on to a broad path toward citizenship. It will help, not hurt, our
environmental efforts, and potentially in deep and powerful ways .¶ One thing that's changed is the
nature of the ecological problem. Now that global warming is arguably the greatest danger we face, it
matters a lot less where people live . Carbon dioxide mixes easily in the atmosphere. It makes no
difference whether it comes from Puerto Vallarta or Portland.¶ It's true that the typical person from a
developing nation would produce more carbon once she adopted an American lifestyle, but she also
probably would have fewer children. A December report from the Pew Research Center report showed
that birthrates in the U.S. were dropping faster among Mexican American women and women who
immigrated from Mexico than among any other group. ¶ This is a trend reflected among all Latinas in
the U.S. As an immigrant mother of two from the Dominican Republic told the New York Times: "Before, I probably
would have been pressured to have more, [but] living in the United States, I don't have family members close by
to help me, and it takes a village to raise a child. So the feeling is, keep what you have right now." Her two grandmothers had had a total
of 27 children. The carbon math, in other words, may well be a wash.
Independently CIR offers new warming solutions
McKibben 13
[Bill, syndicated, award-winning green journalist and Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury
College, “Immigration Reform -- For the Climate,” LA Times, 3/14/13,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/14/opinion/la-oe-mckibben-immigration-environment-20130314]
But there's
a higher math here that matters much more. At this point, there's no chance we're going to
deal with global warming one household at a time — scientists, policy wonks and economists have concluded it will
also require structural change. We may need, for example, things such as a serious tax on carbon; that will require mustering
political will to stand up to the fossil fuel industry.¶ And that's precisely where white America has fallen short. Election
after election, native-born and long-standing citizens pull the lever for climate deniers , for people who
want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, for the politicians who take huge quantities
of cash from the Koch brothers and other oil barons. By contrast, a 2012 report by the Sierra Club and the National
Council of La Raza found that Latinos were eager for environmental progress. Seventy-seven percent of
Latino voters think climate change is already happening, compared with just 52% of the general
population; 92% of Latinos think we have "a moral responsibility to take care of God's creation here
on Earth."¶ These numbers reflect, in part, the reality of life for those closer to the bottom of our
economy. Latinos are 30% more likely to end up in the hospital for asthma, in part because they often live closer
to sources of pollution.¶ But immigrants, by definition, are full of hope. They've come to a new place determined
to make a new life, risking much for opportunity. They're confident that new kinds of prosperity are
possible. The future beckons them, and so changes of the kind we'll need to deal with climate change
are easier to conceive .
Terrorism
New security measures solve – reject their fear mongering
Sandmeyer 13
[Ellie, syndicated columnist focusing on media, “Fox Stokes Fears Of Terrorism To Smear Immigration
Reform” Media Matters, 4/30, http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/30/fox-stokes-fears-of-terrorismto-smear-immigrat/193839]
In fact, the
number of legal immigrants overstaying their visas declined by 73% between 2000 and 2009,
thanks to the Department of Homeland Security's enhanced security measures in the years following the September 11, 2001
attacks. The immigration reform bill introduced in the Senate on April 17 is designed to speed that decline by
implementing what Republican Senator Marco Rubio called "an effective entry and exit system."¶ Responding to questions
about enforcement and temporary visas in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano described how provisions in the Senate immigration reform bill would "give us more
measurements, more metrics, more identities, more things that we can use from a law enforcement
purpose."¶ Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev "initially escaped the notice of federal authorities on a sixmonth trip to Russia last year because his name was misspelled on his airline ticket," The Washington Post reported. But
Napolitano pointed out that the proposed electronic monitoring system is designed to specifically
address that problem , as it "does a good job of getting human error, to the extent it exists, out of the
process."¶ CBS News reported that the bill's "modernized visa system" would monitor "the future traffic of
immigrants during both departure and arrival to ensure that nobody overstays their welcome." The
summary of the bill's framework further details that the success of the full proposal is "contingent upon
our success in securing our border and addressing visa overstays" and requires "the completion of an
entry-exit system that tracks whether all persons entering the United States on temporary visas via
airports and seaports have left the country as required by law."¶ Fox News has a history of pushing
anti-immigrant sentiments, and previously attacked immigration policies by stoking fears of terrorism
and distorting the
facts about the 9-11 hijackers.
CIR prevents terror
Tobin 13
[Jonathan S. syndicated immigration columnist, “Terrorism and Immigration Reform”, Commentary,
4/19, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/04/19/terrorism-and-immigration-reform-bostonmarathon/]
The main focus today and in the coming days should be about homegrown terrorism
and the question of what factors
served to radicalize these two young men. But as much as we should resist any attempt to impute guilt by association with all Chechen
immigrants or even all Muslims, as opposed to Islamist radicals, there is a connection between this crime and the question of border security.
As we examine how this plot eluded the attention of security officials and what, if any, connection the Tsarnaevs may have had with foreign
terror groups, it’s
worth pondering just how antiquated and useless many of our efforts to defend the
border currently are.¶ The status quo on immigration and border security has brought us a situation
where an estimated 11 million illegals currently live inside the United States. We know little about
them and any talk about deporting them is pure fantasy . If this were changed to allow those illegals
to come into the system and a modern computerized system of background checks were installed,
perhaps not only would security be enhanced. It is also possible that the federal government would also
not be expending so much of our scarce resources
on attempting to round up chambermaids, busboys and migrant
agricultural workers here trying to make a meager living doing jobs Americans don’t want. Those
who try and confuse antiterror efforts with that pointless endeavor are doing the country no favor.¶ The tale of the Tsarnaev brothers
appears to be one in which immigrants who were shown compassion by the United States and given a chance for a new and better life turned
on their new home. Their behavior, especially if it turns out to be motivated by radical anti-American Islamism, is a disgrace and an insult to the
countless immigrants from abroad, including many Muslims, who have become loyal citizens, just as those who came from abroad in previous
generations did.¶ But our
feelings of disgust and anger at the Tsarnaevs must not be used to rationalize a
continuation of our current failed immigration and border policy.¶ The more open and transparent
our system becomes, the safer our nation will be.
Wages
DA goes the other way
De Los Santos 13
[Michael, political writer, contributor @ Policy Mic, 02/09, "3 Ways Immigration Reform Will Lead to a
Stronger American Economy" Policy Mic -- www.policymic.com/articles/25301/3-ways-immigrationreform-will-lead-to-a-stronger-american-economy]
Immigration, immigration, immigration: it seems that reform has become the hot topic of the day now that the debt ceiling debate is
temporarily over. PolicyMic has published at least 16 articles over the last week that dealt with the topic. We have had a bipartisan panel and
President Obama release ideas for immigration reform, and you can expect it to play a significant role in his upcoming State of the Union
address. With the economy still the biggest driver of dissatisfaction in this country, how
will passing immigration reform
impact the economic recovery? Passing a comprehensive package will positively impact the economy
in three key areas: consumption, tax revenue and job creation.¶ 1. Consumption:¶ Consumption is driven by
wages, and so to understand how consumption will improve, we have to look at wage increases. Immigration reform does not
just impact the immigrant community, but U.S.-born workers as well. Our first glimpses are the effects of President
Reagan's Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. While immigrants still made less than their U.S. born-comrades, they still
saw their incomes increase by 15% years following their legalization. While anti-immigration reform groups will dispute the
effectiveness of the reforms of 1986, they can’t refute the increase in wages.¶ These wage increases also extended to U.S.born workers. The Economic Policy Institute looked at the impact immigration had on wages of the non-immigrant community. What they
found was that between 1994 and 2007, wages increased by 0.4% over foreign-born workers. This also extended to those with less than a high
school education, who still saw a 0.3% increase during that same time as a result of immigration. These aren't huge gains, but the size of the
gains wasn't as important as what they indicated: more
workers mean a bigger economy. The influx of immigrant
workers meant more people were earning wages, and therefore spending more and growing the
economy, which in turn meant higher wages and more opportunities for everyone.¶ 2. Tax Revenue:¶ The
increase in wage earners, wages, and spending leads to higher tax revenues. A 2010 study by the University of
Southern California estimated that undocumented Latino workers missed out on $2.2 billion in income. As a result, the state of California
missed out on $310 million in income taxes. They also determined that the federal government lost out on $1.4 billion in taxes.¶ Furthermore,
the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act of 2006 would have generated $66 billion in new revenue between 2007 and 2016. This increase in
revenue would have more than offset the estimated increase in entitlement spending of $54 billion.¶ 3. Job Creation:¶ The final area for
consideration is job creation. Ezra Klein of The Washington Post examined this in a recent post. Small
businesses are drivers of the
economy, and as Klein points out, immigrants start business and file patents at a much higher rate than the
non-immigrant community.¶ Our economy is struggling to create jobs and encourage consumer
spending, and all levels of government are struggling to generate the necessary revenues and right
spending cuts to tackle growing debt.¶ These factors make immigration reform a nobrainer . A comprehensive
immigration plan addresses all three of these key areas to fixing our economy. In fact, immigration reform
should be looked at as more than just immigration policy – it's economic policy. The economy and our country will be better
because of it.
Impacts – CIR Bad
Defense
General – XO Solves
XO solves
Nakamura 1-6 – David Nakamura and Tara Bahrampour, January 6th, 2013 "Obama using authority
for immigrant issues," Washington Post,
www.journalgazette.net/article/20130106/NEWS03/301069950/1066/NEWS03
WASHINGTON - The Obama
administration’s decision this week to ease visa requirements for hundreds of
thousands of illegal immigrants represents its latest move to reshape immigration through executive
action , even as the White House gears up for an uncertain political fight over a far-more-sweeping
legislative package in the months ahead.¶ Immigration advocates on Thursday hailed a rule change at the
Department of Homeland Security that would make it easier for many undocumented immigrants to
stay in the U nited S tates as they seek permanent residency, saying it will improve the lives of relatives
who could have been separated for years without the changes.¶ For President Obama – who has called the inability to
achieve comprehensive immigration reform among the biggest regrets of his first term – the new policy is among a series of
steps his administration has taken over the past year aimed in part at easing the pace of deportations,
which have surged during his tenure. The steps also came amid a presidential campaign that included sharp disagreements over
immigration policy and strong support among Latinos and Asians for Obama.¶ The centerpiece was Obama’s decision, announced last June, to
stop deporting people who were brought to the country as children and have gone on to be productive and otherwise law-abiding residents.¶
“ He
is checking off every administrative box he can of what he can do with executive authority that
comports with his overall view of immigration policy ,” said Angela Kelley, an analyst at the Center for American Progress,
a liberal think tank allied with the White House.¶ The latest policy change is focused on illegal immigrants who have a spouse, parent or child
with U.S. citizenship. Currently, in order to become legal they must leave the United States and apply for a waiver forgiving their unlawful
presence in the country. Only then can they apply for an immigrant visa. And if they don’t get a waiver, they are barred from returning to the
United States for up to 10 years, depending on the case.¶ The specter of being barred deterred many from applying. But under the rule change
finalized Wednesday, those who qualify will be able to apply for waivers from within the United States starting March 4. Applicants must return
to their native country for a brief period for the consular immigrant visa process.¶ The
new rule greatly reduces the risk
inherent in applying for a waiver, as people whose applications are rejected would still be in the United
States when they heard the news. Even for those whose applications are approved, the new rule will
allow them to spend much less time outside the United States, as they will travel abroad with waivers in
hand.
General – CIR Fails
Even small changes cause a flood of applications --- swamping USCIS processing
capacity
Murthy 9 (Law Firm, “What if CIR Passes? Can USCIS Handle the Increased Workload?”, NewsBrief, 1030, http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cirwkl.html)
Any type of legalization program will face significant opposition, particularly during an economic downturn. However, given the numbers
of individuals possibly eligible, even under a less expansive program, the USCIS must prepare for a potential
onslaught of applications if any type of CIR passes and becomes the law. As many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin
readers know from personal experience, the USCIS has historically suffered from backlogs and capacity issues. Were such a measure to pass,
absent substantial changes, a flood of new applications could pose a significant challenge to the processing
capacity of the USCIS. USCIS Preparing to Expand Rapidly, Should Need Arise A Reuters blog quoted USCIS spokesman, Bill Wright, as
saying, “The agency has been preparing for the advent of any kind of a comprehensive immigration reform, and if that means a surge of
applications and operations, we have been working toward that.” USCIS Director, Alejandro Mayorkas, has stated that the goal of the USCIS is
to be ready to expand rapidly to handle the increase in applications that would result from CIR. In the past, opponents have used lack of
capacity and preparation as an argument against CIR and expansion of eligibility for immigration benefits. Will CIR Result in Increased or
Reduced Backlogs for Others? Legal immigrants and their employers have concerns about being disadvantaged by any CIR legislation that would
provide benefits to undocumented workers. However, true CIR is not limited to these provisions, and would be expected to contain provisions
regarding various aspects of legal immigration. CIR certainly will be hotly debated and any proposed legislation will be modified throughout the
debate process. As part of the preparations of the USCIS, and in order not to harm those who have already initiated cases under existing law,
the USCIS needs to continue to work on backlogs. While significant progress has been made in many areas, and
case processing times have been improved greatly , there are still case backlogs that need to be addressed.
Private contractors hired to implement the plan causes fraud
West 7 (Bill, Chief of the National Security Section – Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
“Immigration “Reform” Will Be National Security Disaster”, 5-17, http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/
05/immigration_reform_will_be_nat.php)
CIS has indicated it would need to bring in private contractor personnel to help deal with the monumental
workload increase from reform legislation. Such contractors will invariably be quickly hired, poorly trained , probably
low-bid, barely vetted and far more subject to bribery and corruption than permanent Government employees.
Not that bribery and corruption will necessarily be that necessary. In short order, the system will be overwhelmed. Whatever
minimal fraud detection and prevention safeguards might be erected won’t last long in the face of hundreds of
thousands, perhaps millions, of applications and petitions to be adjudicated. What that means is the information provided
on those applications and petitions, and whatever supporting documents they may have (if any), will essentially be taken at face
value. Whatever the applicant alien tells the adjudicator will essentially be taken at face value. There will be little time or process
available to verify anything, perhaps beyond running the applicant’s name through a standard battery of computer
databases (and, even that may become so time consuming some will slip through the cracks).
Won’t net increase immigration
Benson 2 (Lenni B., Professor of Law – New York Law School, “Breaking Bureaucratic Borders: A
Necessary Step Toward Immigration Law Reform”, Administrative Law Review, Winter, 54 ADMIN. L.
REV. 203, Lexis)
Many of the process failures arise from the failure of Congress and the agencies to adequately contend with the
internal and external forces that shape the agency culture. n313 Although many of these factors operate in other areas of
administrative law, several are particularly strong in immigration law. The failure to plan for and counteract these forces, has directly
contributed to the erosion of the essential process values. n313 See JAMES Q. WILSON, BUREAUCRACY: WHAT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO
AND WHY THEY DO IT 91 (1989) ("Every organization has a culture, that is, a persistent, patterned way of thinking about the central tasks of and
human relationship within an organization."). Wilson goes on to note that many organizations have multiple cultures and the relationship of the
agency culture(s) to the agency mission may dramatically impact the effectiveness of the organization. See id. at 91-92. Here I am using culture
in a broad manner to encompass both the internal and external forces that shape the organizations. a. Congressional Mandates and Dictated
Priorities Congress must bear a large part of the responsibility for the crisis in immigration adjudications . n314
Congress mandated express and implied priorities in the statutes n315 or demanded prioritization of specific
programs with [*283] the threat of reduced funding or of imposing new statutory mandates. n316 For example, some
statutory limits force an allocation of resources to a particular visa category without adequate consideration of
how the allocation might disadvantage or paralyze a separate function. Two of the most obvious examples are the
naturalization and H-1B petitions. When Congress pressures INS to reform and expedite its naturalization backlogs, the Service Centers move
personnel away from the adjustment of status processing and the processing of the employment-based immigrant petitions. n317 The
limitation of the total number of H-1B visas, necessitated that the INS put auditing procedures in place to be sure they did not approve more H1B visas than the statute allowed. n318 Employers worrying about the cap filed large numbers of petitions in the winter and early spring to
avoid being shut out of the category altogether. n319 Moving adjudicators to meet the thirty-day deadline meant other visa petitions had to sit
waiting for adjudication. n314 Politics presents a treacherous double-edged sword for the INS' efficient and appropriate facilitation of
immigration. The highly political debate persists about how vigorously the INS should control illegal immigration. When the INS engages in
activities such as surprise work-site inspection, criticism immediately flows from immigrant groups and its conduct is subject to congressional
scrutiny and investigation. Yet, on the other hand, if lawmakers perceive the INS as remiss in their duties, they immediately capitalize on the
agency's unpopularity by encouraging resentment against it as congressional elections approach. A similar situation plagues other agencies,
such as the IRS. See GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT, supra note 12; see also Laurent, supra note 12, 13-18 (outlining Government
Performance Project in detail). n315 See INA � 214(c)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. � 1184(c)(2)(C) (1994 & Supp. V 1999) (mandating thirty day processing
for H-1B and L-1 petitions). n316 See Dep'ts of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year
2001: Hearing of the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Subcomm. of the Senate Appropriations Comm., 106th Cong. 183-213 (2000)
(transcribing detailed questioning of how appropriated money to INS will be spent). n317 See supra text accompanying notes 183-85 and 21516 (discussing current backlog problems). n318 See supra note 58 and accompanying text (noting numerical limitations imposed by statute).
n319 Interview with Frances Berger, Attorney at Law, Law Office of Frances Berger, New York, N.Y. (July 8, 2000). Although Congress did
not intend the agency to suspend other operations, the management of the agency responded to congressional
and community pressure . However, the failure to adjudicate one type of petition means that pressure will mount in other categories or
unnecessary work will be created. For example, if the immigrant petition cannot be processed in time, the employee will need a renewal of
non-immigrant status. The extension petition could have been eliminated altogether if the INS had been able to process the I-140 in a timely
fashion. The failure to adjudicate the adjustment of status applications meant that fewer people became permanent residents and a push to
rush through cases created a bulge in the workflow. The sudden increase in workload resulted in delayed processing .
Delayed processing means the initial grants of work or travel authorization expire. To obtain extensions of these, the
individual must make a formal request and the INS has more work for its adjudication officers. n320 n320 See INS Nonimmigrant Classes, 8
C.F.R. � 214.2 (2000) (detailing general requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status).
One bulge can build into a
tidal wave five years later. In 1986, Congress authorized a legalization program resulting in more than three million
people [*284] becoming permanent residents over a five-year period. n321 Because permanent residents cannot apply for naturalization until
they have completed five years of resident status, n322 the INS began to experience an upswing in the number of naturalization applications.
n323 If the INS allows backlogs to grow, and then, through special initiatives, completes the adjustment of status applications for record
numbers of people, the bulge will reappear a few years later in naturalization applications and in relative petitions for the employees' family
members who have not yet immigrated to the United States.
General – No HSW Shortage
Newest, most-qualified report says no shortage
Hickey 13
[Walter, B.S. Applied Mathematics (William and Mary), Politics and Markets Reporter
Business Insider, “A Brand New Report Shows Just How Wrong Silicon Valley Is About A Tech Worker
Shortage,” Business Insider, 5/31, http://www.businessinsider.com/a-brand-new-report-shows-justhow-wrong-silicon-valleys-claim-of-a-stem-shortage-is-2013-5#ixzz2Wcm0nFLe]
A new report from the esteemed Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce presents a
pretty significant rebuttal to that claim. ¶ Released on Wednesday, the annual report looks at how new college graduates are faring in the
recession-era economy. ¶ That it's titled "Hard Times" should give you
a decent idea on how millennials are doing. ¶ Most
interesting is the technology sector numbers. Were there truly a STEM shortage — were demand for STEM majors to exceed
supply — one would expect that unemployment statistics for recent STEM graduates would be
outstandingly low. ¶ The reality? Nope . From the report:¶ Unemployment seems mostly concentrated in information systems
(14.7 %) compared with computer science (8.7%) and mathematics (5.9%). As noted in an earlier report, hiring tends to be slower
for users of information compared to those who write programs and create software applications.¶
Let's get a little perspective here. According to the report, new information science graduates have worse
unemployment than sociology (9.9%), archaeology (12.6%) and English (9.8%) majors . ¶ Hard Times¶ What
gives?¶ If there's a STEM shortage, why are one in every eleven recent computer science graduates out
of a job? Why are one in every seven information science majors out of work if Silicon Valley is so
desperate to import talent?¶ The reality is that from an economic perspective we don't have a STEM
shortage .¶ What we may have is a "STEM majors who have the skills that Silicon Valley prefers" shortage.¶ But to say we have a
STEM shortage is needlessly hyperbolic .
Wages prove too and investor confidence alt cause
Spak 13
[Kevin, economics reporter, “No, America Doesn't Have a Skilled Worker Shortage,” Newser, 5/6,
http://www.newser.com/story/167457/no-america-doesnt-have-a-skilled-worker-shortage.html]
Employers have been complaining for years now that
the US is short of skilled workers, which is fast becoming the
conventional wisdom explanation for persistently high unemployment. After all, there are currently more job openings than our
current unemployment rates would suggest there should be. "There's only one problem with this story: It's mostly
fiction ," writes Robert Samuelson at the Washington Post. Most of these job postings are simply routine , the result
of workers retiring or switching employers.¶ If there were really a skilled labor shortage, wages would
be rising to lure workers away from the competition. Instead, manufacturing wages are up just 1%
since April 2012, and computer programmer wages have been flat for a decade. The real explanation for
high unemployment "almost certainly involves employers, not workers," Samuelson theorizes. Businesses
are reluctant to hire, thanks to some combination of skepticism about the recovery, ObamaCare
raising labor costs, and a hunger for higher profit margins. " Today's crucial scarcity is not skills. It's
confidence."
“Shortage” is merely employees wanting more money
Ozimek 13
[Adam, journalist for Forbes, “An Alternative Theory of the Skills Shortage,” Forbes, 4/24,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/04/24/an-alternative-theory-of-the-skillsshortage/]
A common story you hear now is that we are seeing a shortage of skilled workers. It is argued that
manufacturers and STEM employers in general are trying to hire skilled workers but can’t find them. This is used sometimes as an
argument for more skilled immigration, and it’s used as a case for structural unemployment. A common counterargument to
this is that if there was a shortage you would be seeing a rise in wages in these industries, but for STEM workers and manufacturers in general
you don’t see rising wages, ergo there is no skill shortage. This is true of the normal definition of shortages, but one
possibility of
what’s going on here is that those within these industries arguing that they have a shortage mean
something slightly different than what economists mean .¶ To put it concisely, I think what people may be
observing is very elastic labor demand . Consider a manufacturing firm that is selling widgets in a global market. If they pay
workers $15 an hour they can sell widgets for $1 and the global market will buy what from an individual firm’s perspective looks like pretty
much however many they can make at that price. But at $15.50 an hour the widget cost and price goes up by one penny and they can sell zero
on global market. This means the firm is willing to hire a marginal worker, and in fact many marginal workers for $15 an hour, but cannot
profitably hire any more workers at more than that.¶ Technically this
isn’t a shortage, and is similar to what the “skills
shortage” critics would say is just business owners wanting to pay below market cost. But it does
explain why the “just raise the wages” solution doesn’t really help the industry. If it’s a zero economic
profit industry and prices are set on a global market they may be unable to.¶ So what is there to
complain about then from industry’s perspective? They want to pay wages below market and obviously nobody
workers will accept that, so case closed, no skills gap . But here are two suggestions for what “skills shortage” advocates
may mean. First, they may look at the $15 an hour job and know that this is a job that for many would be
worth the investment it would take to learn the skills. Essentially they are trying to spread
information about the jobs and complaining that the human capital industrial complex is suffering
from a market failure, partly due to an informational problem. An informational problem they are trying to
correct . Would the “skills shortage” critics you hear normally argue that human capital markets are
fully rational and lacking in information problems and structural rigidities? Perhaps they should
consider that is at work here even though we aren’t seeing rising wages.
Multiple studies prove our argument
Harrison 13
[J.D, business reporter, “No shortage? New STEM data could derail entrepreneurs’ push for immigration
changes,” Washington Post, 4/26, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0426/business/38828223_1_stem-fields-foreign-workers-senate-immigration-bill]
New research on the labor market for science and technology graduates poses a threat to the
lobbying efforts of business owners and entrepreneurs, many of whom want Congress to let more highly skilled workers into
the United States.¶ One of their main arguments is that the country is not producing enough native-born workers in STEM fields — referring to science, technology,
engineering and mathematics — to keep pace with surging demand from the private sector. Congress should therefore ease immigration restrictions, they argue, in
order to help new and expanding businesses fill the void with foreign workers. ¶ However,
a growing collection of research paints a
starkly different picture of the STEM landscape in the U.S. The latest study comes from the Economic
Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, which this week published a report suggesting the skills gap is a myth .¶ The
EPI study found that the United States has ‘more than a sufficient supply of workers available to work
in STEM occupations.’ Basic dynamics of supply and de