Immigration Reform Politics
1NC
CIR will pass however Obama’s continued PC investment is uniquely key
Bennett 6/27 (Clay Bennett; June 27, 2013; “Editorial: Keep up momentum on immigration reform”;
Tampa Bay Times; http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-keep-up-momentum-onimmigration-reform/2128923)//KDUB
With broad bipartisan support, the Senate approved sweeping legislation Thursday that would significantly
benefit Florida and finally create a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants . Sen. Marco Rubio
deserves credit for helping negotiate reforms and build a coalition of reasonable Republicans and Democrats, but the work is far from finished.
The road will be even tougher in the more conservative House, and supporters have to keep up the
pressure for comprehensive reform. The 68-32 vote sent a strong message about the merits of the
Senate bill, even if it is far from perfect. The path to citizenship would take more than a decade and should be shorter. The strict
requirements along the way, from learning English to paying fines and back taxes, may be too difficult for many illegal immigrants to clear. The
$46 billion for strengthening the border to win over more conservative senators is too high, and the requirements for border security goals to
be met before permanent resident green cards are obtained may be a prescription for failure. Yet the
legislation offers a far
smarter way forward than the status quo, and it reflects what can be accomplished by building
consensus in an era where Washington has been paralyzed by partisan gridlock. The Senate bill acknowledges
the reality that 11 million illegal immigrants are not going to be returned to their home countries. It also recognizes that many of them already
are quietly working in Florida fields and businesses, attending public schools and living peacefully in our communities. Undocumented
immigrants would not be the only beneficiaries of the Senate bill. So would large segments of Florida's economy. Labor and business groups
agreed on a provision to create up to 200,000 guest visas annually for low-skilled immigrants like those who work in Florida's tourism industry.
The number of visas for high-skilled foreign workers also would be increased. And a new agricultural guest worker program would benefit
Florida agriculture, where informed estimates suggest the overwhelming number of field workers are illegal immigrants. In his closing remarks
before the Senate vote, Rubio acknowledged that the immigration issue ''has been a real trial for me" and that it angered many conservatives
who helped elect him. But he recounted his family's move from Cuba to Florida in search of work and a better life, and he talked of the "miracle
of America,'' of the impact immigrants have on the nation and the impact the nation has on immigrants. "I support this reform,'' the Florida
Republican concluded, "not just because I believe in immigrants, but because I believe in America even more.'' Convincing
the House
Republicans to embrace that optimistic vision will be difficult. House Speaker John Boehner has no control
over the most conservative Republicans and no appetite for building a coalition of Democrats and
mainstream Republicans like the Senate did to pass immigration legislation. It will be up to President Barack Obama
and Republicans like Rubio to build public pressure, change the speaker's mind and force a House vote on
comprehensive immigration reform that could pass with bipartisan support.
[INSERT LINK]
Obama’s PC is key to overcome GOP opposition
AFP 6-12 (Agence France Presse. “US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears first hurdle”
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-12/news/39925853_1_border-securitylandmark-immigration-bill-democratic-senator-chuck-schumer)
Obama made an outspoken pitch for the bill on Tuesday, saying those opposed to it are insincere about fixing a badly broken
system. The president 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 are determined to kill it. But ahead of the
crucial test votes, Obama
waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during
last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. The president 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. "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," he said at a White House event. Obama
also took
direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who are opposed to the bill. "If you're not serious about it, if you think that
a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it," he said. "But if you're actually serious and sincere
about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it, and now is the time to get it done." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a frequent
Obama critic, said "the president's tone and engagement has been very helpful" to the process . But he
stressed that fellow Republicans in the Senate and House needed to look closely at whether they want to scupper the effort and jeopardize the
party's political future by alienating millions of voters.
[INSERT IMPACT SCENARIO]
Will Pass
Will Pass – General
CIR will pass now but Obama’s PC is still key to overcome GOP opposition in the house
Geman 6/29 (Ben Geman - 06/29/13; “Obama adviser: House facing ‘a lot of pressure’ to act on
immigration reform”; The Hill; http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308581-white-houseadviser-sees-a-lot-of-pressure-on-house-over-immigration-)//KDUB
A senior White House official said the Senate’s 68-32 passage of a sweeping immigration bill on
Thursday has created pressure for action in the GOP-led House. “There is a national conversation happening about
immigration reform. And there is a sense of momentum created by what the Senate just did. So we expect that conversation is going to
continue,” said Cecilia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. “And frankly there’s
going to be a lot of
pressure on the House to act now that the Senate has acted,” Munoz added in an interview Friday with Bloomberg.
President Obama on Saturday urged the House to move legislation before the August recess. But efforts
to reach a House-Senate deal face major hurdles. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said any House plan
must have support from a majority of the Republicans in his chamber. Asked whether that represents a setback,
Munoz replied: “there are multiple options available for House consideration.” “It is important that the speaker has made it
clear that the House is going to make its mark on this debate. That’s as it should be,” she said on the program
“Political Capital with Al Hunt.” The Senate plan, which includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented residents, won 14
Republican votes in the upper chamber. Munoz called the 68-32 Senate passage a “very strong vote,”
and said there’s widespread backing for immigration reform nationwide that will translate into support
from House Republicans. “[Y]ou’re talking about the business community, from the National Association of Manufacturers, to the U.S.
Chamber, to the tech sector, small businesses, faith leaders of every kind, but also this conversation is happening locally in a different way in
religious congregations, in communities around the country," she said. "The country is for this and I think ultimately the House of
Representatives will be too."
CIR will pass – treasury secretary
Indian Express 7/1 (Indian Express; Jul 01 2013; “Immigration reform bill will pass: US treasury
secretary”; http://www.indianexpress.com/news/immigration-reform-bill-will-pass-us-treasurysecretary/1136184/)//KDUB
US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said that he was confident that immigration reform would be adopted,
despite strong opposition from some Republicans. Last week the US Senate passed a controversial
immigration bill that would give a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, and the legislation is now
under debate in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Conservatives have criticised the
Senate version of the overhaul and have vowed any House version would need to have significant
differences. But Treasury Secretary Lew, thought the reforms strongly backed by President Barack Obama, would become law. "I think the
immigration reform will pass," he said at a conference in Aspen, Colorado yesterday. "We need to do this for the sake of the
economy," he said, emphasising that taxes paid by these newly legalised immigrants could help
prolong the solvency of social security and medicare. And he added, "we have to do it because it's the right thing to do.
We have to it because it's the smart thing to do." "We are a nation of immigrants. You look at the fortune 500
companies, 40 percent of them were started by immigrants or children of immigrants," he said. The treasury
secretary called himself "very optimistic" for US economic growth, saying there are "a lot of signs that there is a real recovery on the way." But,
he said, "we have to make sure we do not have another round of self-inflicted wounds," referring to negotiations over the country's borrowing
limit and budget cuts, which hinder growth. "I
think the president has made clear... that we cannot be in a position
ever again that you are negotiating over whetheror not the US government is going to default ," Lew said.
He refused to answer questions on monetary policy or to discuss the process to replace Ben Bernanke
as head of the Federal Reserve, whose term ends in January. Though media reports indicate the Treasury Department
is involved in selecting his successor, Lew simply said his "conversations with the president should remain private."
CIR will pass – political pressure
Reuters 6/30 (John Whitesides; Jun 30, 2013; “Democrat predicts House will pass Senate immigration
bill”; Reuters; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/30/us-usa-immigrationidUSBRE95R14T20130630)//KDUB
Schumer, a member of the bipartisan Senate group that crafted the immigration measure, said House Republicans who are
now vowing they will not pass the Senate measure will ultimately be convinced by political concerns
about the party's future. "I believe that by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill. I know that's not what they think
now. And they'll say, 'Oh no, that's not what's going to happen.' But I think it will," Schumer told the "Fox News Sunday" program. Senior
House Republicans rejected Schumer's prediction. Republican Speaker John Boehner has said the House will
write its own immigration bill rather than bringing up the Senate bill passed on Thursday, which is supported by
Democratic President Barack Obama. Fourteen Senate Republicans joined Senate Democrats in backing a Senate bill
that features a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States , an
approach vehemently opposed by many conservative House Republicans who view it as rewarding law-breakers. Some Republican
leaders worry that rejecting the Senate bill could further alienate Hispanics, a fast-growing bloc of
voters who overwhelmingly supported Obama's re-election in 2012, and could handicap the party in future
presidential elections. Schumer said House Republicans eventually will allow a vote on the Senate bill to get
the issue off their backs and ease the pressure from immigration reform supporters including religious, civil rights and business
groups. "Within several months, Speaker Boehner will find two choices: no bill or let a bill pass with a majority of
Democratic votes and some Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans. And he'll find that the better choice," the
New York senator said. House Republicans sarcastically shrugged off Schumer's prediction. "I was moved almost to the point of tears by Senator
Schumer's concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party. But we're going to not take his advice," said Republican Representative
Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who heads the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. "The Senate bill is not going to
pass in the House, and it's not going to pass for myriad reasons," Gowdy said. "I'm more interested in getting it right than doing it on Senator
Schumer's schedule," he added. FUTURE IMPLICATIONS Boehner
has said an immigration bill will be put to a vote only
if a majority of House Republicans back it. Boehner supports a piecemeal approach using smaller, targeted bills rather than the
sweeping Senate legislation. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, another member of the bipartisan group behind the Senate bill,
said it would not be easy to convince the House to pass broad immigration reform but held out hope.
"I really hesitate to tell Speaker Boehner exactly how he should do this. But I think Republicans realize the implications (for)
the future of the Republican Party in America if we don't get this issue behind us," McCain said on "Fox
News Sunday." "I believe that the coalition that we've assembled of support ranging from evangelicals, to the Catholic church, business, labor,
farm workers, growers ... I frankly have never seen such widespread support. And I am hopeful that we can convince our House colleagues,"
McCain said. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the top Democrat in the House, said she was optimistic the political realities of
immigration would force House Republicans to come around. "It's
certainly right for the Republicans if they ever want
to win a presidential race," Pelosi said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. A proposal being talked about in the House as an
alternative to the Senate bill would offer possible citizenship in the future after illegal immigrants spend a decade working through a legalized
status that gives them work permits. Representative Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said it was
possible the House could pass a measure that did not include a pathway to citizenship but focused on a "pathway to legalization" for
undocumented immigrants. On ABC's "This Week" program, Goodlatte also made clear the House would not pass the Senate bill. "When you
use the word pathway to 'legalization' as opposed to pathway to 'citizenship,' I'd say, 'Yes,'" he said when asked about the chances for an
immigration bill getting through the House. "Not a special pathway to citizenship where people who are here unlawfully get something that
people who have worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have," Goodlatte added.
Will Pass –Schumer
Whitesides, John 6/30/13 “Reuters political correspondent, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/30/senatorcharles-schumer-gop-led-house-will-pass-immigration-reform/”
WASHINGTON (Reuters) –
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives will bow to political pressure
and pass the immigration bill approved by the Democratic-led Senate by the end of the year, Democratic
Senator Charles Schumer predicted on Sunday.¶Schumer, a member of the bipartisan Senate group that
crafted the immigration measure, said House Republicans who are now vowing they will not pass the
Senate measure will ultimately be convinced by political concerns about the party’s future.¶“I believe
that by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill. I know that’s not what they think now.
And they’ll say, ‘Oh no, that’s not what’s going to happen.’ But I think it will,” Schumer told the “Fox News Sunday” program.
Will pass – Pelosi
Morgenstern, Madeleine 6/30/13 “http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/30/nancy-pelosi-house-republicans-will-passimmigration-reform-if-they-ever-want-to-win-a-presidential-race/; Assistant editor at TheBlaze. A graduate of George Washington University
with a degree in political science”
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said congressional Republicans will have to pass immigration
reform if they ever want the GOP to retake the White House.¶“I believe that the members of Congress, many
more than are directly affected themselves by the number of Hispanics in their district, will do what is right for our country,”
Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And it’s certainly right — for the Republicans, if
they ever want to win a presidential race.ӦHouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif. speaks during a news conference on
Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 27, 2013. (AP) Pelosi said she’s “very optimistic” that comprehensive
immigration reform will pass “before long, and certainly this year.”¶The onus is now on the Republican-led House,
after the Democratic-led Senate overwhelmingly passed its bill Thursday. House Speaker John Boehner said last week that any type of
immigration legislation to come to the House floor must have the approval of the majority of congressional Republicans.
Will Pass – Momentum
Senate bill creates momentum for CIR but Obama’s involvement is still key
Bloomberg 6/28 (Editors: Robin Meszoly; Jun 28; “Munoz Sees House Republicans Pressed on
Immigration (Transcript)”; Bloomberg; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/munoz-seeshouse-republicans-pressed-on-immigration-transcript-.html)//KDUB
HANS NICHOLS: Thanks for joining us. I’m Hans Nichols filling in for Albert R. Hunt. We begin the show with White House domestic
policy adviser, Cecilia Munoz. Cecilia, thank you so much for joining us. On Thursday, Speaker John Boehner said that it has - that
any immigration bill has to have a majority of a majority. Does that make passage impossible or just harder? CECILIA MUNOZ: Well, I think that
what makes passage possible is that we just had a very, very strong vote in the Senate, 68 votes, 14
Republicans supporting. And there are constituencies all over the country who cheered way out loud once they
saw what the Senate was doing. We have business leaders of every shape and size. We have faith
leaders. There are law-enforcement officials. There are mayors and governors of both parties. There is
strong support for immigration reform all over the country. And there is strong evidence that immigration reform is not
just good for the economy, but excellent for the economy. It reduces the deficit by almost $1 trillion. It helps create jobs. It helps grow GDP. So
the reason that this is going to happen is because there is so much support all over the country. NICHOLS: And that support translates to the
Republican conference? MUNOZ: I think it does because, again, you’re talking about the business community, from
the National
Association of Manufacturers, to the U.S. Chamber, to the tech sector, small businesses, faith leaders
of every kind, but also this conversation is happening locally in a different way in religious congregations,
in communities around the country. The country is for this and I think ultimately the House of
Representatives will be too. NICHOLS: So the majority of majority’s benchmark by Boehner is not a setback? MUNOZ: Well, there
are multiple options available for House consideration. It is important that the speaker has made it clear that the House is going to make its
mark on this debate. That’s as it should be. That’s how democracy works. But at
the end of the day, the American people
expect their policymakers to make policy, especially to fix what everybody acknowledges to be a
broken immigration system. Inaction here is not an option. NICHOLS: The president, and as well yourself, have been involved at least
in the Senate negotiations, but for the most part you gave the Senate some space, the Gang of Eight to sort of crack, to compromise, to do the
heavy negotiations themselves. Will there be a same strategy with the Gang of Seven in the House, give them space to work this out? MUNOZ:
Well, the
president has made it abundantly clear that this is a priority for him. There is nobody who has any
has been involved by being public about his wishes, but putting out a set
of principles, by talking to senators on both sides of the aisle. And his team has been involved with
senators on both sides of the aisle for just facilitating a good legislative process. What he’s going to do
and what his administration is going to do is whatever helps us get the best possible bill over the
finish line, because that’s what the American people expect out of it. NICHOLS: Well, walk me through that a little bit. What is the strategy,
guesswork to make about that. And he
day in, day out? Congress is obviously away on recess, July 4th. Will they come back ready, we’re more ready, less ready to sort of cut a deal?
MUNOZ: Well there
is a national conversation happening about immigration reform. And there is a sense
of momentum created by what the Senate just did. So we expect that conversation is going to continue. And frankly there’s
going to be a lot of pressure on the House to act now that the Senate has acted. That’s clearly where the next move is.
CIR has momentum and will pass
Dickerson 6/25 (JOHN DICKERSON; June 25, 2013; “How the Senate hopes to bully the House on
immigration”; CBS News; http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57590878/how-the-senate-hopesto-bully-the-house-on-immigration/)
Later this week, the Senate will pass comprehensive immigration reform, and that's supposed to give the
bill momentum in the House. "We're working to get a very substantial bipartisan majority," said Republican Sen. John Hoeven.
"That's going to help in terms of actually getting the bill all the way through the House and into law." Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, a
member of the Senate Gang of Eight that has crafted the bill, and also a former member of the House, says that, "Having a significant number
of Republicans will change the dynamic in the House." But what one person calls "momentum," another might call "recklessness." If the bill
passes the Senate with 70 votes or more, as supporters predict, that could mean the bill is the product of sweet reason and compromise
between the parties. Or it could mean the bill won so many votes because it is a bill filled with special provisions meant to buy off particular
senators or generally calm the political anxiety of a Republican Party that feels it must improve its electoral chances with Hispanic voters. In a
time when voters loathe Congress, will they see this bill as a rare piece of fruit or will they reason that anything that has the support of so many
members of a body so thoroughly discredited must be awful? Whoever wins this labeling debate will help determine the fate of comprehensive
immigration reform. Momentum
Theory is based on the principle that the more votes the bill gets in the
Senate, the better the bill is. The rare coming-together of both parties in the Senate might make low-information voters think the
bill is in the category of other unassailable good things senators support in large majorities: the American military, national holidays, and Social
Security checks. If
people don't see Republicans and Democrats collapsing into their usual predictable
squabbles--particularly on such a contentious issue--that must mean the path they've agreed on is a wise one. If
Momentum Theory is true, polls should show voters increasingly behind the measure. That would pressure those House
members whose opposition to reform is not absolute but flavored with some concern about the
public will or the national image of the Republican Party. This is why supporters of reform are pushing to run up the
Senate vote total to build the bandwagon feeling. On CNN, Schumer took this theory to its stratospheric conclusion,
claiming that if the Senate bill is blocked it would result in a protest of "a million people on the Mall in Washington." A big Senate
victory would also give supporters a way to minimize future debate about the controversial portions
of the bill. The House is expected to pass a series of smaller immigration bills but no path to
citizenship, which is the heart of the Senate effort. If a House Republican takes issue with a particular element of Senate
reform, a supporter will claim the issue was already debated and resolved in the Senate. Charges of bigotry are always just
below the surface in the immigration debate. If the perception is that the Senate has already worked through the tough
issues, then House skepticism will be easier to frame as being motivated by bigotry instead of policy concerns. The charges won't be
coming just from liberals. The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page has conveyed that
sentiment already about those who oppose reform. Since a number of Republicans worry about how the
party is perceived by voters as it debates this issue in public, fear of looking intolerant will be pronounced,
putting even more pressure on lawmakers in the House to ratify the Senate version.
CIR will pass - momentum
Bloomberg 6/28 (Editors: Robin Meszoly; Jun 28; “Munoz Sees House Republicans Pressed on
Immigration (Transcript)”; Bloomberg; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/munoz-seeshouse-republicans-pressed-on-immigration-transcript-.html)//KDUB
MUNOZ: Well there is a national conversation happening about immigration reform. And there is a sense of
momentum created by what the Senate just did. So we expect that conversation is going to continue.
And frankly there’s going to be a lot of pressure on the House to act now that the Senate has acted.
That’s clearly where the next move is. And I think there is a lot of room for the House to do what is right here and make sure that they’re
engaging and talking about border enforcement, to make sure that they’re engaging and talking about how to reform the legal immigration
system, to make sure this system works equally well for businesses as well as workers, and know and you have to address the question of a
pathway to citizenship, which is something that is strongly supported all over the country. NICHOLS: And that absolutely needs to be in any final
bill that the president signs. MUNOZ: The
president has made it clear. He has put out a series of principles. That’s one
of them and he wants a bill that is as consistent with those principles as possible. NICHOLS: Now I take your
momentum point. Sixty-eight votes in the Senate is no small thing, bigger than the previous majorities, but
at what point does that momentum run out? Are you worried about this sort of being so the clock being run out and the
House not acting? MUNOZ: Well, look, there are no hard and fast rules about every piece of legislation following the same path. NICHOLS: Well
are there deadlines? Are MUNOZ: There - look, it’s
pretty important to get an immigration bill done this year. The
Senate has acted. There is no - the House has been considering and talking about this now, not just for
months but for years. You could date this debate back to 2001 when George Bush put this on the table. The House passed a bill in
2005. This debate has been going on for a long time. There’s while it’s very important that the House speak, there is no reason that it can’t
speak this summer or this year. NICHOLS: Well there’s a difference there between this summer and this year. When we talk about momentum,
will momentum run out if it’s October and we don’t have a deal? MUNOZ: I don’t think momentum is running out on this issue because it’s
clear that there’s bipartisan support. It’s clear that there’s support all over the country. It’s clear that there’s an imperative for action here. And
NICHOLS: So perpetual momentum machine. MUNOZ: I NICHOLS: Momentum does not slow down. MUNOZ: I have to say I was in the Senate
gallery when the Senate voted. The diversity of people who are in the gallery, the diversity of the statements that came out after the Senate
acted demonstrate there is strong support for this all over the country. Immigration reform is going to happen. NICHOLS: But what about
McConnell’s statements? And when you look at House leaders they are lukewarm or outright hostile. And just help me understand your
confidence. MUNOZ: I actually think we’ve heard the speaker say that he intends to take this up, that the House is going to work its will. We
have seen bills go through the judiciary committee as recently as this last week. We’ve seen other important leaders like Congressman Ryan
speak out forcefully in favor of immigration reform. And importantly, there
are constituencies that have influence with
sides of the aisle, like evangelicals, like Catholic bishops, like business leaders
of every shape and size, who have said, not just we’re for this but this is a priority. We have to get this done. We can’t
afford the consequences of inaction any longer. That’s a pretty strong sense of momentum. NICHOLS: Now
frankly the members on both
when you - in your other big capacity as domestic policy adviser, you do deal with domestic policy, foreign policy. Does the defeat of the farm
bill give you pause at all at sort of just how tough the politics are going to be in the House? MUNOZ: Well, look, legislating
is never
easy. It involves compromise. That’s what just happened in the Senate, but it is - it’s clear that there are
multiple options available to the House. And the important thing is that the House act.
CIR will pass - momentum
Camia 7/1 (Catalina Camia, USA TODAY; July 1, 2013; “Jeb Bush urges House to pass immigration bill”;
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/07/01/jeb-bush-immigration-houserepublicans/2479497/)//KDUB
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is calling on the GOP-led House to pass a comprehensive
immigration bill and asked his party to quit being "the obstacle" on the divisive issue. Bush, who is
considering running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, called on House Republicans to make improvements to the sweeping
immigration legislation passed by the Senate last week on a bipartisan, 68-32 vote. He made his plea Monday in an op-ed column for The Wall
Street Journal, co-written by Clint Bolick, his co-author on a book about immigration policy. "No
Republican would vote for
legislation that stifled economic growth, promoted illegal immigration, added to the welfare rolls, and
failed to ensure a secure border. Yet they essentially will do just that if they fail to pass
comprehensive immigration reform — and leave in place a system that does all of those things," Bush and Bolick wrote. House
Speaker John Boehner has said the House will not pass an immigration bill that doesn't have support from
a majority of Republican and Democratic members. That could be a challenge in the GOP-led House,
where Republicans have 234 members to 201 for Democrats. Three major pieces of legislation this year — the bill to avert the "fiscal cliff," aid
to Superstorm Sandy victims and an extension of the Violence Against Women Act — all passed on the strength of Democratic votes. Bush
and Bolick acknowledged the threshold set by Boehner for GOP votes, calling it a "tall order" but one
that could be met. They suggest tweaking the Senate bill to include more triggers to ensure the border
is secure and ways to verify the legal status of workers, and create more opportunities for foreign guest workers. They
made a nod to GOP losses at the ballot box last year, when minorities overwhelmingly voted for
President Obama. "Immigration is not the only issue on which Hispanics or Asians vote. But it is a
gateway issue," Bush and Bolick said. "Republicans need to cease being the obstacle to immigration reform
and instead point the way toward the solution."
Will Pass – DOMA
The DOMA ruling eliminates a key disagreement between parties and makes
immigration passage more likely
Avila, et. al 6-26-2013 Senior National Correspondent at ABC News (focus on Hispanic America); White
House correspondent for Fusion, former Senior Law and Justice Correspondent (Jim, Serena Marshall,
“DEATH OF DOMA BOOSTS IMMIGRATION BILL CHANCES”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/death-of-doma-boosts-immigration-bill-chances/
//SRM)
Today’s Supreme Court decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) makes passing immigration
reform just a little easier. How do the two collide? Under DOMA the federal government did not recognize
marriages of same-sex couples, thereby preventing them from accessing federal benefits–including the ability to
sponsor a spouse for a visa. Democrats wanted to change that under the new immigration bill. Sen.
Patrick Leahy’s, D-Vt., introduced an amendment allowing gays and lesbians to sponsor their partners for immigration in the same way married
heterosexual couples would be able to do. But Republicans
on the “Gang of 8″ objected and threatened to scuttle
the entire compromise. Leahy withdrew his bill but has been threatening to bring it back before the
final vote. One Long, Arduous Day on the Road to Overhaul. It was a painful concession for Democrats and led to
complaints that liberals were caving to conservative Republicans too much. But Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told his
party to look at the big picture and save the compromise immigration legislation. “The result [if Leahy's amendment passes]: no equality [and]
no immigration bill. Everyone loses,” said Schumer during the May markup. “The security and prosperity of our nation is too vital, too rare to let
[the bill] fail now,” Schumer
said. ”As much as it pains me, I cannot support this amendment if it will bring
down the bill.”Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who voted ‘no’ during markup to maintain the bipartisan support for the legislation,
referenced the Supreme Court pending decision at the time in late May saying “the Supreme Court may just settle all of this…may make this
question moot.” Now she appears to be right. Gays and Lesbians will be allowed to sponsor their partners now, not because of Senator
Leahy’s amendment, but because of
the Supreme Court. Immigration Overhaul Clears Pivotal Vote in Senate Today, Leahy
agreed and said on the Senate floor there is no need for his special amendment to protect gays and lesbians and
will not be seeking a floor vote on his amendment. “Last month I was forced to make one of the most difficult decisions in my 38 years as a
senator,” Leahy said of his decision to withdraw his amendment. “but with the Supreme Court’s decision today, it appears that the antidiscrimination principle that I’ve long advocated will apply to our immigration laws and to binational couples and their families can now be
united under the law.” According to UCLA’s Williams Institute 24,700 same-sex couples are bi-national, meaning one of the citizens is a U.S.
citizen and one is not.
The DOMA ruling makes immigration passage more likely
Freese 6-28-2013 - Education reporter for VTDigger; B.A. in international relations from Pomona College; former
associate for ReThink media; (Alicia, “LEAHY DISCUSSES HIS ROLE ON IMMIGRATION REFORM, DOMA, NSA LEAKS”
Vtdigger.com http://vtdigger.org/2013/06/28/leahy-discusses-his-role-on-immigration-reform-doma-nsa-leaks/
//SRM)
The Defense of Marriage Act ruling, which paves the way for same-sex couples to gain access to the same federal rights available to
heterosexual couples, nullified one of Leahy’s most difficult decisions, made last month, and one of a “tiny handful” of votes he regrets, cast
came after Leahy backed down from offering
a controversial amendment to the immigration bill in his committee that would have allowed people in
same-sex marriages to sponsor their spouses for green cards. But the ruling arrived before Leahy had to
decide whether to offer the amendment once the bill reached the floor. The DOMA case will give couples those
immigration rights, freeing the senator from having to choose between risking losing support for the
immigration bill or failing to prioritize the rights of same-sex couples. Leahy voted for DOMA in 1996. He said Friday
nearly 17 years ago, according to the senator’s own reckoning. The court’s decision
he erroneously believed the vote would move Vermont closer to marriage equality by mollifying lawmakers who were rigidly opposed to the
idea. “I thought what I was doing was keeping us from going to a more sweeping thing, which would be a federal standard of what states could
do on marriage, and I wanted to protect Vermont’s ability to do whatever we wanted. In retrospect it was too sweeping.” Some lawmakers on
Capitol Hill want offer a constitutional amendment to undo the DOMA ruling. Several of those people have approached Leahy, inquiring about
the chances that the Judiciary Committee would take up such an amendment. The senator pantomimed his response, cocking his head and
bringing a hand to his chin in feigned deliberation. “Not good,” he recalled telling them.
Will Pass – AT: Boehner
Boehner will support immigration reform – it’s in his best interest and he has the
methods to do so
Zelier 7-01 [Julian, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and the author of
"Jimmy Carter" and "Governing America”, “Will Speaker Boehner make history?”,
<http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/01/opinion/zelizer-speaker-boehner/?hpt=hp_t5>]
(CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner is facing a huge moment in his career. Now that the Senate has passed the
immigration bill, all eyes have turned to the House, where some right-wing members of the GOP are prepared to scuttle the bipartisan deal that
has been carefully crafted in the upper chamber. According to Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole, "We have a minority of the minority in the
Senate voting for this bill. That's not going to put a lot of pressure on the majority of the majority in the House." This is
a test for
Boehner, a massive opportunity for him to rebuild a languishing speakership. At this point, the verdict of history
probably would not be very kind to him. Boehner has struggled to move legislation through his chamber, as the recent embarrassing failure of
the farm bill showed. His biggest victories have primarily been symbolic, like the legislation dealing with abortion that has no chance of passing
the Senate. If his goal is to bring together the various factions of his party into common accord behind key legislation, he has repeatedly failed.
How can Boehner have any success with immigration? After watching the collapse of the deal with farm legislation, it seems difficult to fathom
how he can stitch together a majority that will stay on board with this bill. When the bet is between failure and success, most Washington
observers would bet on failure. Yet Boehner
does have some tools at his disposal. Most importantly, he can
work with external organizations to lobby House Republicans, namely, religious and business
organizations. Both these groups have shown strong support for immigration reform and they have
considerable clout in gerrymandered districts that President Obama can never reach. A large number
of religious groups, including evangelical Christians, have called on Congress to pass the reform. Ralph
Reed, one of the most influential members of the religious right in recent years and who is the chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition,
said: "As people of faith, this is not just an economic and security issue; it is a moral issue. This bill, while not
perfect, is an important starting point to reforming and modernizing U.S. immigration law so it reflects faith-based principles of compassion for
This strategy has
worked before. When Southern Democrats were filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious organizations helped the Johnson
administration persuade Midwestern Republican senators to vote for cloture. Business groups, traditionally a driving force
for immigration liberalization, can also help Boehner. Given their immense clout within the party as
well as within specific districts, business groups should flex their financial muscle to pressure
members into voting yes. Boehner needs to threaten House Republicans that he could work out a deal
with Democrats and moderates in the party. Boehner has generally adopted a model of leadership in which he follows the
lead of his caucus. If enough Republicans don't agree with a path to citizenship and believe that passing this
legislation will threaten their majority, then he should follow their demands. But another model of
congressional leadership is to try to shape his caucus rather than having it shape him. As the Emory political
the alien, the primacy of the family, respect for the rule of law, and protecting U.S. security and sovereignty."
scientist Randall Strahan detailed in his book, "Leading Representatives," there is a history of speakers, such as Henry Clay, Thomas Reed and
Newt Gingrich, who have taken enormous risks to push their caucus in new directions. This
is a strategy that could produce
historic legislation. This is the path that Speaker Tip O'Neill took, to the chagrin of many liberals, when he worked with President
Reagan's administration to pass the tax cut of 1981. Rather than standing in the way of the tax cut, O'Neill decided to sign on and demanded
goodies for Democratic constituencies. House Democrats, who had little love for Reagan, had little choice but to join their speaker, knowing
that they were going to lose. With
the case of immigration, Boehner could enter into a dramatic bipartisan
alliance that would leave him with much greater national clout. Even the threat of an alliance might
be sufficient to move enough conservative House Republicans, who sense that defeat is inevitable and decide that
they might as well win some credit for the victory. Finally, there is always the power of pork. When Lyndon Johnson, as Senate
majority leader, had to craft a deal over the Civil Rights Act of 1957, one of the tools he used to win over Western senators to vote in ways that
were helpful to him was to convince Southerners to support a major water project in Arizona. Today, the tools of pork are not as voluminous. A
stringent budget and limits on earmarks have taken away some of the tools that the leadership depends on. Yet there is still pork to go around.
While tea party Republicans allegedly don't like this, nothing could be further from the truth. In 2011, an investigation by Newsweek found
how, despite their rhetoric, tea party Republicans have made the same kind of demands for money in their districts as others. Virginia's Eric
Cantor, House majority leader, for instance, pressed for transportation funding in his home state even while deriding Congress for its spending
habits. All
these tools offer Boehner some path and muscle to make the impossible possible. If the
immigration bill goes down to defeat in the House it would be a huge blow to those desperately seeking a path to
citizenship, to the national standing of the GOP and to Boehner. His power as a legislative leader would totally
vanish, and other than tea party Republicans, there would be little support for him. All speakers face
historic turning points, and immigration is Boehner's. The outcome of the debates will overshadow all the budget wars
and everything that follows. Whether the speaker is up to meeting this challenge remains to be seen in the coming weeks.
Boehner will support
Fox News 6-13 [“Schumer needles Boehner, claims House will pass Senate immigration bill”,
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/30/schumer-needles-boehner-claims-house-will-passsenate-immigration-bill >]
In a bold prediction that immediately agitated Republicans, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer claimed Sunday that
the House ultimately will pass the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill -- despite House Speaker
John Boehner's claims to the contrary. Schumer, needling the House speaker during an interview on "Fox News
Sunday," claimed that Boehner will be pressured by the "dynamics" of the debate. "I believe that by the
end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill," Schumer said. Further, he claimed Boehner
would have to rely largely on Democrats to pass it. This would constitute a violation of the so-called "Hastert rule" -an unofficial policy named after former Speaker Dennis Hastert, under which the House only passes bills with a majority of the
majority party on board. Violating that "rule" could damage Boehner's support inside the party, and Boehner has indicated he has no
plans to do so. Boehner said Thursday that "we're going to do our own bill" and it will reflect "the will of our majority." In reaction to
Schumer, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel also told FoxNews.com that the speaker and his caucus have been "perfectly clear" on
their intentions. "The House will not simply take up and pass the Senate bill," he said in an email. "Our legislation will reflect our
principles, particularly on border security. Wishful thinking, frankly, is not a strategy for getting a bill to the president's desk." But
Schumer, speaking after the Senate passed its version on Thursday, predicted several factors could
change Boehner's mind. First, he said the coalition of both religious and business groups could
pressure the House to act. Further, he said the national Republican leadership could do the same,
citing the political importance of passing immigration legislation. Schumer, D-N.Y., also said
supporters of the bill would be insistent. "We're not going to let this issue go away," he said.
Boehner will support immigration reform
Beutler 6-27 [Brian, “Senate Passes Immigration Reform Bill, Hot Potato To Boehner”
<http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/senate-passes-immgration-reform-bill-hot-potato-toboehner.php>]
Days after President Obama was elected to serve a second term in office, a chastened House Speaker
John Boehner did a huge about face on immigration reform. “This issue has been around far too long,” Boehner told ABC
News. ”A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others
can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.” Coming from a man who’d loudly opposed
much more modest immigration measures in the past, and who ostensibly controls the floor of the House of Representatives, his remarks
represented a breakthrough — and a signal that if Republicans would change one thing in the
aftermath of the election, it would be their hardline position on immigration. Now, Boehner will have
either have to put his money where his mouth is, or acknowledge implicitly that Republicans learned
less than even they claimed to have learned from their defeat in 2012.
Boehner will pass the Immigration bill unless he wants Republicans to be a minority
party for a decade
Logiurato, Brett 6/30/13 “http://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-reform-bill-senate-chuck-schumer-john-boehner-2013-6;
Political reporter for Business Insider. He graduated from Syracuse University in 2011 with degrees in newspaper and online journalism and
political science.”
House Speaker
John Boehner has said he will not put any immigration bill on the floor for a vote without
support from a majority of the Republican conference — something the Senate bill does not
have.¶Schumer predicted that the Republican Party's national leaders will pressure Boehner to pass a
bill, lest he wants the GOP to "be a minority party for a decade."¶Schumer said he didn't think the House's step-by-step
approach to immigration reform would work — since it's not likely that the House will address a pathway to citizenship in that approach. A bill without a pathway to
citizenship is a non-starter for many Senate Democrats.
Will Pass – AT: GOP Block
Republicans will push immigration reform for own party’s sake.
Weiner 6/30/2013. (Rachel, political web editor for Washington Post. “Pelosi: Republicans need
immigration reform to win presidency again” Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/30/pelosi-republicans-needimmigration-reform-to-win-presidency-again/)
Republicans will have to pass immigration reform if they want to ever win another presidential race ,
House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.)
said
what is right for our country,” she said
win a presidential race.”
Sunday.
“I believe that the members of Congress … will do
on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And it’s certainly right for the Republicans if they ever want to
Her comments echoed those of Sen. Chuck Schumer
(D-N.Y.), who told “Fox News Sunday”
Republican leadership would push the House to pass reform for the party’s sake.
that
Will Pass – AT: House Won’t Include Citizenship
House will include path to citizenship
Wolfgang 6-30 [Ben, “House GOP to Senate: No rush on immigration”,
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/sen-charles-schumer-house-will-pass-senatesimmigr/>]
As the immigration reform debate moves to the House, Republicans have all but rejected the Senate’s comprehensive approach and instead are
embracing a package of targeted bills. Key
sponsors of the Senate legislation, however, aren’t giving up hope.
They say House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders eventually will
embrace a broader package that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and enhanced
border security. “I believe by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill. I know that’s not
what they think now, and they’ll say, ‘Oh, no, that’s not what’s going to happen,’ but I think it will,”
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” Mr. Schumer is a member of the socalled “Gang of Eight,” the bipartisan group of senators who helped shepherd the immigration bill through the Senate last week. Fourteen
Republicans joined Senate Democrats in passing the measure, the most significant step forward for immigration reform in nearly three decades.
Supporters and analysts have hailed the legislation as proof that bipartisan solutions to complex
problems are possible, with Republican heavyweights such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida having
played integral roles in drafting the legislation alongside Mr. Schumer and other Democrats. President Obama over the weekend
set a timetable for the House to pass an immigration reform bill by the end of July.
Will include path to citizenship, Gutierrez ensures
Burnett 6-29 [Sara, “Gutierrez says House must hold vote on immigration”,
<http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/social-issues/gutierrez-says-house-must-hold-vote-onimmigration/nYZJd/>]
CHICAGO — Congressman Luis Gutierrez said Saturday supporters of comprehensive immigration
reform must make their voices heard as the debate shifts to the Republican-led House of
Representatives, where the bill's prospects are uncertain. Gutierrez joined fellow Illinois Democrat U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin at a
meeting of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Chicago. He said he has been working closely with
"I
believe that in the House of Representatives the Republican majority and the speaker have not
grasped the enormity of this petition. They just haven't," Gutierrez said. "They don't understand the breadth
and the depth (of) people that want this to get done, and the power that stands behind this
movement for comprehensive immigration reform." Durbin was part of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that drafted
some Republican congressmen on draft legislation and that he will continue to do so in hopes of picking up more GOP support.
the legislation approved Friday by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The measure would strengthen security along the U.S./Mexico
border and provide a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants unlawfully living in the U.S. It also includes the
DREAM Act, which would make college affordable for people who entered the country illegally. Durbin has pressed that legislation
for more than a decade. On Saturday, he credited young people who came forward to share their personal stories for the measure's
passage. But House Speaker John Boehner has already said the chamber won't take up the Senate bill, opting instead to consider its
One major sticking point will be the path to citizenship, a key component of the Senate
plan. Supporters say any comprehensive immigration legislation must include a process for
immigrants in the country illegally to become citizens. But many conservatives oppose it because they believe it
amounts to amnesty for criminals. They also say it's unfair to immigrants who entered the U.S. legally. Gutierrez, from
Chicago, said Saturday the House legislation he's working on will also include a path to citizenship. He
own legislation.
said he believes it makes sense for the House to have its own process that reflects the Republican majority. But he said it "must be
one in which we're given a vote."
Will Pass – AT: House Won’t Pass Senate Bill
House will pass Senate’s bill
Fox News 6-13 [“Schumer needles Boehner, claims House will pass Senate immigration bill”,
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/30/schumer-needles-boehner-claims-house-will-passsenate-immigration-bill >]
In a bold prediction that immediately agitated Republicans, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer claimed Sunday that
the House ultimately will pass the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill -- despite House Speaker
John Boehner's claims to the contrary. Schumer, needling the House speaker during an interview on "Fox News
Sunday," claimed that Boehner will be pressured by the "dynamics" of the debate. "I believe that by the
end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill," Schumer said. Further, he claimed Boehner
would have to rely largely on Democrats to pass it. This would constitute a violation of the so-called "Hastert rule" -an unofficial policy named after former Speaker Dennis Hastert, under which the House only passes bills with a majority of the
majority party on board. Violating that "rule" could damage Boehner's support inside the party, and Boehner has indicated he has no
plans to do so. Boehner said Thursday that "we're going to do our own bill" and it will reflect "the will of our majority." In reaction to
Schumer, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel also told FoxNews.com that the speaker and his caucus have been "perfectly clear" on
their intentions. "The House will not simply take up and pass the Senate bill," he said in an email. "Our legislation will reflect our
principles, particularly on border security. Wishful thinking, frankly, is not a strategy for getting a bill to the president's desk." But
Schumer, speaking after the Senate passed its version on Thursday, predicted several factors could
change Boehner's mind. First, he said the coalition of both religious and business groups could
pressure the House to act. Further, he said the national Republican leadership could do the same,
citing the political importance of passing immigration legislation. Schumer, D-N.Y., also said
supporters of the bill would be insistent. "We're not going to let this issue go away," he said.
Senate immigration reform will pass
Scicchitano 6-27 [Paul, “Dick Morris to Newsmax: Immigration Is 'Political Hot Potato' for Boehner”,
<http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/boehner-morris-immigration-house/2013/06/27/id/512379>]
Political guru and best-selling author Dick Morris tells Newsmax that House Speaker John Boehner has been
handed a "political hot potato," but the lower chamber will likely find a way to pass its own immigration reform bill. "I think an
immigration bill will probably pass," predicted Morris in an exclusive interview on Thursday. "The
question is, will it be a Democratic bill or a Republican bill?" Morris, a former political adviser to former President Bill
Clinton, said that each party has its own ideas of what constitutes immigration reform. "We would like of course to pass a Republican
bill, which would have the distinguishing feature that you could not proceed with amnesty or
legalization until after there is evidence that the border is secured," said Morris. "But very few Democrats
in the House would support that bill," he said. Co-author of the book "Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off
and Plundering Our Economy — and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It," Morris said Boehner faces a tough sell on
immigration within his own GOP ranks. "Boehner needs to make sure he has 218 Republican votes to
vote for that bill, otherwise he won't be able to pass it," Morris explained. "And the problem is, there may be enough
Republicans that say, 'I'm not going to vote for any bill at all regardless of what's in it.'" Boehner may
be forced to work with House Democrats if Republicans are unwilling to embrace immigration reform. "If that's the case,
then he has to go to Plan B, which is to pass a bill with Democratic support," Morris explained. "And for each
Democrat that he gets, he'll lose Republicans from the bill because he'll have to move to the left." He
predicted that Boehner will end up with a very different bill if he has to move the legislation to the
left. "At that point, what he would do is pass a bill that does not put securing the border first, but rather closely
resembles the Senate bill — and pass that largely with Democratic votes — but with a smattering of
Republicans, just as it happened in the Senate," said Morris. That could be politically dangerous. "If he has to pass a
Democratic bill with a smattering of Republicans, he's going to endanger his speakership," asserts Morris. "The problem he has is that he
probably cannot get a majority of the Congress — a majority of the House from the Republicans — for
any immigration bill at all," Morris added. He also said that Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who staked his political capital on
the Senate bill, is likely to reap political rewards. "I think Rubio emerges as a winner," Morris said, noting that the GOP may also be more likely
to make inroads among Hispanic voters based on the landmark legislation. "I think it all hinges on what happens in the House," he said.
House will pass immigration reform by Senate
Reuters 6-30 [“Senator Charles Schumer: GOP-led House will pass immigration reform”,
<http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/30/senator-charles-schumer-gop-led-house-will-passimmigration-reform/>]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Republican-controlled House of Representatives will bow to political
pressure and pass the immigration bill approved by the Democratic-led Senate by the end of the year,
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer predicted on Sunday. Schumer, a member of the bipartisan Senate group that
crafted the immigration measure, said House Republicans who are now vowing they will not pass the Senate
measure will ultimately be convinced by political concerns about the party’s future. “I believe that by
the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill. I know that’s not what they think now. And they’ll say, ‘Oh
no, that’s not what’s going to happen.’ But I think it will,” Schumer told the “Fox News Sunday” program. Senior House Republicans
rejected Schumer’s prediction. Republican Speaker John Boehner has said the House will write its own immigration bill rather than
bringing up the Senate bill passed on Thursday, which is supported by Democratic President Barack Obama. Fourteen Senate
Republicans joined Senate Democrats in backing a Senate bill that features a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants
already in the United States, an approach vehemently opposed by many conservative House Republicans who view it as rewarding
Some Republican leaders worry that rejecting the Senate bill could further alienate
Hispanics, a fast-growing bloc of voters who overwhelmingly supported Obama’s re-election in 2012,
and could handicap the party in future presidential elections. Schumer said House Republicans eventually
will allow a vote on the Senate bill to get the issue off their backs and ease the pressure from
immigration reform supporters including religious, civil rights and business groups. “Within several months,
law-breakers.
Speaker Boehner will find two choices: no bill or let a bill pass with a majority of Democratic votes and some Chamber of Commercetype Republicans. And he’ll find that the better choice,” the New York senator said.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform will pass, includes path to citizenship
Richter 6-30 [Greg, “Diaz-Balart: House Can Pass Immigration Reform”,
<http://www.newsmax.com/politics/diaz-balart-immigration-reform-house/2013/06/30/id/512672>]
The House of Representatives can pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, just as the Senate
did last week, says Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. So far, the House has worked on individual bills. But some
Republicans have said they won't back a compromise bill with the Senate, nor will they vote for the Senate's bill. "You’re going to see
ups and downs, you’re going to see ugly things. You’re going to see things that we don’t like," Diaz-Balart on Bloomberg’s
Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt." "In order to pass legislation, I think there’d have to be something similar to what we’ve
been working on," he said. Five separate bills have passed the House so far, dealing with guest workers, law enforcement and other
that the Senate plan will pass the
reason this is going to happen is
because there is so much support all over the country," Munoz said "The country is for this and I think
ultimately the House of Representatives will be, too." A path to citizenship will be part of the House's
plan, Diaz-Balart said. "We have to deal with the reality, whether we like it or not, that there are millions
of people who are here," he said. "Those that have committed crimes have to be dealt with in one way: zero tolerance. They’ve
issues. But White House domestic policy adviser Cecilia Munoz said on "Political Capitol"
Senate, agreeing with Sen. Chuck Schumer's words on "Fox News Sunday." "The
got to be out of here. And then give those who have been here for many, many years, who have been working, a way to earn their way
into legalization."
AT: Thumpers
CIR Top of the Docket
Immigration reform top priority
Potts 4/9- “Immigration reform should be a top priority’ April 9 2013
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/eastex/opinion/immigration-reform-should-be-a-toppriority/article_8335bb86-bdbe-586f-80f2-91fc34e89a77.html
It seems that immigration reform is the only thing on the agenda in Washington, D.C., these days. Watch the
news programs and they are filled with stories about it. A bipartisan committee of U.S. senators, known as the Gang of Eight, have
been trying to work out a bill that will pass both the senate and the congress. From reports, they seem to be
making progress. Now our president has stepped in and wants to put his imprint on the bill. He had four years to start
something on this subject, and he did nothing. Now that it seems it might gain a little traction, he wants to step in and put his two cents’ worth
in. In the last few weeks he has made comments that he wants this bill passed quickly. Why? There are just too many questions
that need to be answered before this bill should be passed. We do not need another law passed quickly and rammed down our throats, like
Obamacare. This one should be read, so we know what is in it, before it is passed. From the polls I’ve seen,
most people want to be
sure that our borders are secure before anything is passed. Securing our borders will be a hard task. How will it be done? Can it be
done? How much will it cost us?
AT: Thumpers (General)
Turn – thumpers divert the publics not Obama’s attention from CIR
Davis 5/22 (Julie Hirschfeld Davis; May 22, 2013; “Obama Probes Create Immigration Magic as Bill
Advances”; Bloomberg; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/obama-probes-createimmigration-magic-as-bill-advances.html)//KDUB
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.
Won’t hurt Obama’s PC
Roff 6-13 [Peter, “Obama’s Scandal Strategy: Flood the Zone”,
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/06/13/obamas-scandal-a-day-strategy-nsastate-department-sex-and-benghazi>]
With so much smoke being created by all these missteps is it possible there is actually a fire to go along
with it? Each week brings with it a new scandal, something exciting to attract the attention of the public and the media and the opposition.
This may be the point. With some much coming to light it's hard to keep track of who did what to
whom, in which agency, and why or why not. It's also hard to keep feeding new, salacious, attention-grabbing facts to the
media every day in order that pro-Obama partisans cannot use a lull in a particular investigation to claim "Show's over … Nothing more to see
here. Keeping moving along people, keep moving." All
this hurts the president's poll numbers but will not really
damage his presidency; that will only happen when something concrete is found and placed in the
center ring of the circus of public opinion. The hope of some GOP operatives to the contrary, the "Ship of State" has not
yet hit the rocks. The Obama presidency can survive bad news for as long as it wants as long as it
retains the ability to change the subject.
AT: IRS Scandal Thumper
IRS scandal has died down, not linked to Obama
Bandler 6-24 [Beverly, “The IRS Non-Scandal ‘Scandal’”,
<http://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/24/the-irs-non-scandal-scandal/>]
The Internal Revenue “scandal” has turned out not to be a scandal. As a Washington Post headline read: “The
Obama IRS scandal retreats to the fever swamps.” The radical Right looked in vain for a “smoking gun”
that would link Barack Obama to the charge that the IRS had “targeted” Tea Party groups that were seeking tax-exempt status as
“social welfare” organizations. Even the term “targeting” turned out to be pejorative. It was more a case of putting a few similar applications in the same
pile so they would receive consistent treatment. As commentator William Boardman noted early on: “ Much
of the media goes on
reporting as fact the partisan spin placed on a ‘scandal’ that was not really a ‘scandal’ at all.” MSNBC’s
Lawrence O’Donnell also deserves credit for distinguishing facts from spin from the beginning of the story. Even the mainstream media
– after much initial sloppy, knee-jerk reporting – finally realized that they and the American public
were being played by the Republican Party. (The White House also doesn’t get high marks for calm or clarity in its first reactions.)
The collapse of the “scandal” became undeniable when Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the
ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, released the full transcript of an interview with
a mid-level IRS bureaucrat in Cincinnati who explained that the isolation of Tea Party-related applications for tax-exempt status was
just a local decision to provide consistent handling of similar cases. With that disclosure – in defiance of the efforts by Committee Chairman Darrell
Issa, R-California, to keep the exculpatory transcript secret – the
last air went out of the pumped-up IRS “scandal.” After
release of the transcript, all that was left was a recognition that the “scandal” had entered a “post fact” phase, as political
commentator Jonathan Chait observed, adding that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s American Enterprise speech on June 21 was “an
attempt to reframe the issue in a way that it can survive the utter absence of incriminating facts. “One method [McConnell] employs is to flip around
the burden of proof. … Before
Republicans were going to prove that Obama’s administration was involved. All
of the evidence suggests it wasn’t. So now McConnell is framing the question as Obama trying to prove he wasn’t involved … [a] kind of
covered retreat, signaling the IRS scandal’s turn into a vague trope that conservatives use with other members of the tribe … to signal some dark beliefs
they don’t need to back up.”
AT: NSA Thumper
NSA doesn’t affect Obama politically
Lindberg 6/25 (Tod Lindberg - June 25, 2013; “The NSA Scandal Was Good for Obama”; Real Clear
Politics;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/25/the_nsa_scandal_was_good_for_obama_118964
.html)//KDUB
The first thing to be noted is that the NSA story turned out not to be a scandal, except in the Kinsleyan sense of the term:
there doesn’t appear to have been anything illegal going on, though of course one could raise the question
of where our political system ought to be drawing the line on what’s legal in relation to a massive
data collection program. And in fact, many did raise this question, from both the libertarian/Tea Party right and from the
segment of progressive opinion that still gets worked up over the depredations of the military-industrial complex (which seems to have been
Snowden’s angle). So much so that the NSA revelations became occasion for the latest round of speculation on the perennial subject of the
potential convergence of the libertarian right and civil-liberties left into a cohesive force with the potential to change the country’s political
balance of power. But then—the details started coming out. No, the government has not been reading everybody’s emails and maintaining
records of the contents of Americans’ cell phone calls. No, the program was not a rogue operation but rather was conducted with the judicial
oversight as the law provides. No, it was
not something of which Congress was unaware; in fact, information
about the program was available to all members of Congress (which drastically limited the capacity of members of the
House and Senate to adopt their reflexive posture of wounded outrage). And yes, the program probably did have something to do with foiling
actual terrorist plots. President Obama defended the program vigorously, noting at one point that he is no Dick Cheney—
meaning, presumably, someone who believes the constitutional commander-in-chief powers and other executive powers allow a president
almost unlimited freedom in fighting our enemies.
His administration wasn’t going to act lawlessly, but rather with a
full backstop of court orders and congressional notification. His reference annoyedconservative commentators, but the
annoyance collapsed on the incoherence of the substantive critique: Since Cheney acted lawfully, Obama is too Dick Cheney (not that there’s
anything wrong with that). Anyway, Obama was clearly trying to dampen the anger on his party’s left—which had the politically useful effect of
reminding everyone that there is a left wing of the Democratic Party to which he stands in contrast. Meanwhile, the national-security wing of
conservative opinion, much of itwell-informed and including some card-carrying libertarians (who, after all, do believe that national security is
something you need government for), was mostly stepping up to defend the NSA program and denounce the leaker. Collectively, this group has
substantial media reach. No one on the right exactly praised Obama, at least not that I could find. In fact, the IRS scandal became Exhibit A for
why people might rationally worry more than they otherwise would about possible government misuse of data the NSA swept in. But the
defense of the program per se—a program of which Obama had taken ownership—undermined the emerging scandalbased portrait of a White House either not really in control of the government or sinisterly so. The irony is rich: The NSA
scandal was supposed to be a story about a government out of control; it became an example of a
government tightly in control of a sensitive program. Finally, the libertarian/civil liberties-Left coalition didn’t emerge as any more
than the sum of its parts. Partisan loyalties still seem to come first. Pay no attention to the bumper stickers on cars five years older or more that
say “If you’re not outraged, you aren’t paying attention.” So
the NSA non-scandal was actually pretty good for Obama.
His job approval ratings may be taking a dip, but his core constituency is still with him. And the
mongers of the pre-NSA scandals will likely have a harder time driving a message in the absence of
significant new revelations.
NSA doesn’t hurt Obama
Kaus 6-09 [Mickey, “The NSA Squirrel!”, <http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/09/the-nsa-squirrel/>]
King of the Squirrels: Has
the White House hit on the perfect scandal for the President? The NSA snooping
revelations create a huge fuss that distracts the press and prevents the public (especially conservatives) from learning the grueseome
details of the 1000 page Schumer-Rubio immigration disaster now on the Senate floor –yet doesn’t hurt Obama’s approval
ratings like the IRS scandal does. It may even be helping them. … Who gave Glenn Greenwald that scoop anyway? [Update: This
guy-ed Recalculating ...] I question the timing!
AT: Snowden Thumper
Snowden doesn’t derail Obama’s agenda
AP 6/29 (EDITH M. LEDERER; 6/29/13; “Susan Rice: Snowden leaks haven't weakened Obama”; AP;
http://news.yahoo.com/susan-rice-snowden-leaks-havent-weakened-obama-060217333.html)//KDUB
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice dismissed claims that Edward Snowden's highly
classified leaks have weakened the Obama presidency and damaged U.S. foreign policy, insisting that the
United States will remain "the most influential, powerful and important country in the world. " Rice's
remarks were her only public ones on Snowden and came in an interview with The Associated Press as
she prepared to leave the U.N. post and start her new job Monday as President Barack Obama's national security adviser. She said it's too
soon to judge whether there will be any long-term serious repercussions from the intelligence leaks by
the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Hong Kong and then Russia after seizing documents disclosing secret U.S.
surveillance programs in the U.S. and overseas, which he has shared with The Guardian and Washington Post newspapers. "I don't
think
the diplomatic consequences, at least as they are foreseeable now, are that significant," she said. U.S. Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called Snowden's
leaks a serious breach that damaged national security. Hagel said Thursday an assessment of the damage is being done
now. "There will always be difficult issues of the day," Rice said, "and frankly this period is not particularly unique."
"I think the Snowden thing is obviously something that we will get through, as we've gotten through all the issues like this in the past," she said
in the interview Thursday before heading to a lunch in her honor hosted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The
United States has
charged Snowden with espionage and demanded his extradition, but China and Hong Kong let him fly
to Moscow and the Russians have so far refused. The Snowden case has not only raised tensions with
Moscow and Beijing but with many Americans concerned about the NSA collecting their Internet and
phone data. Rice dismissed commentators who say Snowden's disclosures have made Obama a lame
duck, damaged his political base, and hurt U.S. foreign policy, saying: "I think that's bunk." "I think the
United States of America is and will remain the most influential, powerful and important country in the world, the largest economy, and the
largest military, (with) a network of alliances, values that are universally respected," she said. Rice
said Obama has "significant
ambitions and a real agenda" for his second term, pointing to major speeches last week on disarmament and
nonproliferation and this week on the impact of climate change.
Snowden not a priority for Obama
AP 6/28- Associated Press “Obama recasts chase for Snowden as unexceptional” June 28 2013
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-recasts-chase-snowden-unexceptional073112725.html;_ylt=A2KJ2ParHdNRtCIA_C_QtDMD
The last thing President Barack Obama wants to do is turn Edward Snowden into a grand enemy of
the state or a Daniel Ellsberg-type hero who speaks truth to power. In the shifting narrative of the Obama administration, the man whose
leaks of top-secret material about government surveillance programs have tied the national security apparatus in knots and brought charges
under the Espionage Act has now been demoted to a common fugitive unworthy
of international intrigue or extraordinary
pursuit by the U.S. government. A "29-year-old hacker," in the words of Obama; fodder for a madefor-TV movie, perhaps, but not much more. "This is not exceptional from a legal perspective," the
president said Thursday of Snowden's efforts to avoid capture by hopscotching from Hawaii to Hong Kong to Russia. "I'm not going to
have one case of a suspect who we're trying to extradite suddenly being elevated to the point where
I've got to start doing wheeling and dealing and trading on a whole host of other issues simply to get a
guy extradited," the president told reporters in Senegal. It was the second time in a week that the administration had toned down its
rhetoric as Snowden remained out of reach and first China and then Russia refused to send him back. Just Monday, Secretary of State John
Kerry was talking tough against China and calling Snowden a traitor whose actions are "despicable and beyond description." By Tuesday,
Kerry was calling for "calm and reasonableness" on the matter, and adding, "We're not looking for a
confrontation. We are not ordering anybody." There are plenty of reasons for Obama to pull back,
beyond his professed desire to avoid international horse-trading for the leaker. The president, in his own words,
has "a whole lot of business to do with China and Russia." Why
increase tensions in an already uneasy relationship
when Obama is looking for Russia's cooperation in finding a path to peace in Syria, for example? In addition, less-heated
dialogue could make it easier to broker Snowden's return because, despite the latest shrugs, U.S. officials very much want him. "There's a lot of
signaling going on," said Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. "If the
White House were issuing ultimatums, then Russia might feel obliged not to cooperate. But if it's merely one request among many others, that
might make it easier to advance to a resolution."The president also may have a U.S. audience in mind for his comments. Obama's Democratic
base includes plenty of defenders of civil liberties who are sympathetic to Snowden's professed goal of making government more transparent.
Benjamin Pauker, managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, said the president was loath to elevate Snowden to a state enemy or "an
Ellsberg-type truth-teller," referring to the 1971 leaker of the Pentagon Papers, which showed the U.S. government had misled the public about
the war in Vietnam. Ellsberg himself recently called Snowden's revelations the most significant disclosures in the nation's history. The
administration, though, would rather marginalize Snowden, a former National Security Agency systems analyst who is thought to have custody
of more classified documents. "Calling
him a hacker, as opposed to a government contractor or an NSA
employee, brings him down a notch to someone who's an irritant, as opposed to someone who has
access to integral intelligence files," Pauker said. "To externalize him and brand him with a black-hat hacker tag distances him
from the government." The disdainful talk isn't just coming from the White House. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, called Snowden "a high school dropout who had a whole series of both academic troubles and employment troubles"
after a recent closed hearing on the leaks. The committee's top Democrat, C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger from Maryland, called Snowden "a
legend in his own mind" for claiming to be able to use NSA systems to access any email or phone call anywhere — something the NSA's director
has said can't be done. There may also be face-saving benefits
for Obama in cutting down Snowden, who turned 30 last
unsuccessful full-court press for Snowden's return would only show the limitations of
Obama's international influence. It's not the first time a president has tried to reset expectations by first elevating and then
playing down the importance of an international fugitive who eluded capture, at least for a time.
week. An
AT: Nukes Thumper
Religious community supports Obama’s nuke policy
CNA 7/2 (Catholic News Agency; Jul 2; “US bishops support nuclear disarmament, Middle East peace
efforts”; http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/us-bishops-support-nuclear-disarmament-middleeast-peaceefforts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%
2Fdailynews-us+(CNA+Daily+News+-+US))//KDUB
Washington D.C., Jul 2, 2013 / 12:13 pm (CNA).- In a letter to President Barack Obama, two leaders of the U.S. bishops
voiced support for continued efforts towards nuclear disarmament, as well as peace between Israel and Palestine.
“In Berlin, you recently reiterated a vision of a world without nuclear weapons, a vision that the Catholic Church has long supported,” wrote
Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York and Bishop Robert E. Pates of Des Moines in a June 25 letter. Cardinal
Dolan is the
president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, while Bishop Pates heads the conference’s
Committee on International Justice and Peace. The two bishops recalled that Blessed Pope John XXIII
pushed for an end to nuclear weapons across the globe in 1963. Twenty years later, the U.S. bishops’ conference issued a
pastoral letter entitled “The Challenge of Peace,” which repeated the goal of nuclear disarmament. “Today, we again pledge
support of U.S. efforts to achieve mutual reductions in the stockpiles of nuclear weapons , to adopt the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation.” The bishops also stressed the importance of “vigorous
leadership” by the U.S. in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They thanked the president for his trip to the Holy Land in March and for “charging
Secretary of State John Kerry with the urgent task of bringing the parties to the negotiating table.” Reiterating their support for a two-state
solution in the region, they promised their continued prayers for peace. “We
know that many consider the conflict
intractable, but we believe that peace is possible,” they said, encouraging “persistent U.S. leadership ”
and pledging their “untiring support.”
Media support balances Obama on nukes
Mali 6/16 (Meghashyam Mali - 06/16/13; “Celebs push Obama to eliminate nuclear weapons”; The
Hill; http://thehill.com/video/policy-areas/305861-celebs-push-obama-to-eliminate-nuclearweapons)//KDUB
Hollywood celebrities are pressing President Obama to honor his pledge to eliminate nuclear weapons
ahead of his meeting with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin at the G8 summit in Belfast. A video from the group Global Zero released
last week features prominent stars from film and television repeating Obama’s speech from Prague in 2009
outlining his vision for nuclear disarmament. “Today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to
seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” said Obama in the speech. The
video opens with his voice, followed by stars including Michael Douglas, Naomi Watts, Matt Damon
and Robert DeNiro delivering the rest of the address. The video concludes again with Obama saying “The world must stand
together to prevent the spread of these weapons. “ A statement from the group on their website said the video was
part of an “international campaign urging President Obama to set the world’s course to zero nuclear
weapons by negotiating further cuts in the massive U.S.-Russian Cold War stockpiles and bringing other leading nuclear powers
into international nuclear arms negotiations for the first time in history.” “ The message from national security experts and
citizens around the world is clear: the only way to eliminate the global nuclear danger is to eliminate
all nuclear weapons,” said Michael Douglas in the statement. “It's time to set the world's course to zero.” Obama’s Prague
address called for reducing the stockpiles of nuclear nations, preventing other countries from developing weapons,
safely securing nuclear material and developing safer nuclear energy. In 2010, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that limited the number of deployed warheads to 1,500. The
administration has continued to
discuss nuclear weapons reduction with the Russians in Obama’s second term.
Thumper is non unique – ideological commitment
Edelman and Joseph 6/24 (Eric Edelman was undersecretary of defense for policy from 2005 to
2009. Robert Joseph was undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2005
to 2007; June 24, 2013; “Obama’s folly on nuclear disarmament”; News Observer;
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/24/2986677/obamas-folly-on-nucleardisarmament.html)//KDUB
Addressing the vast disparity in these forces was a point of consensus in the ratification debate, with the
Senate calling on the president to pursue an agreement “to secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a
verifiable manner.” Separately, in its recent markup of the Defense Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Committee drew
attention to Russian violations of existing arms control agreements as a barrier to further reductions. For these and other reasons, the
president is likely to forgo the treaty route in pursuit of an agreement with Russia. Doing so would be
inconsistent with the conditions the Senate set for its consent to New START. Yet the president seems determined to go to
lower numbers, either by circumventing the formal treaty process with an executive agreement or, if that fails because of Russian
objections, by unilateral reductions. The Obama administration’s intention to “lead by example” reflects its deep
ideological commitment to disarmament. No other country is following the U.S. lead. None has followed in adopting a policy of
developing no “new nuclear warheads.” None has followed in allowing its nuclear weapons infrastructure to rust out from within as a
consequence of budget cuts and policy neglect. And none will be persuaded by the latest presidential endorsement of “nuclear zero.”
Commitment checks
NYT 6/22 (THE EDITORIAL BOARD; June 22, 2013; “A Modest Nuclear Agenda”; NYT;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/a-modest-nuclearagenda.html?_r=0#h[IhfHms,2])//KDUB
Whatever the shortcomings of his approach, Mr. Obama is essentially instructing the Pentagon to
downgrade the role of nuclear weapons in America’s security strategy. It remains to be seen how this will be
achieved. But there are sound budgetary, as well as strategic, reasons to act. America’s nuclear arsenal costs the country
$31 billion a year and will cost billions more if modernization proceeds. There is little doubt that President Obama remains
committed, as he said in Berlin, to a “world without nuclear weapons — no matter how distant that
dream might be.” But bold results will require a bolder plan of action.
AT: Climate Change Thumper
Climate change won Obama pc – Gore approval
Delamaide 6/27 (Darrell Delamaide; June 27, 2013; “Obama’s pledge on climate change still
ambivalent”; Market Watch; http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamas-pledge-on-climate-changestill-ambivalent-2013-06-27)//KDUB
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Barack Obama has always been good at speeches and the one on climate
change this week earned high praise from no less an expert than global-warming guru Al Gore.“This was a
terrific and historic speech,” the former vice president and presidential candidate blogged, “by far the best address on
climate by any president ever.” The occasion of Obama’s speech was to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency will
set new standards for carbon-dioxide emissions at coal-fired power plants. Gore praised this as a good step, but urged Obama to
keep using the bully pulpit for further measures on emissions. “The hard truth is that the maximum that now seems
politically feasible still falls short of the minimum necessary to actually solve the climate crisis,” said Gore,
who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change. However, the action by the EPA is long overdue. Utilities
have been busy switching to gas-fired generation for years in anticipation of this measure and have been frustrated by the government’s
dawdling.
AT: Gun Control Thumper
No push for gun control
Morrissey 3/26- Ed, “CBS poll shows support for gun control push fading” March 26 2013
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/26/cbs-poll-shows-support-for-gun-control-push-fading/
A week ago, CNN reported that its polling showed that momentum for gun control had halted, and support had begun
to decline, falling below a majority. Today’s CBS poll reaches the same conclusion, leaving the soon-to-be-filibustered
bill in the US Senate in danger of becoming an orphan: Soon after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced
an assault weapons ban would not be part of a gun control bill, a new CBS News poll shows support for stricter gun control laws
overall has dropped since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Currently, support for
stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the
shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them
made less strict. Today’s level of 47% for making gun laws more stringent is the lowest it has been since April of last year (39%). The
endorsement of the status quo (39%) is likewise the highest it has been since the same point in time. Eleven years ago, the split was 56/30 in
favor of tougher gun laws — and that was while the federal assault-weapons ban was still in place. Furthermore,
the push for stronger
laws appears to be a partisan and regional issue, but not quite in the manner portrayed by guncontrol activists. Only in the northeast does gun control get a majority, at 58/30, even though the incident that has acted as a catalyst
took place in a Northeastern state with an assault-weapons ban already in place. In the Midwest and South, the splits are virtual ties, belying
the notion that this is somehow a “Southern problem.” It’s also within the margin of error among independents at 43/39, and Republicans are
solidly opposed at 29/52. Democrats, on the other hand, want stricter gun control by more than a 2:1 ratio, 66/30.
AT: Syria Thumper
Obama’s push for Syria fading
BBC 6/13- “Obama’s half-hearted push into Syria” June 13 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldus-canada-22900710
For those who have welcomed President Barack Obama's
reluctance to embroil the US in Syria, he has just taken a
step deeper into the mud. But those who think his policy has so far been lily-livered and hesitant will only
applaud slowly, and without much enthusiasm. They will argue he is still doing too little, too slowly.
Internal Links
Obama Pushing
Obama pushing immigration with political capital now
Hesson 6-17 [Ted, “Who Wants Credit for Immigration Reform if It Passes”,
<http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-rubio-cruz-credit-blame-immigrationreform/story?id=19420961#.Uc8urRvD-P9>]
If an immigration bill in the Senate eventually becomes law, there will certainly be a lot of people looking to take credit -- or dole out blame,
depending on your perspective. You can put President Obama and Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Florida) and Ted Cruz (Texas) at the top of
that list. Here's why: 1. The Backroom Dealer President
Obama supports the immigration reform bill in the Senate
but he's largely let the group of Democrats and Republicans that wrote the legislation stand in the spotlight. Behind the scenes,
however, he's been working to influence the process, according to a New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza (quoted here). The
article cites a senior Obama administration official: "No decisions are being made without talking to
us about it," the official said. "This does not fly if we're not O.K. with it." That Obama wants to guide
the bill isn't shocking. What's more interesting is that the administration is now advertising its involvement in
the dealmaking. It leaves the impression that the president wants credit for this bill when it's signed
into law.
Obama pushing for immigration reform
The Washington Post 6/29- “Obama pushes House GOP on Immigration reform” June 29, 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/29/obama-pushes-house-gop-onimmigration-reform/
President Obama on Saturday urged House leaders to produce immigration reform legislation by August,
emphasizing that it is critical to move forward on a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s border control
laws. “The ball is in the House’s court,” Obama said during a news conference two days after the Senate voted 68-32 to pass a
comprehensive immigration bill that includes new border security measures and a 13-year path to citizenship for the nation’s 11
million illegal immigrants. “I do urge the House to try to get this done before the August recess ,” he added. “There’s
more than enough time. This thing’s been debated amply and they’ve got a number of weeks to get it done. Now’s the time.” House Republican
leaders have said they will not accept the Senate bill, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has not said if he’ll pursue a comprehensive bill or
move forward with smaller bills. Obama
said he called Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to
encourage them to make progress as soon as possible. Speaking at the news conference here during his week-long Africa
tour, Obama said, “One thing I know about why the United States is admired around the world is that
people understand the United States is a nation of immigrants. Like South Africa, we’re a multi-cultural,
multi-racial nation and that makes us stronger. Our diversity is a source of strength. We need to get
this right.”
Obama’s pushing now – it’s just been behind the scenes
Harris et al 6/25 [John F. Harris, Jake Sherman, Elizabeth Titus, June 24, 2013 writers for Politico “President Obama in the Doldrums”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-second-term-doldrums-93295.html]
And the White House is taking credit for the immigration push under way in Congress. “He won
Latinos by a huge majority,” a senior White House official told POLITICO. “If he hadn’t done that,
immigration would not be happening.” More broadly, the official said that despite Democratic grousing
that Obama could do more, the president has been far more involved behind the scenes than people
realize. This official also dismissed the notion that Obama does not command loyalty — or fear — on
Capitol Hill. “We don’t have a problem with our Democrats,” the official said. “Our Democrats stay
with us.”
Obama’s spending a ton of PC on the bill – just behind the scenes
McHugh 6/22 [Katie McHugh, writer for the Daily Caller, June 22, 2013 “Obama throws support behind immigration reform, pathway to
citizenship” http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/22/obama-throws-support-behind-immigration-reform-pathway-to-citizenship/]
In his weekly video address Saturday, President Barack Obama again voiced his support for the
“bipartisan, commonsense” immigration reform bill pending in the Senate, calling it an “important
step toward fixing our broken immigration system.” The bill, officially titled the Border Security,
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, includes a key provision meant to create
a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. — a measure
Obama fully supports.
“It’s a bill that would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are in this
country illegally — a pathway that includes passing a background check, learning English, paying taxes and a penalty, then going to the back of
the line behind everyone trying to come here legally,” the president said. Obama also cited the Congressional Budget Office’s Tuesday report,
adding that “reforming our immigration system would reduce our deficits by almost a trillion dollars over the next two decades.” The pending
bill, he said, “will boost our economy by more than 5 percent, in part because of businesses created, investments made, and technologies
invented by immigrants.” The
White House has played an energetic if partially hidden role in determining the
bill’s formation. Top administration officials review each amendment to the bill, blocking
amendments of which they disapprove and using their influence to push ones they approve, according
to one report. Texas Republican Sen. Jon Cornyn found his amendment demanding a 90 percent “trigger” for border security — meaning
a halt to amnesty until the U.S.-Mexico border was 90 perent secured — defeated after Obama, working with New York Democrat Sen. Chuck
Schumer, intervened. Instead, the Senate approved as much as $30 billion for construction of 700 miles of border fencing, but the funds have
yet to be guaranteed. “The
bill isn’t perfect. It’s a compromise. Nobody is going to get everything they want
— not Democrats, not Republicans, not me,” Obama said in his Saturday statement. ”But it’s
consistent with the principles that I and others have laid out for commonsense reform. That’s why
Republicans and Democrats, CEOs and labor leaders, are saying that now is the time to pass this bill.”
“We can do this, because we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants; a place enriched by the
contributions of people from all over the world, and stronger for it,” Obama continued. “That’s been
the story of America from the start.”
Obama pushing Congress to pass immigration
Saenz 6-22 [Arlette, “Obama Urges Congress to Pass Immigration Reform”,
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/obama-urges-congress-to-pass-immigration-reform/>]
As the Senate is poised to make a key vote on an immigration compromise Monday, President Obama
pressed Congress Saturday to pass immigration reform. “The United States Senate is debating a
bipartisan, commonsense bill that would be an important step toward fixing our broken immigration
system,” Obama said in his weekly address Saturday. “The bill isn’t perfect. It’s a compromise. Nobody is going to
get everything they want – not Democrats, not Republicans, not me. But it’s consistent with the principles that I and others have
laid out for commonsense reform.” The president said the bill would lead to “stronger enforcement. A smarter legal immigration
system. A pathway to earned citizenship. A more vibrant, growing economy that’s fairer on the middle class. And a more stable
“We can do this, because we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants; a
place enriched by the contributions of people from all over the world, and stronger for it. That’s been
the story of America from the start. Let’s keep it going,” he said. On Friday, a bipartisan immigration
fiscal future for our kids.”
amendment on border security was filed in the Senate, setting up a major vote on immigration reform for Monday to determine
whether they should proceed with the full bill. The amendment enhances the border security provisions in the bi-partisan Gang of
Eight plan by doubling the number of border patrol agents from its current size of 21,000 to 40,000 officers as well as completing a
700 mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. The compromise, which was sponsored by two Republican senators – Bob Corker of
Tenn. And John Hoeven of N.D. – could help solidify the votes needed for the plan to pass the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid hopes to pass the bill before the July 4 recess, but the plan has an uncertain fate in the House of Representatives as many
members are calling for stricter border security measures. House Speaker John Boehner said earlier this week that he would not
take an immigration bill to the House floor unless it has support from a majority of House Republicans.
PC High
DOMA decision gives Obama tons of polcap
Fox 6/29 (Fox News; June 29, 2013; “Obama-Court alliance on gay marriage sets up tough road ahead
for same-sex union foes”; Foxnews; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/obama-courtalliance-on-gay-marriage-sets-up-tough-road-ahead-for-same-sex/)//KDUB
The Supreme Court's rulings this past week on gay marriage signal that social conservatives looking to
advance their fight against same-sex unions could be in for a rocky road ahead. In its more modest decision this
week, the court issued a narrowly tailored ruling that had the effect of reinstating gay marriage in California. But it was the decision on
the Defense of Marriage Act that provided the strongest language, and the best indication of where the
court's majority stands on the broader issue -- whenever it returns to the nation's most powerful
justices for review. The majority opinion, authored by swing justice Anthony Kennedy, was unequivocal, at times
suggesting efforts to limit gay marriage are morally indefensible. The opinion said the DOMA law, which defined
marriage as between a man and woman, "humiliates" the children raised by gay couples. "Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their
lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," the majority wrote. The
court's conservative justices
fumed at this language, with Justice Antonin Scalia accusing his colleagues of deeming gay marriage foes "enemies of the human
race." The opinion, though, was an outright victory for Obama -- who has actually endured a string of
defeats before the high court this year. Perhaps the biggest blow came Tuesday when the court stopped the Justice Department
from singling out certain states for challenges to their voting laws. One report estimated the administration lost two-thirds of the cases it had
before the court this session. But on gay marriage, Obama won
big. The court effectively backed him up on two
controversial moves -- the decision not to defend the Clinton-era marriage law in court, and the
president's personal endorsement of gay marriage last year. Importantly, on the merits of the gay
marriage debate, the ruling put two of the three branches of the federal government on the same
page. Going forward, the ruling establishes an Obama-Supreme Court alliance that will loom large
over future efforts to restrict same-sex marriage. On that point, conservative justices and social conservative activists blasted the high
court for the scope of its opinion. Scalia, who voiced seething frustration, accused the court of overstepping its bounds in order to "pronounce
the law." Further, he said that assertions that DOMA would humiliate children and impose inequality will in effect stack the deck against any
state trying to limit gay marriage going forward.
Obama PC Key to CIR
Conflicts make Obama’s political capital key to immigration reform
Bresnahan and Raju 6-11 [John and Manu, “Senate Democrats divided on immigration”,
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/senate-democrats-immigration-reform-92616_Page2.html>]
But this Congress, Schumer has sought to make nice with Republicans as he’s attempted to negotiate deals on guns and immigration. He’s
effectively ceded the partisan messaging even though he still runs the DPCC, allowing other Democrats to wield a cudgel against Republicans
over the budget and other issues. With the gun bill stalled, Schumer has invested the lion’s share of his time and political capital in immigration
reform ahead of one day when he may ascend to Senate Democratic leader. “I’ve heard some who say we should not change — consider any
further changes to the bill, dare the other side to vote against. I reject that approach,” Schumer said on the floor Tuesday. “We’re not
interested in scoring a political victory to help one party.” Democrats now
hold a 54-46 Senate majority, and they could
lose two or three of their own when it comes time for final passage before the July Fourth recess.
Schumer — along with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — has his eyes on winning upward of 19 Republican senators, but to do that,
Democrats will have to agree to tougher border security provisions. House Speaker John Boehner (ROhio) has said he would like to see an immigration bill on the House floor before the end of the year,
but he has said his chamber will “not simply take up and accept” the Senate plan. Many House
Republicans are resistant to a comprehensive bill — even one in the works by a separate bipartisan group in the House.
Some Democrats privately gripe that Schumer has been too quick to placate Republicans given that
the House remains incredibly unpredictable. The thinking is that a fierce public relations campaign —
and the bully pulpit from President Barack Obama — could be enough to propel a handful of
Republicans to support the bill largely intact, and pressure the House into action.
Obama’s political capital key
Davis 5/23- Julie Hirschfield, “Obama Probes Create Immigration Magic as Bill Advances” May 23,
2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/obama-probes-create-immigration-magic-as-billadvances.html
His comments underscore the congressional hurdles that loom for revising immigration laws -- obstacles that Republican strategist Ron
Bonjean said will be harder for Obama to surmount if the scandals continue to undercut his credibility . “It
may help them now that people aren’t paying as much attention” to the debate on the immigration bill because of the investigations, “but
long-term it’s a big problem,” Bonjean said. “The
president’s political capital diminishes as these crises continue,
and eventually he’s going to have to cash in that capital to get people to cast tough votes and push
this thing through.”
Political capital key
Landler and Parker 6/11- Mark and Ashley, White House correspondent for the New York Times
and Washington-based reporter for New York Times, “Obama Backs Bill to Overhaul Immigration as
Debate Is Set” June 6, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/with-senate-set-to-voteobama-makes-immigration-pitch.html?pagewanted=1&ref=immigrationandemigration&_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. 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. “This bill isn’t perfect; it’s a compromise,” the
president said at a carefully choreographed White House appearance with advocates of reform. “Going forward, nobody is
going to get everything they want. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not me.” Though the Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch
McConnell of Kentucky, often an impediment to Democratic initiatives, voted to allow debate, he said he would vote against
the bill unless major changes were made. “These include, but are not limited to, the areas of border security, government
benefits and taxes,” he said. The House speaker, John A. Boehner, said he feared that the Senate bill “doesn’t go far enough.”
Speaking on ABC News before the vote, Mr. Boehner said he had “real concerns with the Senate bill,” especially on border
security and internal enforcement. A vote to allow a debate is no guarantee of a bill’s passage: the Senate cleared that
threshold on legislation to tighten the nation’s gun laws, but its key provision, to tighten background checks on gun buyers, still
went down to defeat. At the same time, this procedural vote was larger than one in 2007, when the Senate last debated
immigration reform, and Mr. Obama was clearly determined to seize the moment. “If you’re serious about actually fixing the
system, then this is the vehicle to do it,” Mr. Obama declared. “If you’re not serious about it, if you think that a broken system
is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it.” Speaking in the East Room, Mr. Obama surrounded
himself with supporters of the bill, including a former police chief in Los Angeles and New York, William J. Bratton; Thomas J.
Donahue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Julián Castro, the mayor of San Antonio; Steve Case, an
entrepreneur and a founder of AOL; and Richard L. Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. 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.” 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.”
Obama’s PC is key to getting it through the House
Birnbaum 6-12 [Jeremy. Politics for the Washington Times. “Sensational Season for Scandal: When a
Ship Runs Aground, it’s the Captain’s Fault” The Washington Times]
What’s left among major initiatives is immigration reform. However, that faces a tough slog in the Senate and a possibly impossible
trajectory in the House of Representatives. Its leading Republican sponsor, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has already signaled that he might bail on the plan he
helped craft if changes — including guaranteed bolstering of border security — aren’t added as the bill moves through the Senate.¶ In other words, official
Washington will devote lots of time to little more than housekeeping matters. Congress could pass a few
appropriations bills, reauthorize farm programs and raise the federal borrowing limit to avoid the disaster that would come with default. What that means is that
not much more than the basics are on track to succeed this year. ¶ That’s
a big problem for Mr. Obama. The more time that
passes, the less political capital he’ll have to muscle through his priorities. Unless he acts quickly , he
could lose his chance to make his presidency truly historic. He needs more accomplishments to distinguish himself.¶ More practically, the media
abhors a vacuum , and that’s what persistent inaction is creating. Reporters have no choice but to fill
their news holes. As a result, minor kerfuffles and governmental failures, which would otherwise be relegated to the second
tier, become front-page news for lack of competition .¶ Scandals blossom in the absence of a serious
agenda . That’s one reason the Obama administration has been battered by the terrible trifecta of the snatching of
reporters’ telephone logs, the continuing suspicions about the attacks in Benghazi and, most importantly, the targeting of conservative groups by
the Internal Revenue Service. The recent news that the government has compelled telephone and Internet companies to fork over information
about average citizens has also raised concerns because of the dearth of impactful actions otherwise in the nation’s capital.
Obama’s PC is CRITICAL to overcoming obstacles to passage
Washington Times 4-18 (“Obama told to step aside on reforming immigration; it’s Congress’ turn,
key Democrat says” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/18/obama-told-to-step-asideon-reforming-immigration/)
Anticipating the legislative fights to come, members of the “Gang of Eight” emphasized that their plan
bolsters national security through the proposed E-Verify system and stronger border security and also
ensures that American workers get the first crack at open jobs. “The status quo threatens our security, damages our
economy, disregards the rule of law and neglects our humanitarian responsibilities,” said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. “A problem of
that magnitude that affects so many of our interests will never be easy to address but never more necessary to address either.” Sen. Marco
Rubio, Florida Republican, also went on a public relations blitz, assuring conservative radio outlets that the proposal, among other things, does
not lead to “amnesty.” Mr. McCain also said the bill will go through the normal legislative process starting with committee hearings next month
but that the eight senators are poised to act together and defeat any amendment that would kill the bill outright. “We are also committed to
vote against amendments or proposals or changes that would kill the bill,” Mr. McCain said. “We’re not saying it’s a perfect piece of legislation,
and we think it can be improved on, but we also know opponents will be proposing amendments that, if passed, could collapse this very fragile
coalition that we’ve been able to achieve.” Mr. Gutierrez, too, predicted
difficult sailing for the legislation, and he
said that will be when Mr. Obama can best play a role. “Look, there’s going to come some hard times
and we’re going to need him to use that bully pulpit, I believe, in the future,” he said. “It’s going to get stymied,
there’s going to be hiccups, you guys have been around long enough, we’re going to need him there,
so he is critical and essential to this process.”
Focus Link
Momentum is critical – distracting focus from CIR destroys any chance of passing the
bill
Defrancesco Soto 4-25 (Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is an NBC Latino and MSNBC contributor,
Senior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ
School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin. “Opinion: Delaying immigration reform will
kill it” http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/25/opinion-delaying-immigration-reform-will-kill-it/)
Herein lies the rub. In order for the rational part of our thinking to kick in, we need time. With regards to the immigration discussion, time
would allow folks to see that not going through with an immigration reform makes us less safe. However, too
much time is a thief of
momentum. And immigration reform, as any type of complex legislation, lives and dies on
momentum. What we have is a Catch-22. Time allows cooler heads to prevail. In the case of immigration reform that means seeing the
likes of Rand Paul understand that pressing “pause” on immigration reform is counterproductive to our national security. But time also
allows for momentum to fizzle. The question in moving forward with immigration reform is whether
to proceed more slowly or charge ahead. Neither strategy is ideal, but the charging ahead is the lesser
of two evils. If immigration reform is placed on the back burner, even for a couple of weeks, it will die.
There is only so much attention that law makers can give to any one area before their attention gets
pulled elsewhere. Also, if lawmakers do not pass immigration reform before summer recess, the
emotional voices of those that think that immigration makes us less safe could overpower the debate.
The last thing immigration reform needs is the health care town hall meetings from 2009. Time usually heals all. But in the case of immigration
reform time turns out to be more of a foe than a friend. To
see immigration reform become a reality the Gang of Eight,
the White House, and immigration advocates must charge forward with their reasoned arguments highlighting the
greater good of immigration reform. Now more than ever, time is of the essence.
Adding anything new to the agenda will kill his focus on current issues
Deseret News 4-8 (“President Obama's domestic agenda — guns, immigration, budget — on the line
this week” http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765626404/Obamas-domestic-agenda-on-the-linethis-week.html)
The White House tried to play down the significance of the week's overlapping events to the president's broader objectives, with Obama
spokesman Jay Carney saying the administration is always trying to move forward on "the business of the American people." Said Carney:
"Every one of these weeks is full of the possibility for progress on a range of fronts." But Obama's
advisers know the window
for broad legislative victories is narrower for a second-term president. Political posturing is already
underway for the 2014 midterm elections, which will consume Congress next year. And once those votes for a
new Congress are cast, Washington's attention turns to the race to succeed Obama. Patrick Griffin, who served as White House legislative
director under President Bill Clinton, said Obama's
legislative efforts this year are likely to be the "sum and
substance" of his second-term agenda. "I think it would be very tough to put another item on the
agenda on his own terms," said Griffin, adding that unexpected events could force other issues to the fore.
Rubio k2 CIR
Rubio key to immigration
Walsh 6/11- Deirdre, CNN Senior Congressional Producer “Split House GOP threatens immigration
reform, Boehner's future” June 11, 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/politics/immigration-house/
Two of the Senate's GOP "Gang of Eight" members -- Marco Rubio of Florida and Jeff Flake of Arizona,
who are pushing the Senate's bipartisan plan -- faced off with well over 100 Republican members of
the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC). Rubio is considered key to bringing
conservatives on board , and Flake used to be a member of the RSC. The meeting only seemed to
harden conservative opposition. Alabama GOP Rep. Mo Brooks summed up the reaction of many House GOP members
who attended the session, telling CNN those senators explaining the merits of that plan "were doing their best to put lipstick on
a pig." Georgia Rep. Tom Price, a leading conservative, told reporters it was "highly unlikely" the majority of House Republicans
would vote for a bill similar to the Senate deal that permits citizenship after a series of conditions are met because he and GOP
colleagues don't trust the Obama administration to enforce the laws currently on the books. While many House
conservatives agree immigration reform is a critical priority for Congress, they part with President
Barack Obama, Senate Democrats, and some in their own party who believe allowing eventual
citizenship to those in the country illegally is part of the solution. They vow that they won't support any bill that
adds to the deficit and they want to see a tougher approach to border security. But there is a bloc of House GOP members -including 2012 vice presidential candidate Rep Paul Ryan of Wisconsin -- that is pushing for a similar bipartisan approach that
the Senate is taking up this week, which includes a path to citizenship. The group represents a minority within the House GOP
conference. That bipartisan effort suffered a significant setback last week. A working group, similar to the Senate's "Gang of
Eight," has been on the verge of unveiling legislation for months, according to multiple sources. But Rep. Raul Labrador,
one of the four GOP members in the group, abruptly dropped out. Like Rubio, who is needed to attract
Republican votes in the Senate, reform backers hoped Labrador would play the same role in the House.
Rubio key to passing immigration
Navarette 6/5- Ruben, CNN Contributor, “Rubio’s wild immigration ride” June 5, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/opinion/navarrette-rubio-immigration/index.html
So began the education of Marco Rubio. The Florida senator is the de-facto leader of the Gang of Eight, the
bipartisan group of senators pushing for immigration reform. Rubio has become the face of
immigration reform. He is the most articulate advocate and the game's most valuable player in large part because
he is charged with rounding up Republican votes. Meanwhile, if Rubio were to withdraw support for the
bill, it wouldn't just be a game changer. It would be game over.He recently worried allies by characterizing the bill as not strong
enough and said that more border security measures have to be added. While Rubio courts Republicans, the Democratic members of
the gang (Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois or Bob Menendez of New Jersey) need to arm-twist Democrats to make sure
they're on board. Many of the Senate's Democrats don't seem enthusiastic about a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants.
Boehner k2 CIR
Boehner key to passing immigration
Rodriguez 5/30- Gabriel, Graduate of New College of Florida with degree in Economics, “Immigration
Reform 2013: John Boehner is Congress's Only Hope” May 5 2013
http://www.policymic.com/articles/44481/immigration-reform-2013-john-boehner-is-congress-s-onlyhope
The House was always thought of as the more difficult chamber for any immigration bill, but some
have not given up hope on the turbulent negotiations that have taken place, seeing a possible way
forward after the dust clears. But it all depends on Speaker John Boehner (R-Iowa). The House is
currently locked in negotiations to produce some form of bill but it has been a difficult struggle.
Although principles of the bill have been worked out by the bipartisan House version of the Gang of
Eight, every single contentious detail they hit has threatened to sink the process. On Wednesday, the latest
hurdle was overcome after a dispute over a health care provision involving immigrants was solved. But the next hill to climb
involves the E-verify employment verification system, one of the key carrots handed out to Republicans to sweeten the bill. It is
a “trigger,” meaning that if the system is not up and running in five years, it will shut down the entire legalization system.
Democrats have begrudgingly gone along with the measure, but are not happy about its critical link to the entire program. So
Democratic legislators want to make sure that E-Verify system is not subject to the rough dimension of congressional
appropriations, basically protecting the system from suddenly having its funding cut or withheld by a congressperson who
decides they dislike the legalization process. This would set in action the trigger process and destroy the entire project.
According to Politico, Republicans are privately saying they are not going to bend on this point. If this
becomes an issue, this could be the hill that the bipartisan House bill dies on. There are rumblings that
if the talks collapse, the House will still want to pass some kind of bill before the Senate passes one. If
the Senate passes a bill with strong support (the latest goal is 70 senators), there will be enormous
pressure on Boehner to pass it from Republican Party elites and political strategists, who desperately
want to have an issue they can point to try to make inroads with much-needed voting blocks such as
Hispanic voters. If the talks collapse, Boehner could use several other GOP-based bills and ram them
through the chamber before the Senate bill passes. This would allow the whole thing to go to conference
committee, were the differences between the two bills out be ironed out, and a "compromise" bill would be send back to both
Houses of Congress.
Boehner’s key
Zelizer 7/1 Professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and CNN contributor (Julian,
“Will Speaker Boehner make history?”, CNN Publication, 7-1-13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/opinion/zelizer-speaker-boehner)//TQ
(CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner is facing a huge moment in his career. Now that the Senate has passed the
immigration bill, all eyes have turned to the House, where some right-wing members of the GOP are prepared to scuttle the bipartisan deal that
has been carefully crafted in the upper chamber. According to Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole, "We
have a minority of the
minority in the Senate voting for this bill. That's not going to put a lot of pressure on the majority of
the majority in the House." This is a test for Boehner, a massive opportunity for him to rebuild a languishing speakership.
At this point, the verdict of history probably would not be very kind to him. Boehner has struggled to move legislation
through his chamber, as the recent embarrassing failure of the farm bill showed. His biggest victories have primarily
been symbolic, like the legislation dealing with abortion that has no chance of passing the Senate. If his goal is to bring together the
various factions of his party into common accord behind key legislation, he has repeatedly failed. How can Boehner have any success with
immigration? After watching the collapse of the deal with farm legislation, it seems difficult to fathom how he can stitch together a majority
that will stay on board with this bill. When
the bet is between failure and success, most Washington observers
would bet on failure. Yet Boehner does have some tools at his disposal. Most importantly, he can
work with external organizations to lobby House Republicans, namely, religious and business
organizations. Both these groups have shown strong support for immigration reform and they have
considerable clout in gerrymandered districts that President Obama can never reach. A large number of religious groups, including evangelical
Christians, have called on Congress to pass the reform. Ralph Reed, one of the most influential members of the religious right in recent years
and who is the chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said: "As people of faith, this is not just an economic and security issue; it is a
moral issue. This bill, while not perfect, is an important starting point to reforming and modernizing U.S. immigration law so it reflects faithbased principles of compassion for the alien, the primacy of the family, respect for the rule of law, and protecting U.S. security and
sovereignty." This
strategy has worked before. When Southern Democrats were filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious
groups,
traditionally a driving force for immigration liberalization, can also help Boehner. Given their immense clout within the
party as well as within specific districts, business groups should flex their financial muscle to pressure members
into voting yes. Boehner needs to threaten House Republicans that he could work out a deal with
Democrats and moderates in the party. Boehner has generally adopted a model of leadership in which he follows the lead of his caucus. If
organizations helped the Johnson administration persuade Midwestern Republican senators to vote for cloture. Business
enough Republicans don't agree with a path to citizenship and believe that passing this legislation will threaten their majority, then he should
follow their demands. But another model of congressional leadership is to try to shape his caucus rather than having it shape him. As the Emory
political scientist Randall Strahan detailed in his book, "Leading Representatives," there is a history of speakers, such as Henry Clay, Thomas
Reed and Newt Gingrich, who have taken enormous risks to push their caucus in new directions. This is a strategy that could produce historic
legislation. This is the path that Speaker Tip O'Neill took, to the chagrin of many liberals, when he worked with President Reagan's
administration to pass the tax cut of 1981. Rather than standing in the way of the tax cut, O'Neill decided to sign on and demanded goodies for
Democratic constituencies. House Democrats, who had little love for Reagan, had little choice but to join their speaker, knowing that they were
going to lose. With the case of immigration, Boehner
could enter into a dramatic bipartisan alliance that would
leave him with much greater national clout. Even the threat of an alliance might be sufficient to move
enough conservative House Republicans, who sense that defeat is inevitable and decide that they might as well
win some credit for the victory.
Ryan k2 CIR
Obama not key; Paul Ryan key to influence Republicans
Bohan 6-26 [Caren, “Can Paul Ryan sell immigration reform to conservatives?”,
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-immigration-ryan-idUSBRE95P18020130626>]
(Reuters) - Paul Ryan, the Republican congressman and former vice-presidential candidate best known
for his war on spending, is emerging as his party's leading champion of immigration reform in the U.S.
House of Representatives. With Senate passage of a sweeping immigration bill imminent, Ryan has
been meeting with House conservatives to persuade them that reform of the immigration system,
including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, is an economic necessity and critical to fixing the nation's fiscal problems.
Ryan, a potential 2016 presidential contender, sees himself as a "bridge builder" between
immigration advocacy groups and reluctant Republicans, he said in an interview with Reuters. He argues
that the immigration system is broken and must be overhauled. "It doesn't work for national security. It doesn't work for economic
security," Ryan said. While bi-partisan support is propelling comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate, the Republican-
Supporters
believe the 43-year-old lawmaker, who hails from a moderate district in southern Wisconsin, two
hours north of Chicago, can make a difference because of his stature as a leading conservative voice
and a possible White House candidate. Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said the sheer amount of time Ryan
has spent talking with House Republicans about budget issues gives him the credibility to court them
on immigration reform. "I would bet you a nickel that he has had more face time with each member than anyone else in the
caucus," said Norquist, an influential conservative who also believes immigration reform is vital to the economy. Republican
strategist Whit Ayres calls Ryan "one of the most effective messengers the Republican party has in the
House," adding that "If Paul Ryan talks, the House Republicans will listen." That assessment may be overly
controlled House will take a piecemeal approach, with passage of any "pathway to citizenship" a longshot, at best.
optimistic, considering the large number of House Republicans from conservative districts who see legalization of illegal immigrants
and offering them a path to eventually become U.S. citizens as an "amnesty." But Ryan said a Republican-backed amendment to the
Senate bill to boost security on the U.S.-Mexico border improves the chances that the House and Senate could ultimately agree on a
compromise version of the legislation. The amendment "brings the Senate bill closer to the House's position and that gives me the
belief that we have a better chance at getting this law fixed at the end," he said. Unlike Republican Senator Marco Rubio, an architect
of the Senate immigration bill and a potential rival for Ryan if both seek the presidency, Ryan is not writing legislation or
participating in a congressional working group on the issue. But both Ryan and Rubio face risks from the divisiveness of the
immigration issue among Republicans. Support for immigration reform could cost either man votes with conservatives who will
nominate a 2016 Republican candidate. On the other hand, the influence of Hispanic-Americans in U.S. elections could make it
harder for any candidate who opposes immigration reform to win the White House. Mitt Romney, who chose Ryan as his running
mate in 2012 to shore up his conservative credentials, won less than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, prompting Republican leaders
to re-think the party's traditional wariness of immigration reform. Should Ryan run in 2016, his support for immigration reform will
distance him from Romney's position during the campaign that illegal immigrants ought to "self-deport." Pressure on Republicans
from shifting demographics are evident in Ryan's own Wisconsin district, which has the second largest Latino population among the
state's districts. But Ryan is not a new convert to immigration reform and he says politics are not driving his embrace of it. His work
on it goes back to his days as an aide to Jack Kemp, the late congressman who saw immigration as part of a free-trade agenda. In
April, Ryan teamed up with his friend, Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who is a staunch supporter of immigration reform,
to tout the issue at an event in Chicago. He has also co-sponsored immigration reform bills in the past. Like Rubio, the son of Cuban
immigrants, Ryan talks of the work ethic of immigrants and the high proportion who start businesses. He often tells of his Irish
ancestors who fled the potato famine in the 1850s and started a family farm in Wisconsin. In the interview, he cited future budget
deficits as a reason for urgency on immigration reform. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring from the workforce each day, "our
Ryan said he believes the country needs a system
"designed for the economy, to bring workers in to do jobs that people won't do or to bring their hightech intellectual capital." The fiscal argument helped fuel momentum for the Senate immigration bill
economy is going to need more labor in the future," he said.
when the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would reduce deficits by $197 billion over a decade because of additional workers
paying income and payroll taxes. If Ryan is worried about a conservative backlash on immigration, he is showing no signs of it. He
has offered to debate anyone who says an "earned" path to citizenship is the equivalent of amnesty. And the man who has sparred for
years with Democrats on budget issues believes he can play a role in getting the two parties to work together. "I think when you get
Democrats to listen to Republicans and Republicans to listen to Democrats you can find the common ground," he said. Alex
Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute said Ryan could give other Republicans political cover to
support immigration reform. "Nobody is going to question the conservative credentials of Paul Ryan,"
he said.
GOP k2 Immigration
GOP leaders key to immigration
Hunt 6/16- Albert R., Bloomberg View, “Republicans to Watch on Immigration” June 16,
2013http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/us/17ihtletter17.html?ref=immigrationandemigration
Republicans have an opportunity for a get-out-of-jail moment with the fastest-growing slice of the U.S. electorate, Hispanics. An
immigration bill is likely to pass the Senate by the end of the month. The size and shape of the measure and the
tone of the debate will be framed by Republicans in the next 10 days. That may have a small impact on recalcitrant
House Republicans. It will have a larger impact on reinforcing or modifying the hostility of Hispanics to Republicans. Party
leaders don’t expect to win the Hispanic vote — they’ve put themselves in such a hole that it may take a generation or two to
do that — but to clear the deck and begin a conversation with these voters on other issues. There are three Republican blocs to
watch in the Senate this week and next: The Presidential Aspirants Marco Rubio of Florida is an architect of the bill before the
Senate and is simultaneously trying to assuage the party’s far-right base. This balancing act must keep him awake at night. He
had been pulling it off until last week, when he began playing more games that infuriated John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina, his Republican partners on the measure. Whatever the rhetoric and however he votes on some
amendments, Mr. Rubio still is likely to support the bill in the end. That won’t be the case with Senators Rand Paul
and Ted Cruz. Mr. Paul, the freshman Kentucky conservative libertarian, does remarkably well in some of the hypothetical polls
on the 2016 race. He’s trying to carve out a role as a bridge with House Republicans on immigration. That won’t work; it
suggests he won’t want to make a big deal of the issue. Mr. Cruz, a Texas freshman who is the most natural Tea Party candidate
for 2016, has no such inhibitions, and seems to relish making his fellow Cuban-American, Mr. Rubio, squirm. He has called the
path to citizenship — the sine qua non element of any measure for Hispanics — “the most divisive aspect” of the legislation,
and says he is proud to be called “Obamaphobic.” In the Senate, liberal-moderate Republicans are dinosaurs.
There are, however, as many as a dozen Republicans who are periodically interested in bipartisan consensus and want to
support an immigration bill. These include Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander
of Tennessee, Rob Portman of Ohio, Dean Heller of Nevada and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. This group generally is sensitive
to finding compromises that aren’t deal killers for Hispanics and that can win broader Republican support. “We’re not there,
but I think we can find the sweet spot,” said Mr. Corker, declaring that he very much wants to vote for the legislation. Now the
important negotiations are over a tougher border security measure that, unlike the proposal by Senator John Cornyn, a Texas
Republican, would not impede the creation of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who already are in the
United States. A mischievous Rubio proposal would require immigrants to be proficient in English before becoming citizens. Mr.
Graham, noting a list of criteria for citizenship that includes paying back taxes, learning English, understanding civics and
keeping a job, said, “Hell, half my family wouldn’t qualify.” Only a handful of Democrats will defect. If these Republican
senators hold and generally back a middle ground on votes over the next week or so, the bill will
muster the necessary 60 votes, even in the unlikely event that Mr. Rubio peels off. An immigration
overhaul appeals to some on the right like Jeff Flake, the freshman senator from Arizona, and Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin,
chairman of the House Budget Committee. If supporters can get an additional half-dozen staunch Senate
conservatives — like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of
Georgia or Orrin G. Hatch of Utah — they could approach 70 votes on final passage and create momentum as
the measure moves to the House. Mr. Hatch, a consummate deal maker before the Tea Party made him fear for his
political life in his re-election bid last year, backed the bill in committee after winning concessions to bring in more hightechnology workers. Now he’s part of a group that is trying to restrict public benefits for immigrants with ideas that are harsher
than most Democrats can accept. When the bill passes the Senate it will put enormous pressure — more than most now realize
— on House Republicans. Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Ryan and possibly the House whip, Kevin
McCarthy, whose California district is one-third Hispanic, want to pass legislation that is acceptable to
the Hispanic community. A large majority of the House Republican caucus does not. Conservatives insist on
applying the so-called Hastert rule, which allows consideration only of bills that have a majority of the Republican caucus . If
this is irreconcilable, here is a prediction, based more on instinct than reporting: Mr. Boehner, if
necessary, will sacrifice his speakership rather than be party to the death of the immigration overhaul.
He realizes that, even though it may not much affect congressional elections next year, his party
cannot continue to lose 70 percent of the Hispanic vote and be competitive nationally.
AT: PC Not Key/PC Theory Not True
PC key to agenda - Obama does use it effectively- but its finite and Obama perceives
and acts like it is regardless
Burnett, 13
Bob Burnett, Founding Executive @ CiscoSystems, Berkeley writer, journalist, columnist @ huffington
post, 4/5, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/keystone-xl-obama_b_3020154.html
On April 3 and 4, President Obama spoke at several San Francisco fundraisers. While he didn't specifically mention the Keystone XL pipeline, the
tenor of his remarks indicated that he's likely to approve the controversial project. Obama
seems to be most influenced by
his inherent political pragmatism. I've heard Barack Obama speak on several occasions. The first was February 19, 2007, at a San
Francisco ore-election fundraiser with a lengthy question and answer session. Towards the end of the event a woman asked then presidentialcandidate Obama what his position was on same-sex marriage. For an instant, Obama seemed surprised; then he gathered himself and
responded he was aware of strong feelings on both sides of this issue and his position was evolving. Five years later, in May of 2012, President
Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. What took Obama so long to make up his mind? No doubt he needed to clarify his own
moral position -- although the Protestant denomination he was baptized into, the United Church of Christ, announced its support for same-sex
marriage in 2005. But I'm sure the
president carefully weighed the political consequences and, last May, thought the
timing was right. Over the last six years I've realized Barack Obama has several personas. On occasion he moves us with stirring oratory;
that's Reverend Obama, the rock star. Once in a while, he turns philosophical; that's Professor Obama, the student of American history. On
April 3, I saw Politician Obama, the pragmatic leader of the Democratic Party. Obama
has learned that, as president, he only
gets a fixed amount of political capital each year and has learned to ration it. In 2007, he didn't feel
it was worth stirring up controversy by supporting same-sex marriage; in 2012 he thought it was. He's
a cautious pragmatist. He doesn't make snap decisions or ones that will divert his larger agenda. Intuitively,
most Democrats know this about the president. At the beginning of 2012, many Democratic stalwarts were less than thrilled by the prospect of
a second Obama term. While their reasons varied, there was a common theme, "Obama hasn't kept his promises to my constituency." There
were lingering complaints that 2009's stimulus package should have been bigger and a communal whine, "Obama should have listened to us."
Nonetheless, by the end of the Democratic convention on September 6, most Dems had come around. In part, this transformation occurred
because from January to September of 2012 Dems scrutinized Mitt Romney and were horrified by what they saw. In January some had
muttered, "There's no difference between Obama and Romney," but nine months later none believed that. While many Democrats were not
thrilled by Obama's first-term performance, they saw him as preferable to Romney on a wide range of issues. In 2009, Obama got
a bad
rap from some Dems because they believed he did not fight hard enough for the fiscal stimulus and affordable
healthcare. In March of 2011, veteran Washington columnist, Elizabeth Drew, described Obama as: ... a somewhat left-of-center
pragmatist, and a man who has avoided fixed positions for most of his life. Even his health care proposal -- denounced by the
right as a 'government takeover' and 'socialism' -- was essentially moderate or centrist. When he cut a deal on the tax bill,
announced on December 7 [2010], he pragmatically concluded that he did not have the votes to end the Bush tax cuts
for the wealthiest, and in exchange for giving in on that he got significant concessions from the
Republicans, such as a fairly lengthy extension of unemployment insurance and the cut in payroll taxes.
Making this deal also left him time to achieve other things -- ratification of the START treaty, the repeal of don't ask,
don't tell. Drew's description of the president as a "left-of-center pragmatist" resonates with my sense of him. He is a political
pragmatist who, over the past five years, has learned to guard his political capital and focus it on his
highest priorities.
In this year's State-of-the-Union address half of the president's remarks concerned jobs and the economy. We gather
here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs -but too many people still can't find full-time employment. Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs -- but for more than a decade,
wages and incomes have barely budged. It is our generation's task, then, to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth -- a rising,
thriving middle class. He also spoke passionately about the need to address to address global warming, "For the sake of our children and our
future, we must do more to combat climate change." But it's clear that's a secondary objective. At one of the Bay Area fundraisers, President
Obama observed that his big challenge is to show middle-class families that, "we are working just as hard for them as we are for an
environmental agenda." Obama isn't going to block the Keystone XL pipeline because he doesn't believe that he can make the case his action
will help the middle-class. He's
conserving his political capital. He's being pragmatic.
Issues tradeoff for Obama
Walsh ’12 [Ken covers the White House and politics for U.S. News. “Setting Clear Priorities Will Be Key
for Obama,” 12/20, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/12/20/settingclear-priorities-will-be-key-for-obama]
And there is an axiom in Washington: Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, and other power centers can do justice to only one
or two issues at a time. Phil Schiliro, Obama's former liaison to Congress, said Obama has "always had a personal commitment" to gun
control, for example.¶ But Schiliro told the New York Times, "Given the crisis he faced when he first took office, there's
only so much capacity in the system to move his agenda ." So Obama might be wise to limit his goals
now and avoid overburdening the system , or he could face major setbacks that would limit his
power
and credibility
for the remainder of his presidency.
PC’s real – best scholarship
Beckman and Kumar ’11 [Matthew N. Beckmann and Vimal Kumar 11, Profs Department of Political
Science, @ University of California Irvine "How Presidents Push, When Presidents Win" Journal of
Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3 SAGE]
Before developing presidents’ lobbying options for building winning coalitions on Capitol Hill, it is instructive to consider cases
where the president has no political capital and no viable lobbying options. In such circumstances of
imposed passivity (beyond offering a proposal), a president’s fate is clear : his proposals are subject to pivotal voters’
preferences. So if a president lacking political capital proposes to change some far-off status quo, that is, one
on the opposite side of the median or otherwise pivotal voter, a (Condorcet) winner always exists, and it coincides with the
pivot’s predisposition (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbiel, 1998) (see also Black (1948) and Downs (1957)). Considering that
there tends to be substantial ideological distance between presidents and pivotal voters, positive
presidential influence without lobbying, then, is not much influence at all.¶ As with all lobbyists, presidents
looking to push legislation must do so indirectly by pushing the lawmakers whom they need to pass it. Or, as
Richard Nesustadt artfully explained:¶ The essence of a President’s persuasive task, with congressmen and
everybody else, is to induce them to believe that what he wants of them is what their own appraisal
of their own responsibilities requires them to do in their interest, not his…Persuasion deals in the coin of selfinterest with men who have some freedom to reject what they find counterfeit. (Neustadt, 1990: 40) ¶ Fortunately for contemporary
presidents, today’s
White House affords its occupants an unrivaled supply of persuasive carrots and
sticks . Beyond the office’s unique visibility and prestige, among both citizens and their representatives in Congress, presidents
may also sway lawmakers by using their discretion in budgeting and/or rulemaking, unique fundraising and campaigning capacity,
control over executive and judicial nominations, veto power, or numerous other options under the chief executive’s control. Plainly,
when it comes to the arm-twisting, brow-beating, and horse-trading that so often characterizes
legislative battles, modern presidents are uniquely well equipped for the fight. In the following we employ the
omnibus concept of ‘presidential political capital’ to capture this conception of presidents’ positive power as persuasive bargaining.¶
Specifi- cally, we define presidents’ political capital as the class of tactics White House officials
employ to induce changes in lawmakers’ behavior.¶ Importantly, this conception of presidents’ positive power
as persuasive bargaining not only meshes with previous scholarship on lobbying (see, e.g., Austen-Smith and Wright
(1994), Groseclose and Snyder (1996), Krehbiel (1998: ch. 7), and Snyder (1991)), but
also presidential practice . For example,
Goodwin recounts how President Lyndon Johnson routinely allocated ‘rewards’ to ‘cooperative’ members:¶ The rewards themselves (and
the withholding of rewards) . . . might be something as unobtrusive as receiving an invitation to join the President in a walk around the
White House grounds, knowing that pictures of the event would be sent to hometown newspapers . . . [or something as pointed as] public
works projects, military bases, educational research grants, poverty projects, appointments of local men to national commissions, the
granting of pardons, and more. (Goodwin, 1991: 237) Of course, presidential
political capital is a scarce commodity
with a floating value . Even a favorably situated president enjoys only a finite supply of political
capital ; he can only promise or pressure so much . What is more, this capital ebbs and flows as
realities and/or perceptions change . So, similarly to Edwards (1989), we believe presidents’ bargaining
resources cannot fundamentally alter legislators’ predispositions, but rather operate ‘at the margins’
of US lawmaking, however important those margins may be (see also Bond and Fleisher (1990), Peterson (1990),
Kingdon (1989), Jones (1994), and Rudalevige (2002)). Indeed, our aim is to explicate those margins and show how
systematically influence them.
presidents may
AT: PC Not Key (Ideology)
Prefer our studies – examines both presidential and congressional influence – their
studies don’t.
Lebo 10. [Matthew J., Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate,
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, “The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena” Journal of Politics -- online]
A similar perspective on the importance of legislative victories is shared by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. His observation that
‘‘When a party fails to govern, it fails electorally,’’ is indicative of a view in Washington that electoral fortunes are closely tied to legislative
outcomes. This view is echoed in theories of political parties in Congress (e.g., Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Lebo, McGlynn, and Koger
2007). But the
consequences of presidential failure to members of his party are largely unexplored in
empirical research. Also, while the fairly deep literature on the causes of presidential success has focused a
lot on the partisan environment within which the president’s legislative battles are won and lost, it
pays less attention to theories of congressional parties. Our attempt to combine these theories with a
view of the president as the central actor in the partisan wars is meant to integrate the literatures
the two institutions . Even as the study of parties in Congress continues to deepen our understanding of that branch,
on
the role of the
president is usually left out or marginalized . At the same time, research that centers on the president’s success has
developed with little crossover. The result is that well-developed theories of parties in Congress exist but we
know much less about how parties connect the two branches. For example, between models of conditional party
government (Aldrich and Rohde 2001; Rohde 1991), Cartel Theory (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005), and others (e.g., Patty 2008), we have
an advanced understanding of how parties are important in Congress, but little knowledge of where
the president fits. As the head of his party, the president’s role in the partisan politics of Congress
should be central.
AT: Hirsch
Wins don’t spill over- bruising effort doesn’t generate capital- their author
Michael Hirsch, Daily Beast, 1-19-2010 http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/19/thepolitics-of-hubris.html
There was nothing new about this, of course. It falls into the age-old annals of hubris, the same excess of pride that got Achilles and Agamemnon in trouble with the
gods. Obama apparently did
buy into the idea that he was a Man of Destiny and, being one, possessed bottomless supplies of
political capital. But he really had no more political capital than any first-year president, and he was straining his reserves just
dealing with the stimulus and financial reform, much less fixing Afghanistan.¶ I first became worried about this bridge-too-far problem
last year while covering financial reform on the Hill, when various congressional staffers told me their bosses didn't really have the time to understand how the Wall
Street lobby was riddling the legislation with loopholes.
Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room —and from their
brains, the aides said. Obama and his team seemed barely focused on transforming the financial system—except now, belatedly—and left a lot of the infighting to
regulators like Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Obama had spoken admiringly of Ronald Reagan as a transformational
president. And yet at what would seem to be a similar historical inflection point—what should have been the end of Reaganite free-market fundamentalism and a
laserlike scourging of Wall Street—Obama seemed to put this once-in-a-lifetime task on a back burner.¶ It is only now, a year later, when he
has a terrific
fight on his hands over health care, that Obama is talking about seriously breaking up the structure of Wall Street. The big-bank lobby will dig in
big time of course, and seek to buy everyone it can on Capitol Hill, which means that the president will need even more political capital that he no longer has. ¶ Just
as bad, when
the president did do h ealth c are—whatever version of it squeaks through now—he seemed to be getting
such a meager result for so bruising an effort that it will be a long time before anyone has the stomach to
set it right legislatively.
Regardless of general capital, the plan pushes immigration off the agenda—Hirsch
concedes this matters even if capital isn’t true
Michael Hirsh, National Journal, 2/7/13, There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207
Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by
electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of
recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the
real problem was that the plan was unpopular , the economy was bad, and the president didn’t realize that the
national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about
to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout,
aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was
simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue
the tea party and what ensued: two titanic
fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the
country’s mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care
reform was that it distracted the government’s attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently,
such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their
bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform
legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room , the aides said.
AT: Winners Win
Even if a confrontational strategy is key, that doesn’t mean the plan’s singular win
spills-over—it’s more likely to undermine Obama’s careful strategy on that issue
Ryan Lizza, 1/7/13, Will Hagel Spike the G.O.P.’s Fever?,
www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/how-much-will-the-nomination-of-chuck-hagelhurt-obamas-second-term-agenda.html
But Obama’s
victory has made almost no difference in changing the psychology or incentives of the
members of the G.O.P. who matter most: the House Republicans. The idea that a bloc of conservative, mostly Southern,
Republicans would start to coöperate with the President on issues like tax policy and immigration may have rested on a faulty assumption. The
past few weeks of fiscal-cliff drama have taught us that “ breaking
the fever” was the wrong metaphor . There is no
one event —even the election of a President—that can change a political party overnight. Congress is a co-equal branch
of government, and House Republicans feel that they have as much of a mandate for their policies as Obama does for his. Shouldn’t House
Republicans care that their views on Obama’s priorities, like tax cuts for the rich and immigration, helped cost Romney the White House and
will make it difficult for their party’s nominee to win in 2016? In the abstract, many do, but that’s not enough to change the voting behavior of
the average House Republican, who represents a gerrymandered and very conservative district. A
better metaphor for the coming
battles with Congress may be what Woody Hayes, the college-football coach, famously called “ three yards and a cloud
of dust ”: a series of grinding plays where small victories are earned only after lots of intense combat.
While the fiscal-cliff showdown demonstrated that there’s potential for bipartisan deal-making in the
Senate, passing any Obama priority through the House of Representatives is nearly impossible unless
the political pressure is extremely intense . The fiscal-cliff bill passed the House only when Speaker John Boehner’s
members realized that their only alternative was blowing up the settlement negotiated by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell—and accepting all
the blame and consequences. That episode offers
the White House a general template for the coming fights over
spending, immigration, and gun control—three issues where there is very little consensus between Obama and
most House Republicans. Deals will have to be negotiated in the Senate and gain the imprimatur of
some high-profile Republicans. Then a pressure campaign will have to be mounted to convince
Boehner to move the legislation to the floor of the House under rules that allow it to pass with mostly
Democratic votes. It’s easier to see how this could happen with the coming budgetary issues, which have
deadlines that force action, than for the rest of Obama’s agenda, which is more likely than not to simply die in the House.
Winners win is wrong--leading scholar says so
Jackie Calmes, "In Debt Talks, Obama Is Ready to Go Beyond Beltway," NEW YORK TIMES, 11--12--12,
LN.
That story line, stoked by Republicans but shared by some Democrats, holds that Mr. Obama is too passive and
deferential to Congress, a legislative naïf who does little to nurture personal relationships with potential allies - in short, not a
particularly strong leader. Even as voters re-elected Mr. Obama, those who said in surveys afterward that strong leadership was the most
important quality for a president overwhelmingly chose Mr. Romney. George C. Edwards III, a leading scholar of the
presidency at Texas A & M University who is currently teaching at Oxford University, dismissed such criticisms as shallow
and generally wrong. Yet Mr. Edwards, whose book on Mr. Obama's presidency is titled "Overreach," said, "He didn't
understand the limits of what he could do." "They thought they could continuously create
opportunities and they would succeed, and then there would be more success and more success, and
we'd build this advancing-tide theory of legislation," Mr. Edwards said. "And that was very naïve, very silly.
Well, they've learned a lot, I think." "Effective leaders," he added, "exploit opportunities rather than create
them." The budget showdown is an opportunity. But like many, it holds risks as well as potential rewards. "This
election is the second chance to be what he promised in 2008, and that is to break the gridlock in Washington," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a
Reagan White House chief of staff, who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and later expressed disappointment. "But it seems like this is a replay of
2009 and 2010, when he had huge majorities in the House and Senate, rather than recognizing that 'we've got to figure out ways to work
together and it's not just what I want.' " For now, at least, Republican lawmakers say they may be open to raising the tax bill for some earners.
"We can increase revenue without increasing the tax rates on anybody in this country," said Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia
and a leader of House conservatives, on "Fox News Sunday." "We can lower the rates, broaden the base, close the loopholes." The
challenge for Mr. Obama is to use his postelection leverage to persuade Republicans - or to help Speaker
John A. Boehner persuade Republicans - that a tax compromise is in their party's political interes t since most
Americans favor compromise and higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce annual deficits. Some of the business leaders the president will meet
with on Wednesday are members of the new Fix the Debt coalition, which has raised about $40 million to urge lawmakers and their
constituents to support a plan that combines spending cuts with new revenue. That session will follow Mr. Obama's meeting with labor leaders
on Tuesday. His first trip outside Washington to engage the public will come after Thanksgiving, since Mr. Obama is scheduled to leave next
weekend on a diplomatic trip to Asia. Travel plans are still sketchy, partly because his December calendar is full of the traditional holiday
parties. Democrats said the White House's strategy of focusing both inside and outside of Washington was smart. "You want to avoid getting
sucked into the Beltway inside-baseball games," said Joel Johnson, a former adviser in the Clinton White House and the Senate. "You can still
work toward solutions, but make sure you get out of Washington while you are doing that." The
president must use his leverage
soon, some Democrats added, because it could quickly wane as Republicans look to the 2014 midterm elections, when the
opposition typically takes seats from the president's party in Congress.
PC finite- legislative wins don’t spillover –empirics, true for Obama, too polarized
Todd Eberly is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political
Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland. His email is teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is excerpted
from his book, co-authored with Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular Discontent: Stability
without Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_politicalsystem-party-support-public-opinion/2
As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of what he hopes to
accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass . Mr. Obama occupies an office that many assume to be all powerful,
but like so many of his recent predecessors, the president knows better. He faces a political capital problem and a power trap.¶ In the post-1960s
American political system, presidents have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president
needs support — or at least permission — from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful, entrenched interest groups; and
accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they
face the prospect of inadequate political support or political capital to back their power assertions.¶ What was so crucial about the
1960s? We can trace so much of what defines contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the
scandals and economic uncertainties of the 1970s. Long-standing party coalitions began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made Democrats the indisputable majority party,
two parties began ideologically divergent
resulted in intense polarization in Congress, diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes,
combined with the growing influence of money and interest groups and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to
presidential leadership.¶ Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the president's electoral
faded into history. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the
journeys that
victory margin. The components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval, congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing
for a president than in times past.
In recent years, presidents' political capital has shrunk while their power assertions
have grown, making the president a volatile player in the national political system.¶ Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald
Reagan was elected in two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support, and despite a strong
economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade
Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national security policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001.
Ambitious plans for Social Security reform, following his narrow re-election in 2004, went nowhere.¶ Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of
important executive orders has increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms. Presidents have
had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power
assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny and often further erode political capital. ¶ Barack Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988,
and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative
accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His impressive
successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010
elections, which brought a return to divided government.¶ By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support
and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily
refinance federally backed mortgages, to help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's
enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act — though the enacting legislation
makes no accommodation for such waivers. Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a
Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhathardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of
contemporary president.¶ Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack
diminished Republican majority House and Democratic majority Senate,
multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims
are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital. ¶ Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap.
Presidents
in recent years
have
been unable to prevent their political capital from eroding . When it did, their power assertions often got them into further political trouble. Through
leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W.
Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes — in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts and education reform — that at the time
short-term legislative strategies may win policy success for a president but do not serve as an
antidote to declining p olitical c apital over time, as the difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate. None of Barack Obama's recent
predecessors solved the political capital problem or avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted by modern
presidents and one that will likely weigh heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.
received popular approval.¶ However,
Comparative- our internal link is MORE likely
David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, 1/19/13, Obama 2.0: Smarter, tougher -but wiser?,
www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Smarter, tougher, bolder -his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps -and for the country's sake, let's
hope so. Yet, there
are ample reasons to wonder, and worry.¶ Ultimately, to resolve major issues like deficits,
president and Congress need to find ways to work together much better than they did in
the first term. Over the past two years, Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on
Obama, and the White House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections.¶ But a growing
number of Republicans concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that they had to move away from
extremism toward a more center-right position, more open to working out compromises with Obama.
immigration, guns and energy, the
It's not that they suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to fail.¶ House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the
election to raise taxes on the wealthy and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on
immigration, moving away from a ruinous GOP stance. ¶ One senses that the
hope, small as it was, to take a brief timeout on
hyperpartisanship in order to tackle the big issues is now slipping away.¶ While a majority of Americans now approve of
Obama's job performance, conservatives increasingly believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them. They don't see a president
who wants to roll up his sleeves and negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his
campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their retreat, House
Republicans learned that their disapproval has risen to 64%.¶
Conceivably , Obama's tactics could pressure Republicans into
capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be spoiling for more fights . Chances for a "grand
bargain" appear to be hanging by a thread.
Links
Generic
Link Uniqueness (General)
Obama is ignoring Latin America – trade and engagement are declining
Oppenheimer 5-8 (Andres Oppenheimer is a Miami Herald syndicated columnist and a member of
The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. He is the author of Castro's Final Hour;
Bordering on Chaos, Cronicas de heroes y bandidos, Ojos vendados, Cuentos Chinos and most recently,
Saving the Americas. “Andres Oppenheimer: What Obama didn’t say about Latin America.” Miami
Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/08/3387818/andres-oppenheimer-obama-should.html)
I’ve read with great attention President Barack Obama’s article in The Miami Herald earlier this week on how to improve U.S. relations with
Latin America. It was pretty disappointing. The article, headlined “Improving our Partnership” and published after Obama’s return from a trip to
Mexico and Costa Rica, says that “this is a moment of great promise for our hemisphere” and is full of feel-good talk about the future of the
Americas. But, sadly, it
showed the absence of any U.S. plans to drastically expand trade ties with Latin
America — like the Obama administration has done with Asia and Europe — or any sign that, in his
second term, Obama will pay greater attention to this hemisphere. Before we get into what Obama should do, let’s
take a quick look at the facts. In his article, Obama stated that about 40 percent of U.S. exports are currently going to Latin America, and that
these exports are growing at a faster pace than U.S. shipments to the rest of the world. Also, Obama celebrated that the U.S. Congress is finally
close to approving comprehensive immigration reform. While that’s a U.S. domestic issue, it would have a positive economic impact on Mexico
and Central America, since millions of newly legalized immigrants would be able to visit their native countries, and would most likely be sending
more money to their families back home. But here are some of the facts that Obama failed to mention in his article: • U.S.
total trade
with Latin America has actually fallen as a percentage of total U.S. trade over the past decade. While 39
percent of overall U.S. trade was with the Western Hemisphere in 2000, that percentage fell to 38 percent in 2012, according to U.S.
Department of Commerce data. • Despite Obama’s May 23, 2008, campaign promise to launch “a new alliance of the Americas,” he has
not started any major hemispheric free trade initiative. By comparison, every recent U.S. president had started — or at
least tried to start — a hemisphere-wide trade deal. • Obama has launched the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade
talks with mostly Asian countries, and a similar Trans-Atlantic Partnership free trade negotiation with
the 27-member European Union, but has not announced any plans for a Trans-American Partnership.
Granted, he has helped ratify free trade deals with Colombia and Panama, which had been signed by his predecessor. And, sure, the TransPacific Partnership plan includes a few Latin American countries, such as Mexico, Peru and Chile, but they are a minority within the proposed
new bloc. • In his May 2 trip to Mexico, Obama failed to meet Mexico’s request to be included in the U.S.-proposed Trans-Atlantic partnership
free trade talks with the European Union. The Mexican governments had asked that Mexico and Canada be included in the Trans-Atlantic
Partnership plan, so that the proposed deal could become a North American-European Union deal. But the White House response was, not yet.
• Despite Obama’s 2011 announcement of a plan to increase to 100,000 the number of Latin American students in U.S. colleges, and to 100,000
the number of U.S. students in Latin American universities — his most ambitious initiative for the region — progress on the project has been
slow. The plan calls for significant private sector funding, but Obama has invested little time, or political capital, in it. Fund-raising has been left
in charge of the State Department, whose boss — Secretary of State
John Kerry — has shown scant interest in Latin
America.
Obama will not increase US economic relations to Latin America
Mike Allison 5/2/13 associate professor in the political science department at the University of
Scranton in Pennsylvania “US President Barack Obama Returns to Latin America”
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013430105115612555.html
leaders and people of Central America as well as Mexico are
highly interested in what the President has to say about comprehensive
immigration reform. Guatemala will also be interested in learning whether there has been any progress on its request for
As a result of these issues, the
Temporary Protected Status (TPS). El Salvador, on the other hand, awaits word on whether TPS for its citizens will be extended past its
expiry in September. How the US treats people, whether documented or not, within its borders is a test of democracy and human rights.
However, as in Mexico, Obama needs to somehow make the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of human rights priorities in
the US' relations with Central America. Honduras has been unable to recover from the June 2009 coup that removed President Manuel
Zelaya from office; with the highest homicide rate in the world, police officers, lawyers, teachers, journalists, taxi drivers, gays and
lesbians, and democracy and human rights activists are now being killed at alarming rates. The executive, legislative and judicial
branches are all at loggerheads with one another and are perhaps more the problem than the solution. While popular, President Daniel
Ortega continues to erode democratic structures in Nicaragua following his questionably legal re-election in 2011.
It is unlikely
that Obama is going to announce a significant increase in US economic
assistance to the region and the US already has free trade agreements with Mexico (NAFTA) and Central America (DRCAFTA). The US is unlikely to agree to significant drug policy reforms , such as decriminalisation
and regulation, desired by so many. Nor is the US likely to cut security assistance to Honduras and
Mexico even as their forces continue to be involved in wide-scale abuses, including extrajudicial executions. Obama could make a
difference, however, returning democracy and human rights to the top of the agenda. In a 1989 conference of the Council of the Americas,
President George HW Bush said that a commitment to democracy and market economies would help define relations between the US and
Latin America. At the first Summit of the Americas to take place in Miami, Florida, in 1994, President Bill Clinton and the heads of state of
every Latin American country, except Cuba, agreed on an ambitious plan to deepen democracy and human rights, to achieve economic
growth and improve income redistribution within market economies, eliminate poverty and discrimination, and secure environmentally
sustainable development. Progress on each of those issues was uneven, at best, during the Clinton and George W Bush administrations.
President Obama's trip to Mexico and Costa Rica provides an opportunity for the US and the region to recommit themselves to
strengthening democratic institutions and respecting human rights.
Obama isn’t involved in Latin America policy now
Roett 2012 (Riordan, director of the Latin American Studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies. “What Will Obama's Second Term Mean for Latin America?” InterAmerican Dialogue. http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3135)
"While the president's re-election is welcome in general terms , it is difficult to imagine Latin
America will receive greater attention in the next four years. Congress remains deeply divided. The
administration's foreign policy priorities will continue to focus on China, the Middle East and the
ongoing fiscal challenges. Given the strong turnout by the Latino community, one area that
should receive priority is continued immigration reform, but it is the third rail for the
Republican majority in the House. In general, the democratic governments of the region will
welcome the president's election without great expectation for major policy initiatives. The
populist regimes will continue to denounce any democratically elected administration. The
deadlock over Cuba will continue unless there is a dramatic leadership shift to a new generation. The
major policy initiative that would be welcome in the region is on drug policy, but that issue
will remain taboo."
Obama’s not spending PC on L.A. now
Isacson 2011 (Adam, senior associate at WOLA. “President Obama’s Upcoming Trip to Latin America”
Washington Office on Latin America.
http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_america)
Though Latin Americans’ perceptions of the United States have improved since a low point during the Bush administration, our country
is no longer the central player in the economic lives of most Latin American countries, either through
trade or aid.
As a result, it carries much less political weight. Though it is not his intention, President Obama’s trip will underscore
that
the era of unquestioned U.S. leadership has ended , as the President himself acknowledged at the 2009 Summit of the
Americas, when he emphasized building an “equal partnership” with the region’s states. Not all of the messages will be positive, however. In a
time of reduced power and deep budget cuts, President Obama will be arriving largely empty-handed.
There is relatively little new
economic aid to offer ; much of what the Administration can propose is re-programming to meet priority needs, improved
coordination, and technical assistance. These are important, but not a substitute for new assistance and new initiatives .
Not only can
we expect few offers of new economic aid, we can expect few commitments to spend substantial
political capital.
The administration, though supportive, is unlikely to make a major political commitment to help Latin America address
what, according to opinion polls throughout the region, are its main concerns: public security, unemployment, weak institutions, and migration.
U.S. not increasing engagement now
Isacson, Adam 3/10/11 Senior Associate at the Washington office on Latin America
(http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_america)
Not all of the messages will be positive, however. In a time of reduced power and deep budget cuts, President Obama will be
arriving largely empty-handed. There is relatively little new economic aid to offer; much of what the
Administration can propose is re-programming to meet priority needs, improved coordination, and
technical assistance. These are important, but not a substitute for new assistance and new initiatives. Not only can we expect
few offers of new economic aid, we can expect few commitments to spend substantial political
capital. The administration, though supportive, is unlikely to make a major political commitment to help
Latin America address what, according to opinion polls throughout the region, are its main concerns: public security, unemployment,
weak institutions, and migration. While crime and violence will be mentioned in Brazil and El Salvador, the most President Obama is likely to
offer is a commitment to maintain modest existing levels of assistance for police and judicial institution-building. On the economy and jobs, the
President will visit Chile and Brazil, whose growth rates dwarf our own. In his visit to El Salvador, whose economy is only beginning to recover
from the financial crisis that hit the United States, the President is likely to support targeted anti-poverty efforts, but no major new initiatives.
Strengthening institutions requires supporting reformers both in government and civil society, including human rights defenders and leaders of
unions and social movements — something on which the U.S. record is mixed. On migration — a third-rail political issue in today’s Washington
— we can expect little. (El Salvador seeks a long-term resolution of the status of the two hundred thousand Salvadorans still here on a
“temporary protected” basis, but no immediate solution is at hand.) We will hear words like “partnership” and “engagement” used quite
heavily and repeatedly in the course of this trip. This is certainly the right tone to take. But those words have little meaning, though, if they
don’t come with a commitment to expend resources — both political and financial — to help our “partners” address their own concerns, even if
it occasionally displeases a domestic political constituency. True partners are also willing to admit when their policies are not working, rather
than forge blindly ahead as we have done in Cuba, the drug war, our trade policy and elsewhere.
Latin America no longer revolves
around the U.S. “sun,” and our policy toward the region can no longer act as though it does. Let’s hope
that the tone and content of the President’s visit reflect that.
U.S. isn’t increasing engagement in aid or trade now
Isacson, Adam 3/10/11 Senior Associate at the Washington office on Latin America
(http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_america)
When President Obama travels to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador from March 19th to 23rd, he will encounter a
vastly different region than the one his predecessors visited. A generation ago, the region was a bit like
a solar system, its countries revolving tightly around the “sun” of U.S. political, economic and military
power. Today, that power is diminished. The “planets” are now determining their own independent
orbits, some are becoming “suns” in their own right, and other “stars” (China, India, Europe) are
exerting more gravitational pull. Though Latin Americans’ perceptions of the United States have improved since a low point
during the Bush administration, our country is no longer the central player in the economic lives of most Latin
American countries, either through trade or aid. As a result, it carries much less political weight. Though
it is not his intention, President Obama’s trip will underscore that the era of unquestioned U.S. leadership has ended, as the President himself
acknowledged at the 2009 Summit of the Americas, when he emphasized building an “equal partnership” with the region’s states.
Obama’s reducing aid to Latin America
Meyer, Peter J and Sullivan, Mark P. Analyst and Specialist in Latin American Affairs
6/26/12 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf)
The Obama
Administration’s FY2013 foreign aid budget request would continue the recent downward
trend in assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean. The Administration has requested some $1.7 billion for the
region to be provided through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). If Congress appropriates
funding at the requested levels,
Latin America and the Caribbean would receive nearly 9% less assistance than the
proposed cuts are widespread, affecting nearly every
region received in FY2012, and about 11% less than in FY2011. The
foreign aid account. Colombia, Haiti, and Mexico would see some of the largest absolute dollar
declines, but would remain the top three regional recipients, collectively accounting for some 55% of the aid to the region. Beyond the
assistance provided through the State Department and USAID, many Latin American and Caribbean nations will continue to receive additional
aid from agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Inter- American Foundation, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace
Corps.
Foreign Policy Changes Drain PC
Foreign policy changes drain PC
Helen V. Milner (B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and
the director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson
School) and Dustin H. Tingley (Assistant Professor of Government at Harvard University) “Who
Supports Global Economic Engagement?” The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic
Policy International Organization 65, Winter 2011, pp. 37–68
In democracies, governments have to build domestic support for the use of foreign policy tools. In the United
States, which we focus on in this article, presidents must build legislative coalitions because of the separation of
powers system. Presidents are not free to simply design the optimal policy for foreign engagement;
instead they must obtain domestic approval. Legislators may have their own preferences about
foreign policy, given the impact policy has on their local constituencies and therefore their reelection
prospects. Legislators may find it politically costly to yield to the president’s foreign policy concerns.
Foreign policy, then, results from some combination of these domestic and international pressures.
Presidents must expend PC to achieve foreign policy goals
Helen V. Milner (B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and
the director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson
School) and Dustin H. Tingley (Assistant Professor of Government at Harvard University) “Who
Supports Global Economic Engagement?” The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic
Policy International Organization 65, Winter 2011, pp. 37–68
Presidential Power and Foreign Policy Concerns Studies of foreign policy often claim that the president is the dominant actor. 30 Legislators
follow the president’s lead because presidents have more intense preferences and better knowledge
about foreign policy. In this theory, presidents have strong preferences over policies such as aid and trade because these are important
foreign policy tools, and presidents are responsible for responding to foreign policy challenges. However, as Krasner has noted, Congress
provides an important check on the ability of the president to implement his foreign policy goals: The
political needs and constituencies of Congressmen are different from those of the President.... Because Congressmen represent geographically
specific areas, they are bound to have different concerns from the president’s. While the President can be held accountable for the broad effect
of policy, rarely can members of the legislature. To get reelected, members of Congress must serve relatively narrow constituencies.” 31 By this
account, presidents
need to convince legislators to vote for their foreign policy choices often against the
legislators’ preferences. Such presidential influence is likely to arise from several sources, including
the linking of national security concerns to trade or aid ~that is, playing the “security card”! and the
offer of side payments to legislators. 32 As we discuss later, the African Growth and Opportunity Act ~AGOA! provides an
interesting case where President Bill Clinton had to use both strategies to craft a winning legislative coalition to advance a foreign policy
priority. Following other scholars, we argue that legislators often listen to or are persuaded by the president’s foreign policy concerns and,
following party loyalty vote in accord with the president. Presidents propose foreign policy to meet external pressures, and legislators vote in
favor if they come from the president’s party and against if they are from the opposition party. 33 The ability of presidents to get their
preferences realized in Congress, despite other influences, has been examined. 34 Fleisher, Krutz, and Hanna show that
presidents’ rate
of success in getting their legislation in foreign policy passed is extremely high, and higher than in domestic
policy. 35 These data suggest that presidents’ foreign policy concerns can often override the local
constituency interests of legislators.
Foreign Aid Unpop
Congress wants to cut foreign aid to L.A. now
Meyer and Sullivan 2012 (Peter and Mark, Analyst in Latin American Affairs; Specialist in Latin American
Affairs. “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and
the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013
Appropriations” Congressional Research Service. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf)
Foreign assistance is one of the tools the United States has employed to advance U.S. interests in ¶
Latin America and the Caribbean , with the focus and funding levels of aid programs changing ¶ along with broader U.S. policy
goals. Current aid programs reflect the diversity of the countries in ¶ the region. Some countries receive the full range of U.S. assistance as they
continue to struggle ¶ with political, socio-economic, and security challenges. Others, which have made major strides in ¶ democratic
governance and economic and social development, have largely outgrown U.S. ¶ assistance but continue to receive some support for new
security challenges, such as ¶ strengthening citizen security and combating transnational organized crime .
Although U.S. ¶ relations
with the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean have increasingly become less
provision of U.S. assistance as a result of this progress ,
¶ defined by the
foreign aid continues to ¶ play an important role in advancing
U.S. policy in the region. Congress authorizes and appropriates foreign assistance to the region,
and
conducts oversight of ¶ aid programs and the executive branch agencies charged with managing them. Current efforts to ¶ reduce budget
deficits in the aftermath of the recent global financial crisis and U.S. recession ¶ have triggered closer examination of competing budget
priorities.
Congress has identified foreign ¶ assistance as a potential area for spending cuts,
placing greater
scrutiny on the efficiency and ¶ effectiveness of U.S. aid programs. Spending caps enacted as part of the Budget Control Act of ¶ 2011 (P.L. 11225)1¶ could place downward pressure on the aid budget for the foreseeable future.
Renewable Energy Unpop
Pushing renewables decimates Obama’s pc
Friedman 6/26 (DAN FRIEDMAN DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER; June 26, 2013; “Cool hand Bam Prez: I'll
take on climate control measures by myself”; Daily News New York; lexis)//KDUB
Obama said he would tell the Environmental Protection Agency to impose the first limits on carbon pollution from power plants by
2015, one of a series of steps to tackle global warming without approval from a mostly opposed Congress.
Wearing no jacket, the President rolled up his sleeves in 91-degree heat and stifling humidity at the start of his outdoor speech at Georgetown
University. Noting 2012 was the warmest year in U.S. history, he dismissed skeptics who question whether human activity causes rising
temperatures. "I don't have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real," Obama said. "We don't have time for a meeting
of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm." The
plan drew cheers from environmentalists and attacks from lawmakers of both parties representing energy-producing states. "It's
clear
now that the President has declared a war on coal," said Sen. Joe Manchin, (D-W.Va.), whose state relies
on the coal industry. "It's simply unacceptable that one of the key elements of his climate change proposal places regulations on
coal that are completely impossible to meet with existing technology." Also Tuesday, Obama raised the prospect of rejecting
plans for the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. He said his administration will
block it unless it does "not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." The President said
he directed the EPA to work with states and industries to set local pollution standards and new goals
for carbon reduction. He outlined plans to raise federal investment in renewable energy. Obama promised tougher fuel economy
standards for trucks and called for an "end of public financing for new coal plants overseas." Despite the steps, Obama said a carbon buildup
means the Earth will keep warming. "The fact that sea levels in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago - that
didn't cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and under water," he
said.
OAS Unpopular
House Conservatives don’t support OAS
The Economist 11 (“Partnership, and its obstacles: Barack Obama’s fitful attempts to strike a new
tone in relations with Latin America face new obstacles from Republicans in Congress”, The Economist
Print edition publication, 9-3-11, http://www.economist.com/node/21528271)//TQ
SHORTLY after he took office in 2009, Barack Obama attended a 34-country Summit of the Americas in Trinidad where he pledged a “new era of
partnership” between the two halves of the region, in place of “stale debates and old ideologies”. Honouring this promise has not been easy:
Mr Obama has had other priorities, both abroad and at home, and events in the region, such as a coup in Honduras just two months after the
Trinidad summit, revived some of those old debates. Nevertheless, the
administration has taken some modest initiatives
in Latin America. But now the new partnership risks falling victim to partisan infighting in Washington.
In July the Republican majority on a committee of the House of Representatives deleted funding for the
Organisation of American States (OAS) from next year's budget. Conservatives dislike the OAS's secretarygeneral, José Miguel Insulza, a Chilean social democrat, whom they accuse of complicity with threats to democracy and media
freedom from leftist autocrats, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. The Republicans have similarly used their powers to hold up the appointment
of administration nominees for diplomatic jobs whom they consider too conciliatory towards Mr Chávez and his friends. At
the same
time, American ambassadors have been expelled from, or not accepted in, Venezuela, Ecuador and (in 2008)
Bolivia.
Latin America Economic Engagement Popular
Congress supports engagement with Latin America
Palmer 12 (Reuters. “Boehner urges deeper US engagement in Latin America”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/usa-trade-boehner-idUSL1E8G81HM20120508)
WASHINGTON, May 8 (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress' top Republican on Tuesday called for deeper U.S economic
engagement with Latin America, but also expressed concern over Iranian influence in the region and the "alarming willingness" of
some governments to abandon international norms. "In both Colombia and Mexico, and the entire hemisphere, the U.S. must be
clear that we will not disengage in the fight for free markets and free, secure people," U.S. House of
Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in remarks prepared for delivery at the U.S. State Department. "We must be clear that we will
be there, with our friends and partners in the region, committed to fighting and winning the war for a free, stable, and prosperous
hemisphere," Boehner said, speaking to the Council of Americas, an organization representing companies that do business in the region.
Boehner is due on Tuesday to receive an award from the group for his work last year on winning congressional approval of free trade
agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.
Cuba
Cuba Policy Unpopular (General)
Changing policy toward Cuba requires lots of PC
Williams 13 (A foreign correspondent for 25 years, Carol J. Williams traveled to and reported from
more than 80 countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. “A foreign correspondent for
25 years, Carol J. Williams traveled to and reported from more than 80 countries in Europe, Asia, the
Middle East and Latin America.” May 03, 2013 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/03/world/la-fgwn-cuba-us-terror-list-20130502)
Politicians who have pushed for a continued hard line against Cuba cheered their victory in getting the
Obama administration to keep Cuba on the list. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a South Florida Republican whose efforts to
isolate and punish the Castro regime have been a central plank of her election strategy throughout her 24 years in Congress, hailed the State
Department decision as “reaffirming the threat that the Castro regime represents.” Arash Aramesh, a national security analyst at Stanford
Law School, blamed
the continued branding of Cuba as a terrorism sponsor on politicians “pandering for a
certain political base.” He also said President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry have failed to make a
priority of removing the impediment to better relations with Cuba. “As much as I’d like to see the Castro regime
gone and an open and free Cuba, it takes away from the State Department’s credibility when they include countries on the list that aren’t even
close” to threatening Americans, Aramesh said. Political considerations also factor into excluding countries from the “state sponsor” list, he
said, pointing to Pakistan as a prime example. Although Islamabad “very clearly supports terrorist and insurgent organizations,” he said, the
U.S. government has long refused to provoke its ally in the region with the official censure. The decision to retain Cuba on the list surprised
some observers of the long-contentious relationship between Havana and Washington. Since Fidel Castro retired five years ago and handed the
reins of power to his younger brother, Raul, modest economic reforms have been tackled and the government has revoked the practice of
requiring Cubans to get “exit visas” before they could leave their country for foreign travel. There was talk early in Obama’s first term of easing
the 51-year-old embargo, and Kerry, though still in the Senate then, wrote a commentary for the Tampa Bay Tribune in 2009 in which he
deemed the security threat from Cuba “a faint shadow.” He called then for freer travel between the two countries and an end to the U.S. policy
of isolating Cuba “that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years.” The
political clout of the Cuban American community in
South Florida and more recently Havana’s refusal to release Gross have kept any warming between
the Cold War adversaries at bay. It’s a matter of political priorities and trade-offs, Aramesh said. He noted that
former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton last year exercised her discretion to get the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq, or
MEK, removed from the government’s list of designated terrorist organizations. That move was motivated by the hopes of some in Congress
that the group could be aided and encouraged to eventually challenge the Tehran regime. “It’s
a question of how much political
cost you want to incur or how much political capital you want to spend,” Aramesh said. “President Obama
has decided not to reach out to Cuba, that he has more important foreign policy battles elsewhere.”
Changing Cuba policy requires disproportionately large amounts of PC
Aho 13 (Matthew Aho, Inter-American Dialogue's Latin America Advisor. “What Does Obama's Second
Term Hold for U.S.-Cuba Relations?” January 23, 2013. Cuba Study Group.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/our-opinions?ContentRecord_id=c20ad778-24cd-46df-9fb23ebc664ed58d&ContentType_id=15d70174-0c41-47c6-9bd5-cc875718b6c3&Group_id=4c543850-00144d3c-8f87-0cbbda2e1dc7)
While John Kerry's views on U.S.–Cuba relations have favored engagement over isolation, ultimate authority rests with a White
House that has proceeded cautiously on Cuba during President Obama's first term. Aside from easing some travel
restrictions, there have been only two emergent themes on Cuba policy: support for private-sector efforts to increase the flow of information
to the Cuban people; and support for private economic activity on the island. Cuba
policy changes still require expenditures
of political capital disproportionate to the island's strategic and economic importance. Barring gamechanging developments—such as release of USAID subcontractor Alan Gross—executive action during
Obama's second term will likely focus on furthering goals laid out during his first. Here, however, John Kerry's
leadership could prove vital and create new opportunities for U.S. business.
Cuban policy changes require a large investment of political capital
Miroff 13 (Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost. He is also a contributor to National Public Radio,
and has written for the Washington Post, Mother Jones, Sporting News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and
other publications. “Can Kerry make friends with Cuba?” January 2, 2013. Global Post.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/121231/kerry-cuba-secretary-ofstate-obama)
Kerry has also favored lifting curbs on US travel to the island, and opening up American tourism to the only country in
the world the US government restricts its own citizens from visiting. For the rest of Latin America, where leaders say they're eager for
Washington to modernize its view of the region and engage in new ways, Cuba
remains “a litmus test” for the Obama
presidency, according to Julia Sweig, director of Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The strategic benefits of
getting Cuba right would reverberate throughout the Americas,” said Sweig, calling Kerry “ideally suited to the task.” “Kerry's instincts and
experience in Latin America are to see past lingering and often toxic ideology in the US Congress and bureaucracy in favor of pragmatism and
problem solving,” she said. Regardless
of Kerry’s record on Cuba policy in the Senate, analysts say he will face
several obstacles to major change, not least of which will be the man likely to replace him as chairman of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), a Cuban American. If Menendez becomes
chairman, then the committee responsible for shaping US foreign policy in the upper house will be led by a
hardliner who wants to ratchet up — not dial back — the US squeeze on Havana. So while Kerry may have
some latitude to adjust Cuba policy from inside the White House, Latin America experts don’t expect sweeping change — like an end to the
Cuba Embargo — which requires Congressional action. “On Latin America, in general, I think Kerry has a longer and broader vision,” said Robert
Pastor, professor of international relations at American University. But when it comes to Cuba, he cautioned, “Kerry
is also a political
realist.” “Changing US policy is not a high priority for him, but not changing US policy is the only
priority for Bob Menendez,” Pastor said. In 2011, Kerry delayed the release of nearly $20 million in federal funds for pro-democracy
Cuba projects run by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), questioning their effectiveness and insisting on greater oversight.
“There is no evidence that the ‘democracy promotion’ programs, which have cost the US taxpayer more than $150 million so far, are helping
the Cuban people,” Kerry said at the time. “Nor have they achieved much more than provoking the Cuban government to arrest a US
government contractor.” The US government contractor is Alan Gross, jailed on the island since December 2009. Cuban authorities arrested
Gross while he worked on a USAID project to set up satellite communications gear that would allow members of Cuba’s Jewish community to
connect to the internet without going through government servers. Cuba sentenced him to 15 years in prison, but now says its willing to work
out a prisoner swap for the “Cuban Five,” a group of intelligence agents who have been serving time in a US federal prison. The Obama
administration has refused to negotiate, calling on Havana to release Gross unconditionally, and even US lawmakers who advocate greater
engagement with Cuba say no change will be possible as long as he’s in jail. The Castro government insists it’s not willing to give up Gross for
a resolution to
the Gross case and other significant changes in US policy would “require a big investment of political
capital” by Kerry and Obama.
nothing. Carlos Alzugaray, a former Cuban diplomat and scholar of US-Cuba relations at the University of Havana, said
Many barriers to new legislation hurt PC – Alan Gross, other issues, and bipartisan
opposition
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled “Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations?” for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
But the Obama administration made very little headway in expanding government-togovernment ties
with Cuba. It resumed the semi-annual immigration consultations Bush had suspended, but then suspended them again in January 2011.
Initial talks on counter-narcotics cooperation, joint medical assistance to Haiti, and Coast Guard search and rescue seemed to offer some
promise of progress, but they
stalled before reaching any new agreements. Only talks on cooperation to
mitigate oil spills in the Caribbean made any real progress, and even then Washington insisted on
conducting them multilaterally rather than bilaterally. The proximate cause of the failure to move
bilateral relations ahead was the arrest of USAID subcontractor Alan Gross in December 2009. But
there were deeper causes for the loss of momentum in Obama's new Cuba policy. One was the low
priority given to it in the face of the2 multiple foreign policy problems facing the president– wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, revolutions sweeping North
Africa. Even in Latin America, the administration faced more pressing problems– the coup in
Honduras, drug war in Mexico, and earthquake in Haiti. Another reason for the lose of momentum
was the political resistance the president faced in Congress, not just from Florida Republicans like
Ileana RosLehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, but from powerful Democrats like Senator Robert
Menendez (NJ) and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.). Nor was Obama willing to make the
dramatic change in policy direction that his campaign promises seemed to portend. He continued funding the "democracy promotion"
programs Bush had funded lavishly, including one to create an independent, satellite-based digital network in Cuba, outside the government's
control– the project that got Alan Gross arrested. More fundamentally, Obama
adopted the basic outlook of every U.S.
president since George H. W. Bush– that Cuba would have to change its political and economic system
before the United States would change its policy in any fundamental way. Consequently, for the last
three years, U.S. policy has been essentially frozen as regards state-to-state relations. Has anything
changed that would lead us to expect that U.S. policy will be any different in the next four years?
The Alan Gross controversy is a barrier to passing any policies
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled “Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations?” for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
Even if the president decided that improving relations with Latin America demanded a new U.S.
initiative on Cuba, there remains the problem of Alan Gross. The Obama administration has declared
that no progress can be made on state-to-state relations so long as Gross remains imprisoned , and
has refused to discuss deeper cooperation even on issues of mutual interest such as counter-narcotics
cooperation and immigration. It would be a stark– and 53 unlikely– reversal of policy for the White
House to launch any major new initiative on Cuba until Gross is released. From the time Gross was arrested, the
U.S. government's position has been that he did nothing wrong, was imprisoned unjustly, and therefore should be released unconditionally.
The19 Cuban position has been that by setting up wireless digital networks for select groups of Cubans to connect to the internet by satellite,
independently of Cuba's national internet connections Gross engaged in an illegal effort to bring about regime change in Cuba– the stated
policy goal of the Helms-Burton legislation authorizing USAID's "democracy promotion" program. In initial discussions, facilitated by
congressional intermediaries, Havana
indicated that it might free Gross if the USAID program was downsized
and revamped to promote authentic people-to-people projects rather than regime change. The
Obama administration was unresponsive, however, maintaining the program's funding levels and
objectives unchanged from the Bush administration. When it became clear that the USAID program
would not be revised, the Cubans began to suggest that Gross be exchanged for the Cuban Five–
intelligence agents imprisoned in the United States on various charges since the late 1990s. Cuban officials
have been careful not to equate the two cases, simply saying that if the United States wanted Gross to be released on humanitarian grounds, it
would have to recognize Cuba's humanitarian concerns regarding the Five, and there would need to be some reciprocity. Cuba has repeatedly
offered to 54 open a dialogue with the United States about the two cases, but the State Department has remained adamant that there is
nothing to discuss; Gross must be released unconditionally. The administration has rejected any equivalency between Gross and the Cuban
Five, and hence any exchange.
Republicans rally against appeasement of Cuba
Boothroyd 12 [Rachel, “Republicans Vow to Halt ‘Policy of Appeasement’ in Venezuela”,
<http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]
Caracas, September 23 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Republican nominee for Vice-President of theU.S., Paul
Ryan, has
vowed that a Romney administration would get “tough on Castro, tough on Chavez” and to end what
he described as a “policy of appeasement” applied by the Obama administration towards both Cuba
and Venezuela. Ryan made the comments from the Versailles Restaurant in Miami, Florida last Saturday, where he was
accompanied by staunch members of the anti-Castro lobby, including Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. RosLehtinen is a member of the Cuban-American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus; organisations which claim to
"In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep
practising this policy of appeasement, we will be tough on this brutal dictator (Castro). All it has done
is reward more despotism... We will help those pro-democracy groups. We will be tough on Castro,
tough on Chavez. And it's because we know that's the right policy for our country,” said Ryan. The
be aimed at speeding up Cuba’s “transition to democracy”.
nominee had reportedly travelled to Florida in a bid to win over the majority Latino vote two months ahead of the US elections.
Florida is currently thought to be a “swing state” and could prove a determining vote for the overall election results. Results of a
recent voter intention poll in the state carried out by NBC news show that Obama currently has a 5% lead over Romney, with a
‘I learned from these friends, from Mario (Diaz-Balart), from Lincoln (DiazBalart), from Ileana (Ros-Lehtinen), just how brutal the Castro regime is, just how this president's
policy of appeasement is not working. They've given me a great education, lots of us in Congress,
about how we need to clamp down on the Castro regime,” said Ryan. According to Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a
voting intention of 49% to 44%.
“loyal friend” to those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues.
Obama must push congress to change policies
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled “Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations?” for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
Congress has held a central role in U.S. policy toward Cuba ever since it codified the U.S. embargo into
law in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton). To move beyond
limited improvements in relations on issues of mutual interest or limited commercial activity– that is,
to move toward the full normalization of diplomatic and economic relations– the president would
have to win congressional approval to change the law.
Obama will need to work hard and spend PC to pass the plan, even among democrats
and agencies outside of Congress
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled “Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations?” for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
Can Obama Break the Stalemate? Many of the same forces that prevented Obama from a taking truly
new approach to U.S. Cuban relations during his first term will still be operative during his second.
Seemingly more urgent issues will demand his time, pulling his attention away from Cuba. He will still
face fierce congressional resistance to any Cuba initiative, some from within his own party. Without
pressure from above, the foreign policy bureaucracy, especially the Department of State, will remain
paralyzed by inertia and fear. And, for the time being, Alan Gross is still in prison. If Obama is going to
finally keep the promise of his 2008 campaign to take a new direction in relations with Cuba, he will
need to give the issue more sustained attention than he did in his first term. The damage being done
to U.S. relations with Latin America because of U.S. intransigence on Cuba justifies moving Cuba
higher up on the president's foreign policy agenda. Only sustained attention from the White House
and a willing secretary of state will be able to drive a new policy through a reluctant bureaucracy.
Obama will also need to be willing to marshal his forces on Capitol Hill to confront those who have
developed a vested interest in sustaining the policy of the past. Finally, the president will need the
courage to take the first step, proposing a humanitarian initiative that leads to the release of Alan
Gross, thereby opening the way to a wide range of state-to-state cooperative agreements.
Removing or Changing Embargo Unpopular
Rolling back sanctions on Cuba would be politically controversial
Lee 13 Senior Production Editor of Council on Foreign Relations (Brianna, “U.S.-Cuba Relations”,
Council on Foreign Relations Background Publication, 1-31-13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cubarelations/p11113)//TQ
Ending the economic embargo against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in
Congress are mixed: A group of influential Republican lawmakers from Florida, including former representative
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still, many favor improving
relations with Cuba. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a
report calling for U.S. policy changes. He said: "We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a
way that enhances U.S. interests" (PDF). Given
the range of issues dividing the two countries, experts say a long
process would precede resumption of diplomatic relations. Daniel P. Erikson of the Inter-American Dialogue says that
though "you could have the resumption of bilateral talks on issues related to counter-narcotics or immigration, or a period of détente, you are
probably not going to see the full restoration of diplomatic relations" in the near term. Many recent policy reports have recommended that the
United States take some unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba
. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just
one step in the process of normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial, as indicated by
the heated congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to ease travel and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill.
"Whatever we call it--normalization, détente, rapproachement--it is clear that the policy process risks falling victim to the politics of the issue,"
says Sweig.
Removing the embargo requires tons of PC
Hadar 09 (Leon, Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in
Washington DC. “Obama Must Move beyond Pseudo-Events” CATO Institute.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-must-move-beyond-pseudoevents)
But in reality, Obama can claim no concrete diplomatic accomplishments. Europe’s public and elites have been mesmerized by Obama’s
personal charisma and multilateralist rhetoric; but NATO remains a relic of the Cold War and its leading members have been reluctant to send
more of their troops to help the United States fight in Afghanistan. The “resetting” of Russian-American relationship may have symbolic value
but has yet to produce any major policy changes. Residents of the Middle East may have been impressed by Obama’s peaceful intentions, but
there has been no sign of progress on resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis or in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And
notwithstanding all the anticipation for a change in US policy toward Cuba, the US economic embargo
that was imposed in 1962 still remains in place. Indeed, as they to grade the new White House occupant’s first 100 days in
office, observers will find it difficult to conclude whether Obama’s first foreign policy’s steps have really strengthened American power in the
world. On the progressive left, commentators and activists have been disappointed that Obama’s commitments to reverse Bush’s foreign policy
have not been carried out. Meanwhile, critics on the right argue that, if anything, the efforts by Obama and his aides to project a less
confrontational approach, like the one embraced by former President George W. Bush, reflects a sense of weakness or even defeatism. But
these critics are wrong. The Bush administration’s belligerent style of managing American relations with both friends and foes, so full of empty
bravado and a crusading militaristic spirit, has been one of the reasons for the erosion in US global prestige in the last eight years. Obama’s
emphasis on quiet diplomacy and international engagement that is backed by a genuine sense of confidence and a strong military should prove
to be more effective in promoting US interests abroad. One could imagine, for example, Obama’s predecessor responding to the recent pirate
attack off the coast of Somalia by labeling the pirates as “Islamofascists,” adding them to the list of members of Axis of Evil, and threatening
tough American military retaliation. By contrast, Obama’s measured response followed by a low-key but precise military action is the kind of
cool approach one expects from American presidents. That the leader of the most powerful country in the world should be willing to listen to,
and treat with respect, foreign critics of American policy is a sign of self-assurance — not timidity — that Americans should welcome. But style
and media management aside, it is too early to conclude whether Obama will press ahead in transforming foreign policy pseudo-events into
real events. His continuing preoccupation with the economic crisis clearly limits his ability to launch dramatic diplomatic initiatives. Doing
away with the embargo with Cuba or reassessing US policy in the Middle East would require costly fights with
powerful forces in Washington. For now, Obama is expending his political capital elsewhere. There is no
doubt that through his personality and life-story, coupled with the manufactured media events, friendly gestures and cool style, Obama has
been provided with an opportunity to change America’s global brand name. But the expectations created by the new president’s media image
and style of foreign policy need to be matched to specific policy. Such
force Obama to use his political capital.
new initiatives in the foreign policy arena will
Changing the embargo is always controversial in congress and drains PC
Sullivan 11 [January 4, 2011, Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade Division, in a study by
the Congressional Research Service, “Cuba: Issues for the 111th Congress” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40193.pdf]
Debate on the Direction of U.S. Policy Over the years, although
U.S. policymakers have agreed on the overall
objectives of U.S. policy toward Cuba—to help bring democracy and respect for human rights to the
island—there have been several schools of thought about how to achieve those objectives. Some
have advocated a policy of keeping maximum pressure on the Cuban government until reforms are
enacted, while continuing efforts to support the Cuban people. Others argue for an approach,
sometimes referred to as constructive engagement, that would lift some U.S. sanctions that they
believe are hurting the Cuban people, and move toward engaging Cuba in dialogue. Still others call for
a swift normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations by lifting the U.S. embargo. Legislative initiatives introduced over the
past decade have reflected these three policy approaches. Dating back to 2000, there have been significant efforts in
Congress to ease U.S. sanctions, with, one or both houses at times approving amendments to
appropriations measures that would have eased U.S. sanctions on Cuba. Until March 2009, these
provisions were stripped out of final enacted measures, in part because of presidential veto threats. In
light of Fidel Castro’s departure as head of government, many observers have called for a reexamination of U.S. policy toward Cuba. In this new
context, there are two broad policy approaches to contend with political change in Cuba: a status-quo approach that would maintain the U.S.
dual-track policy of isolating the Cuban government while providing support to the Cuban people; and an approach aimed at influencing the
attitudes of the Cuban government and Cuban society through increased contact and engagement.
Even loosening minor restrictions is super controversial
NYT 12 (New York Times. “Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easingembargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also
limits to what the president could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the
waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain
until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move
if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say that under the Treasury Department’s licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is
room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obama’s changes in 2009, further expansions in travel are possible along with
Even these adjustments
— which could also include travel for all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with
Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group — would probably mean a
fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred
oppose looser rules. ¶ When asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana RosLehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, proposed an even tighter
embargo. ¶ “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered,” she wrote in an enew allowances for investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses. ¶
mail. “Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is trying to create by announcing ‘reforms’ while, in reality, it’s
tightening its grip on its people.”
Castor’s visit to Cuba proves that congress is still arguing over the embargo
Arja 6/3 [ Tanya Arja, writer for Fox News 13, Degree in Mass Communications from USF “Rep. Castor stirs controversy with visit to Cuba”
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/21912643/2013/04/08/rep-castor-stirs-controversy-with-visit-to-cuba]
TAMPA (FOX 13) Congresswoman
Kathy Castor just returned from Cuba after spending four days there, and
she says things are changing. Castor says there are many opportunities in Cuba that the U.S. should
consider. "The United States of America should normalize relations and begin a constructive dialogue
with the island nation. Fidel Castro is no longer in power, there is a generational change occurring in
the government in Cuba," Castor said. While in Cuba, Castor toured the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. She
also went to a meeting with the Ministry of Energy. She says she was pleasantly surprised by what she heard. "They have been in
productive multilateral talks with the U.S., the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Mexico to the point where they
have adopted many of the safety recommendations in America's oil spill report authored by Senator
Bob Graham," she said. Congresswoman Castor spoke with the Chief of Mission of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. They spoke at
length about family reunification and visas for Cubans wishing to visit family in Tampa Bay. "Cuba is the only country in the world that American
citizens are refrained from traveling. Americans are able to North Korea; with warnings, they can travel to Syria and Iran. And yet an hour from
TIA, all of our neighbors cannot visit and travel," Castor said. Castor says the status quo isn't working. "After 50 years of an embargo and
isolation, that has proven it doesn't work in bringing about a lot of change. It's time to try something new, and it's time to refresh our
relationship benefits from meetings," she said. But Castor
is getting some backlash for her visit. Ralph Fernandez is a
Tampa criminal defense attorney, and is also a staunch opponent of the Castro regime. He says he
spoke with Castor before she left. "I asked her to meet with U.S. intelligence officials. I wanted her to
know the dangers of her visit. But I guess she couldn't find time. I think she's made a terrible mistake.
It's something that's quite disappointing," Fernandez said. He says nothing has changed when it
comes to Cuba and how the government operates. "It's worse. Instead of being 50 years behind the
times, it's 60 years. It's like traveling to the Old West, expect people really live there. It's really sad, "
Fernandez said. Fernandez said as a Congresswoman, Rep. Castor has a responsibility to listen to others. "It's a real simple
formula. Should we send a lot of money and assets to North Korea without expecting anything in
return? If you checked no, then you're with me on the Cuba issue. You need to see some progress and
progress is not just talking about things that never come to fruition and materialize," Fernandez said.
Rep. Castor says she plans to talk to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to encourage
talks on trade and travel with Cuba. But Fernandez says the U.S. would lose out if it invested in Cuba.
"Cuba only seeks to be lent money so that they don't pay it They have not paid a single account in
their history while a Castro has been there. They have not paid one lender back. Any nation that has
lent them, is out of money," Fernandez said. Fernandez says history doesn't lie. "Cuba was our enemy 30 years before Iran
became our enemy. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure this out. Those uneducated in history open the door for their own country to
suffer the consequences and that's what she has done," Fernandez said. Castor
says she expected the backlash, but stands
by her visit. "It's very easy for those who don't understand they're changing, to say well, it's the same
as ever. It's not the same as ever. It is changing and that should be encouraged," Castor said. But she
does know the U.S. can't just rush in. "This should not be done with blinders on, however. There are
still many human rights challenges in Cuba, it's still to many a repressive regime that does not allow
citizens to enjoy all of the human rights that we enjoy. "
Changing Travel Restrictions Unpopular
Republicans are skeptical of contact with Cubans
Kasperowicz 12 [Pete Kasperowicz, 10/3/12 “House members blast student visit with US fugitive in
Cuba” Graduated from University of Massachusetts Amherst in 1992 http://thehill.com/blogs/flooraction/house/260003-house-members-blast-student-visit-with-us-fugitive-in-cuba]
Three House Republicans are criticizing an educational trip to Cuba that they say led to a meeting with
a fugitive from U.S. justice last year, and have called on President Obama to ensure that future visits
do not allow these sorts of meetings to take place. Travel to Cuba is allowed for several specific
reasons, including educational activities, although they require a license from the State Department. But
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (RFla.) and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) said a 2011 trip went to far, and cited reports in The Daily Iowan that
said a University of Iowa student was allowed to meet with someone wanted for a crime in the United
States. "We are appalled that on at least one occasion, 'educational activities' licensed by your
administration included a meeting between American university students and a fugitive from U.S.
justice," they wrote to Obama in a letter they released Tuesday. "Accordingly, we ask that you determine how
many such meetings have occurred since the 2011 regulation changes regarding 'educational
activities' and 'people-to-people' travel, and that you take all appropriate measures to ensure that
licensed travel (through travel-related transactions to Cuba) do not again facilitate meetings between
U.S. travelers and fugitives wanted by the United States." Their letter said it is unclear which fugitive the
student might have met with, but said there are several possibilities, including Joanne Chesimard, who killed a New
Jersey State Trooper, and Charles Hill, who killed a New Mexico State Trooper. It also noted that Victor Gerena fled
to Cuba after robbing a Wells Fargo armored car in Connecticut, and William Morales, the leader of the terrorist
group FALN. "It is a perpetual shame that these and so many other fugitives from U.S. justice remain at large just
ninety miles from our shores," they wrote. "It is an abomination to surviving victims, their families, and the families
of those who were murdered, that an American fugitive remains free in Cuba to apparently spout enemy
propaganda to American students by virtue of a license granted by your administration. "We sincerely hope
that this is not an example of the type of 'educational activities' anticipated by your 2011 changes
which weakened the regulations enforced by the Treasury Department, and that you will strengthen
efforts to guarantee that licensed travel to Cuba will not be used as a tool of the Castro dictatorship to
advance its anti-American agenda."
Changing travel restrictions is highly controversial
Boyd 10 [Clark Boyd, a reporter for The World, July 20, 2010, “Talking Travel: Congress debates Cuba travel ban”
http://www.theworld.org/2010/07/talking-travel-congress-debates-cuba-travel-ban/]
Above, you can see a street in Trinidad, Cuba. Since 1988, Trinidad has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Of course,
if you are an
American, spending a single US dollar in Trinidad (or anywhere else in Cuba) means breaking
American law. Apart from special circumstances, US travel to Cuba has been effectively banned for
decades now. But the US Congress is currently considering a measure that would end the travel ban.
Both sides have been arguing their case passionately. Some say there is no reason to punish the
Cuban people by depriving them of needed US tourist dollars. Others say every dollar spent in Cuba
only props up the nation’s Communist government. In this episode of our Talking Travel podcast, Lonely Planet’s Robert
Reid and Tom Hall offer their assessments on what the lifting of the travel ban might mean for you as a tourist, and for the Cuban people.
Reducing travel restrictions is a huge controversy and unlikely to pass without
pressure
Heflin 10 [Jay Heflin writer for The Hill, July 19, 2010 “Debate Over Travel to Cuba Heats Up” http://thehill.com/homenews/house/109593debate-over-travel-to-cuba-heats-up]
A congressional debate over whether all Americans should be able to travel freely to Cuba appears to
be heating up. The House Agriculture Committee last month approved a measure that allows travel to
Cuba and eases restrictions on U.S. commodities sold there. The measure still needs approval from
the Foreign Affairs Committee before it can come to the floor for a vote, but Committee Chairman
Howard Berman (D-Calif.) has indicated that he supports lifting the ban. ”I have long believed that the
nearly fifty year old travel ban to Cuba simply has not worked to help the Cuban people in any way,” he
said in prepared remarks. “It has not hurt the Castros as it was intended to do, but it has hurt U.S.
citizens.” The legislation builds upon efforts by President Obama in 2009 to ease travel restrictions for
Cuban-Americans and would allow virtually all Americans to visit the island. Proponents for ending the
ban contend it will boost trade between the two countries. But not everyone is on board with opening
the travel door to Cuba. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on Friday reiterated his strong opposition to
lifting the ban. “I want to make it absolutely clear that I will oppose — and filibuster if need be — any
effort to ease regulations that stand to enrich a regime that denies its own people basic human
rights,” he said. “The fact is the big corporate interests behind this misguided attempt to weaken the
travel ban could not care less whether the Cuban people are free,” Menendez said. “They care only
about opening a new market and increasing their bottom line. This is about the color of money, not
the desire for freedom.” Like Menendez, opponents to the ban argue easing travel restrictions will
funnel money to the Castro regime and essentially fund activities that will provide little benefit to the
Cuban people. “The very fact that a travel bill has moved through the House Agriculture Committee
makes one wonder why American agriculture interests would even care about travel to Cuba,”
Menendez said. “One can only assume it’s about generating increased tourism dollars for the Castro
regime to buy more agricultural products.” Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of the U.S.-Cuba
Democracy PAC, which supports the travel ban, told The Hill that lawmakers in favor of easing
restrictions understand that the votes are not there and have resorted to hiding the provision in
noncontroversial bills to get it passed. “What they’re trying to do is package it with an agricultural bill
in order to get it through the back door,” he said, adding, “They’re basically trying to maneuver this
any way they possibly can without addressing the travel issue specifically.” Last month, ClaverCarone’s organization joined nearly 500 organizations that oppose lifting the ban and warned
Congress that nothing good would come from allowing free travel between the two countries. “[The]
below signatories believe that the freedom of Cuba will not arrive by means of the pocketbook nor
the lips of libidinous tourists, who are aseptic to the pain of the Cuban family,” their letter states,
adding, “For that reason we suggest that you maintain a firm and coherent policy of pressure and
condemnation against the tyranny of Havana.” When, or if, the Foreign Affairs Committee will vote on
the legislation remains to be seen. A Berman spokesman did not respond to a call about timing for the
measure. “That’s where the current question is at,” Claver-Carone said. ”But it’s pretty clear that they
do not have the votes on the floor.”
Huge opposition to relaxing travel restrictions
Padgett 10 (Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In
1999 he moved to Florida to become TIME’s Miami & Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the
hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. “Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel
Ban?” Time Magazine. Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013820,00.html)
Proponents of doing just that insist there's more consensus than ever in the U.S. to ditch the Cuba embargo and its travel ban, which, after
almost 50 years, have utterly failed to dislodge the Castro regime. Opening Cuba to Americans, they believe, will do more to stimulate
democratization there than isolating it has. Even a majority of Cuban Americans now agree. Still, for
all the good vibes the bill's
backers feel from the White House right now, some note warily that Obama has been loath to spend
political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that matter. Critics, for example, point to his decision last
year to stop applying pressure against coup leaders in Honduras, who'd ousted a leftist President, when conservative Republicans in Congress
objected. Embargo
supporters, including Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, are
already blasting Obama's plans to relax Cuba travel. "This is not the time to ease the pressure on the
Castro regime," Menendez said this month, insisting it will only give the brothers "a much needed infusion of dollars that will only extend
their reign of oppression." As a result, says one congressional aide who asked not to be identified, when it comes time for the
White House to give the bill more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the
fight's not worth it." But Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of California, a co-sponsor of the bill, says tearing down the travel
ban is about more than Cuban rights — it's also about the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely abroad. "Letting U.S. citizens
travel to Cuba is not a gift to the Castros — it is in the interest of our own citizens," Berman said after the House committee vote this summer.
"It's time to trust our own people and restore their right to travel." It's the sort of argument Obama usually agrees with. But now he may need
to show how strongly he concurs when Congress returns next month.
Oil Investment Unpopular
Strong congressional opposition to US investment in Cuban oil
Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 (Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan,
Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Service. “Cuba’s Offshore Oil
Development:
Background and U.S. Policy Considerations” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf)
On the opposite side of the policy debate, a number of policy groups and Members of Congress oppose
engagement with Cuba, including U.S. investment in Cuba’s offshore energy development. A
legislative initiative introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 5620, would have gone further by imposing
visa restrictions and economic sanctions on foreign companies and their executives who help facilitate
the development of Cuba’s petroleum resources. The bill asserted that offshore drilling by or under the authorization of the
Cuban government poses a “serious economic and environmental threat to the United States” because of the damage that an oil spill could
cause.
Opponents of U.S. support for Cuba’s offshore oil development also argue that such involvement
would provide an economic lifeline to the Cuban government and thus prolong the continuation of
the communist regime. They maintain that if Cuba reaped substantial economic benefits from offshore oil development, it could
reduce societal pressure on Cuba to enact market-oriented economic reforms. Some who oppose U.S. involvement in Cuba’s energy
development contend that while Cuba might have substantial amounts of oil offshore, it will take years to develop. They
maintain that
the Cuban government is using the enticement of potential oil profits to break down the U.S.
economic embargo on Cuba.78
Oil Spill Cooperation Unpopular
Oil spill cooperation with Cuba is INCREDIBLY unpopular and leads to gridlock in Washington
Bert and Clayton 12 (Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and
Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security“Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill Policy
Innovation Memorandum No. 15”
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515 AJ)
An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that
response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced
manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies would also be
barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill
responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow response to a
Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts
to
rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and encouraging cooperation with its government, could
antagonize groups opposed to improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any
decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban
territory.
Removing Embargo Popular
Both the US public and Congress support lowering the embargo
Lee and Hanson 1/31 [Brianna Lee and Stephanie Hanson, Senior Production Editor; both from the Council on Foreign Relations,
January 31, 2013, “US-Cuba Relations” http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113#p3]
What is U.S. public opinion on the isolation of Cuba? Some U.S. constituencies would like to resume
relations. U.S. agricultural groups already deal with Cuba, and other economic sectors want access to
the Cuban market. Many Cuban-Americans were angered by the Bush administration's strict limits on
travel and remittances, though a small but vocal contingent of hard-line Cuban exiles, many of them
based in Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When
they're polled, the majority of Cuban-Americans say that the embargo has failed, and support lifting
the travel ban or loosening the embargo or some steps along that continuum of liberalization and
normalization," says Julia E. Sweig, CFR director of Latin American studies. Ending the economic
embargo against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in Congress are mixed: A group
of influential Republican lawmakers from Florida, including former representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his
brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still, many favor
improving relations with Cuba. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a report calling for U.S. policy changes. He said: "We
must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that
enhances U.S. interests" (PDF).
Cuban-Americans have begun to support lifting the embargo and increasing ties and are an important
voting group
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled “Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations?” for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
When FIU began polling Cuban-Americans south Florida in 1991, 87% favored continuation of the U.S.
embargo. By 2011, support had fallen to 56%. In 1993, 75% of respondents opposed the sale of food
to Cuba and 50% opposed the sale of medicine. By 2011, solid majorities (65% and 75% respectively)
supported both. In 1991, 55% opposed unrestricted travel to Cuba, whereas in 2011, 57% supported
unrestricted travel for all Americans and 66% supported unrestricted travel for Cuban-Americans (Table
2). These changes in Cuban-American opinion were clearly linked to demographic changes in the
community. Exiles who arrived in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s came as political refugees,
motivated principally by their opposition to the socialist course of the revolution. Those who arrived
in the Mariel exodus in 1980 and afterwards were more likely to have left for economic reasons.
Recent arrivals, especially those who arrived in the post-cold war era, were far more likely to have
maintained ties with family on the island. A 2007 poll of Cuban-Americans in south Florida found that
58.3% were sending remittances to Cuba, but fewer than half of those who arrived before 1985 were sending money, whereas
three quarters of more recent arrivals were. The differences in age and experience among different waves of 12 migrants produced sharply
different opinions about relations with the island, with more
recent arrivals being far more likely to favor policies that
reduce bilateral tensions and barriers to family linkages, especially the ability to travel and send
remittances (Table 3). Although these attitudinal differences have been clear for some time, they have not manifested themselves in
Cuban-American voting behavior, principally because a far higher proportion of the early arrivals have obtained U.S. citizenship (Table 4), and
thus still comprise a larger share of the Cuban-American electorate than more recent arrivals (although by 2010, Cuban-Americans born in the
United States were a larger voting bloc, comprising almost half the Cuban-American electorate) (Tables 5 and 6). In addition, earlier arrivals are
far more likely to be registered to vote than more recent arrivals. Registration rates for those who arrived before 1985 are over 90%, whereas
for post-cold war arrivals who are citizens, the rate is only 60%.13 But, of course, the early wave of exiles is becoming a smaller and smaller
proportion of the community as new immigrants arrive every year and as natural mortality takes its toll on the aging exiles. And with the
passage of time, more
and more of the post-1980 immigrants obtain citizenship and begin to vote. In
addition to generational differences, an important reason for the gradual change in Cuban-American
opinion has been the deepening ties between Cuban-Americans and their families on the island.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, it was difficult if not impossible for families to maintain contact
across the Florida Strait. Travel to Cuba was prohibited by the U.S. embargo, and the Cuban
government would not allow "gusanos" to return to visit. Direct mail service was cut off, and
telephone connections were notorious poor. Moreover, the prevailing opinion in both communities
was one of hostility. To Cubans who left, those who stayed behind were communists. To Cubans who
stayed behind, those who left were traitors.
People are opening up to Cuba prospect
Nathan, 13 James, Khalid bin Sultan Eminent Shcholar in Political Science, Auburn University. End
Appears Coming for Cuba Trade Embargo. Proquest.
U.S. legislation is designed to discourage travel to and make it hard to do business in Cuba. And it is. By the
time I secured a license from the Treasury, a visa from the Cubans, an impossibly difficult space on an iffy charter and a room in a hotel that is
forbidden to take an American credit card, there were still four hours of clearances in punishing lines in a segregated terminal designed to
dissuade even the determined. And,
by law, you can't bring back a thing from Cuba -- no rum, cigar, doll, tshirt, nothing. I have a special global entry pass to get through U.S. Customs. It worked. But the rest of the plane
coming into Miami required another four hours to get through customs. The old days of trying to do Castro in and to break the Cuban economy
have tottered past their sell-by date. To
be sure, the hardline Cuban ethnic lobby has its supporters. Susan
Purcell came recently to the Alabama World Affairs Council and spoke in favor of the embargo of
Cuba. To me, the policy is self-defeating. Brian Latell spoke to the Alabama World Affairs Council in the fall of 2012, noting that "Cuban
Americans are no longer monolithic. There are Cuban-Americans groups and institutions that represent nearly the entire spectrum of opinion."
Latell points out that Cuba is not isolated, except from the United States. And
Cuban-Americans are increasingly for
engagement, not isolation, of Cuba. In Florida, the GOP again stood for the embargo in courting Miami
and the swing vote in one of the two most important swing states. Cuban Americans, in record
numbers, for the first time ever, went the other way. A new foreign policy team is forming up in Washington. Sen. John
Kerry sponsored a bill to allow unfettered travel to Cuba. Former Sen. Chuck Hagel is said to harbor doubts regarding
the trade embargo of Cuba. A "reset" is coming.
Mexico
Link Uniqueness
Obama will not make any policy changes with Mexico or to NAFTA
Mike Allison 5/2/13 associate professor in the political science department at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania “US
President Barack Obama Returns to Latin America”
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013430105115612555.html
leaders and people of Central America as well as Mexico are highly
interested in what the President has to say about comprehensive immigration reform.
As a result of these issues, the
Guatemala will also be interested in learning whether there has been any progress on its request for Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
El Salvador, on the other hand, awaits word on whether TPS for its citizens will be extended past its expiry in September. How the US
in Mexico,
Obama needs to somehow make the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of
human rights priorities in the US' relations with Central America. Honduras has been unable to recover from the June 2009
treats people, whether documented or not, within its borders is a test of democracy and human rights. However, as
coup that removed President Manuel Zelaya from office; with the highest homicide rate in the world, police officers, lawyers, teachers,
journalists, taxi drivers, gays and lesbians, and democracy and human rights activists are now being killed at alarming rates. The
executive, legislative and judicial branches are all at loggerheads with one another and are perhaps more the problem than the solution.
While popular, President Daniel Ortega continues to erode democratic structures in Nicaragua following his questionably legal re-
It is unlikely that Obama is going to announce a significant increase
in US economic assistance to the region and the US already has free trade
agreements with Mexico (NAFTA) and Central America (DR-CAFTA). The US is unlikely to agree to
significant drug policy reforms, such as decriminalisation and regulation, desired by so many. Nor is the US
likely to cut security assistance to Honduras and Mexico even as their forces continue to be involved in wideelection in 2011.
scale abuses, including extrajudicial executions. Obama could make a difference, however, returning democracy and human rights to the
top of the agenda. In a 1989 conference of the Council of the Americas, President George HW Bush said that a commitment to democracy
and market economies would help define relations between the US and Latin America. At the first Summit of the Americas to take place
in Miami, Florida, in 1994, President Bill Clinton and the heads of state of every Latin American country, except Cuba, agreed on an
ambitious plan to deepen democracy and human rights, to achieve economic growth and improve income redistribution within market
economies, eliminate poverty and discrimination, and secure environmentally sustainable development. Progress on each of those issues
was uneven, at best, during the Clinton and George W Bush administrations. President Obama's trip to Mexico and Costa Rica provides an
opportunity for the US and the region to recommit themselves to strengthening democratic institutions and respecting human rights.
Mexico Econ Engagement Unpopular
Shifting focus from security to economic engagement is super unpopular with
Congress – uniquely affects immigration bill
NYT 13 (New York Times. “In Latin America, U.S. Focus Shifts From Drug War to Economy” May 4,
2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/americas/in-latin-america-us-shifts-focus-fromdrug-war-to-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)
Last week, Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly different message. Relationships
with countries racked by drug violence and organized crime should focus more on economic
development and less on the endless battles against drug traffickers and organized crime capos that
have left few clear victors. The countries, Mexico in particular, need to set their own course on
security, with the United States playing more of a backing role. That approach runs the risk of being
seen as kowtowing to governments more concerned about their public image than the underlying
problems tarnishing it. Mexico, which is eager to play up its economic growth, has mounted an aggressive effort to play down its crime
problems, going as far as to encourage the news media to avoid certain slang words in reports. “The problem will not just go away,” said
Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue. “It needs to be tackled head-on, with a comprehensive strategy that includes but
goes beyond stimulating economic growth and alleviating poverty. “Obama becomes vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the region’s
overriding issue, and the chief obstacle to economic progress,” he added. “It is fine to change the narrative from security to economics as long
as the reality on the ground reflects and fits with the new story line.” Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama remains cleareyed about
the security challenges, but the new emphasis corresponds with a change in focus by the Mexican government. The new Mexican president,
Enrique Peña Nieto, took office in December vowing to reduce the violence that exploded under the militarized approach to the drug war
adopted by his predecessor, Felipe Calderón. That effort left about 60,000 Mexicans dead and appears not to have significantly damaged the
drug-trafficking industry. In addition to a focus on reducing violence, which some critics have interpreted as taking a softer line on the drug
gangs, Mr. Peña Nieto has also moved to reduce American involvement in law enforcement south of the border. With friction and mistrust
between American and Mexican law enforcement agencies growing, Mr. Obama suggested that the United States would no longer seek to
dominate the security agenda. “It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with other
nations, including the United States,” he said, standing next to Mr. Peña Nieto on Thursday in Mexico City. “But the main point I made to the
president is that we support the Mexican government’s focus on reducing violence, and we look forward to continuing our good cooperation in
any way that the Mexican government deems appropriate.” In
some ways, conceding leadership of the drug fight to
Mexico hews to a guiding principle of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, in which American supremacy is
played down, at least publicly, in favor of a multilateral approach. But that philosophy could collide
with the concerns of lawmakers in Washington, who have expressed frustration with what they see as
a lack of clarity in Mexico’s security plans. And security analysts say the entrenched corruption in Mexican law enforcement
has long clouded the partnership with their American counterparts. Putting Mexico in the driver’s seat on security marks
a shift in a balance of power that has always tipped to the United States and, analysts said, will carry
political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration bill that is expected to include provisions for
tighter border security. “If there is a perception in the U.S. Congress that security cooperation is weakening, that could play into the
hands of those who oppose immigration reform,” said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution in
Washington.
NAFTA Revisions Unpopular
Democrats are strongly opposed to NAFTA revisions – labor concerns
Perez-Rocha and Trew 12 (Stuart Trew is the trade campaigner for the Council of
Canadians.Manuel Pérez Rocha is a Mexican national and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy
Studies in Washington D.C. They are both contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus. “Don't Expand NAFTA”
July 26, 2012. Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta)
A majority of Democratic representatives (132 out of 191) have expressed that they are “troubled that
important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress.” They have written to U.S. Trade
Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to “engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees
of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wide-ranging issues involved, and to ensure there is ample opportunity for Congress to have
input on critical policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come." In their letter, the
representatives also challenge
“the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to
meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local
laws, even when binding on our states, is of grave concern to us.” U.S. Senators, for their part, have also sent a letter
complaining of the lack of congressional access to the negotiations. What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect
when the decision to join the TPP, under humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation? NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014.
Instead of expanding it through the TPP we must learn from NAFTA’s shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with unions
and producers in the three member countries. It
is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the
North American union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and
the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the investor-state dispute settlement
process that has proven so costly, in real terms and with respect to our democratic options in Canada and Mexico. The unions’
statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for the growing trinational opposition to the TPP in Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.
Human Trafficking Aid Unpopular
Human trafficking aid is ineffective and unpopular in congress
Seelke 13 (Clare Ribando Seelke; Specialist in Latin American Affairs; January 29, 2013; “Mexico and
the 112th Congress”; Congressional Research Service;
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)//KDUB
Many Mexican law enforcement activities with respect to combating alien smuggling and human
trafficking receive some degree of U.S. financial support. One way to increase Mexico's role in migration
enforcement may be for Congress to consider additional investments in these programs. The United States
also could include migration control as an explicit priority within other existing programs, such as the Mérida Initiative.
On the other hand, Mexico is already among the largest recipients of U.S. anti-TIP assistance in the
Western Hemisphere, and some Members of Congress may be reluctant to invest more resources in such
programs.
Offshore Drilling Unpopular
Offshore drilling cooperation with Mexico is contentious
Geman 6/25 (Ben Geman 6/25/13; “White House ‘cannot support’ House US-Mexico drilling bill”; The
Hill; http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/307769-white-house-cannot-support-house-us-mexicodrilling-bill)//KDUB
The White House said Tuesday that it opposes House legislation to implement a 2012 administration pact
with Mexico on Gulf of Mexico drilling cooperation, citing “unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract from
the bill.” The formal statement of administration policy backs the “goal” of the bill that’s coming to the House floor
Wednesday to implement the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. But it cites provisions in the GOP-crafted bill
that exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial federal rules that force
energy producers to disclose their payments to foreign governments. “As a practical matter, this provision would
waive the requirement for the disclosure of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the United States or foreign governments
in accordance with a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase
transparency and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and minerals sectors,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said.
The White House statement, however, stops short of a veto threat despite saying it "cannot support" the measure. It says the
administration looks forward to working with Congress on an implementing bill.
Venezuela
General Unpopular
GOP hates engagement with Venezuela
Robertson 12 (Ewan Robertson, writer/journalist for Venezuelaanalysis.com, Latin American Bureu ,
Correo del Orinoco Internacional, Green Left Weekly, Emancipation and Liberation, and an activist in
Venezuela, “US Policy Increasingly Out of Touch with Latin America’s New Political Reality” April 11,
2012, http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6916)
Another aspect of Washington’s approach to Venezuela moving into 2012 has been the increase of
aggressive rhetoric designed to de-legitimise the government and open the possibility of more direct intervention. At a
special Organisation of American States (OAS) session held in Washington in March, Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel said Venezuelan
democracy was being “trampled” by the Chávez administration and advocated a “robust” OAS mission be sent to the country to monitor the
October presidential elections. Not
to be outdone by their Democratic counterparts, Republicans have
continued to wind up the rhetorical dial on Venezuela. In a presidential nomination debate in Florida this January, Mitt
Romney made a commitment to “punish those who are following” Hugo Chávez and his ally Fidel
Castro, ex-president of Cuba. He claims that Obama has “failed to respond with resolve” to Chávez’s growing international influence, arguing
in his October 2011 foreign policy white paper foreign policy white paper that he would “chart a different course” in US policy toward
Venezuela and other leftist governments in Latin America.
Republicans rally against appeasement of Venezuela
Boothroyd 12 [Rachel, “Republicans Vow to Halt ‘Policy of Appeasement’ in Venezuela”,
<http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]
Caracas, September 23 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Republican nominee for Vice-President of theU.S., Paul
Ryan, has
vowed that a Romney administration would get “tough on Castro, tough on Chavez” and to end what
he described as a “policy of appeasement” applied by the Obama administration towards both Cuba
and Venezuela. Ryan made the comments from the Versailles Restaurant in Miami, Florida last Saturday, where he was
accompanied by staunch members of the anti-Castro lobby, including Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. RosLehtinen is a member of the Cuban-American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus; organisations which claim to
"In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep
practising this policy of appeasement, we will be tough on this brutal dictator (Castro). All it has done
is reward more despotism... We will help those pro-democracy groups. We will be tough on Castro,
tough on Chavez. And it's because we know that's the right policy for our country,” said Ryan. The
be aimed at speeding up Cuba’s “transition to democracy”.
nominee had reportedly travelled to Florida in a bid to win over the majority Latino vote two months ahead of the US elections.
Florida is currently thought to be a “swing state” and could prove a determining vote for the overall election results. Results of a
recent voter intention poll in the state carried out by NBC news show that Obama currently has a 5% lead over Romney, with a
‘I learned from these friends, from Mario (Diaz-Balart), from Lincoln (DiazBalart), from Ileana (Ros-Lehtinen), just how brutal the Castro regime is, just how this president's
policy of appeasement is not working. They've given me a great education, lots of us in Congress,
about how we need to clamp down on the Castro regime,” said Ryan. According to Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a
voting intention of 49% to 44%.
“loyal friend” to those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues.
Congress perceives Venezuela as security threat
Boothroyd 12 [Rachel, “Republicans Vow to Halt ‘Policy of Appeasement’ in Venezuela”,
<http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]
With the presidential elections now drawing near, the Republican party is beginning to increasingly outline its prospective domestic and foreign
policy, which Romney has said would be principally based on an attempt to implement a neo-liberal “Reagan economic zone” in Latin America
and other regions, such as the Middle East. The
Republican presidential candidate has been outspoken in his
criticism of the “anti-American” views purported by the governments of Venezuela, Cuba and Iran and
has described them as one of the biggest threats to the United States today. Earlier in July, Romney
branded the Venezuelan government as a “threat to national security” and accused the country's
president, Hugo Chavez, of “spreading dictatorships and tyranny throughout Latin America”. The
Republican National Committee also circulated a video of Obama shaking hands with Chavez at the OAS “Summit of the Americas” in Trinidad
and Tobago 2009 at the same time. Romney
has often claimed that the leader of Venezuela's Bolivarian
revolution has links to “terrorist” organisations such as Hezbollah and has access to weapons that
could “harm the US”. He has never presented any evidence in support of these accusations.
Venezuela Oil Investment/Coop Unpopular
Congress doesn’t want to increase oil cooperation with Venezuela- focusing on
counter-narcotics and democracy assistance instead
Sullivan 12- Mark P., Specialist in Latin American affairs “Venezuela: Issues for Congress” August 30,
2012 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/198102.pdf
Because of Venezuela’s oil wealth and relatively high per capita income level, the United States has traditionally only provided small amounts of
foreign assistance to Venezuela. In
recent years, assistance has focused on counternarcotics and support for
democracy programs. Table 2 below shows U.S. assistance level to Venezuela since FY2006. From FY2002 to FY2007, Venezuela
received small amounts of U.S. assistance under the State Department’s Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) focusing on
counternarcotics cooperation and judicial reform support. Since FY2008, no counternarcotics assistance has been
requested for Venezuela, although in FY2009, the United States provided $0.5 million in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
(INCLE) assistance. For
a number of years, the United States has provided democracy-related assistance to
Venezuela through the U.S. Agency for International Development. In Table 2, all funding for the Development
Assistance (DA), Economic Support Funds (ESF), and Transition Initiatives (TI) foreign aid accounts are for democracy-related funding. In
addition, the
United States has supported democracy assistance in Venezuela through the U.S.
government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), but this type of support has not been typically reflected
in U.S. foreign assistance funding statistics. From 2002 through December 2010, USAID supported democracy projects in
Venezuela through its Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) to provide assistance to monitor democratic stability and
strengthen the county’s democratic institutions. According to USAID, more than 600 small-grant and
technical assistance activities were funded by OTI from 2002 through 2010. The objectives of the assistance,
according to USAID, were to enhance access to objective information and peaceful debate on key issues, and to promote citizen participation
and democratic leadership.69 At the end of December 2010, USAID’s support for such activities for Venezuela was transferred from OTI to
USAID’s Latin America and Caribbean Bureau. In FY2011 and FY2012, Congress
appropriated $5 million in ESF each year in
democracy assistance for Venezuela, while for FY2013 the Obama Administration has requested $3
million in such assistance. According to the State Department’s FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, the assistance seeks to
promote broad participation in the democratic process by promoting good governance, raising awareness about social issues, increasing
confidence in the democratic process, and encouraging citizen participation. In
terms of congressional action on FY2013
foreign aid appropriations, the report to the House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 5857 (H.Rept. 112-494), directs that $5
million in ESF be provided for democracy programs in Venezuela, the same amount appropriated in
FY2012, and $2 million more than the Administration’s request for $3 million In contrast, the report to the
Senate Appropriations Committee bill, S. 3241(S.Rept. 112-172), recommends $3 million for democracy programs in Venezuela to be
administered by the National Endowment for Democracy
Increasing oil cooperation with Venezuela unpopular in Congress because of
Venezuela-Iran relations
Sullivan 12- Mark P., Specialist in Latin American affairs “Venezuela: Issues for Congress” August 30,
2012 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/198102.pdf
The United States has imposed sanctions on Venezuelan companies because of their alleged support
for Iran, and also has imposed sanctions on Venezuelan individuals because of their support for
Hezbollah, the radical Lebanon-based Islamic Shiite group supported by Iran. To date, the United States has imposed
sanctions on two companies in Venezuela because of connections to Iran’s proliferation activities. In
August 2008, the State Department imposed sanctions on the Venezuelan Military Industries Company (CAVIM) pursuant to the Iran, North
Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 109-353) for allegedly violating a ban on technology that could assist Iran in the development of
weapons systems.149 The sanctions prohibited any U.S. government procurement or assistance to the company. While these sanctions expired
in 2010, they were imposed once again on May 23, 2011, for a two-year period.150 In October 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed
sanctions on an Iranian-owned bank based in Caracas, the Banco Internacional de Desarollo, C.A., under Executive Order 13382 that allows the
President to block the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters. The bank is linked to the Export
Development Bank of Iran (EDBI), which the Treasury Department asserts has provided or attempted to provide services to Iran’s Ministry of
Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.151 In
May 2011, the United States imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s state
oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA), pursuant to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Disinvestment Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-195) because the company provided $50 million worth of reformate,
an additive used in gasoline, to Iran between December 2010 and March 2011. Specifically, the State Department imposed three
sanctions on PdVSA to prohibit it from competing for U.S. government procurement contracts,
securing financing from the Export-Import Bank, and obtaining U.S. export licenses. The sanctions
specifically exclude PdVSA subsidiaries (Citgo) and do not prohibit the export of oil to the United
States.152 Past Venezuelan comments about potential Iranian support for the development of nuclear energy
US relations with Venezuela unpopular
Sullivan 13- Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign oil to the United
States, but there has been significant friction with the Chávez government. For several years, U.S. officials have
expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuela’s military arms purchases (largely from Russia), its
relations with Cuba and Iran, its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American
countries, and the use of Venezuelan territory by Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary forces.
Declining Venezuelan cooperation on antidrug and antiterrorism efforts also has been a U.S. concern.
Since 2005, Venezuela has been designated annually (by President Bush and President Obama) as a country that has
failed to adhere to its international anti-drug obligations. Since 2006, the Department of State has
prohibited the sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of cooperation on
antiterrorism efforts.
Congress wants to pose more sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector- not increase
economic engagement
Noriega 11 Roger F., senior State Department official from 2001 to 2005, is a visiting fellow at AEI and
managing director of Vision Americas LLC, “Latin American Action Agenda for the New Congress”
January 06, 2011 http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/legislative/latin-americanaction-agenda-for-the-new-congress/
Congress should provide sustained and focused oversight to uncover illegal activities and should press
Venezuela's oil-dependent regime to end its aggressive conduct or face crippling sanctions. Because US
diplomats are doing little to confront this threat, Congress, law enforcement agencies, and the judicial branch must
take the lead in responding to the grave and growing threat posed by Chávez, the anti-American caudillo (strongman).
Bipartisan congressional leaders have already indicated their serious concerns regarding the conduct
of the Chávez regime.[3] The appropriate congressional committees--including those responsible for policy,
intelligence resources, and law enforcement--should combine efforts to conduct a thorough review of Venezuela's
aggressive posture and the passive US response. Congressional inquiry will reveal the extent to which Chávez has
transformed his country into a bandit state. Demo-cratic institutions have been neutralized, so his reckless regime is unaccountable. Billions
of dollars in petroleum revenue have been looted by corrupt officials, and the state oil company is
suspected of laundering illicit funds. Venezuela is willfully violating international prohibitions against aiding Iran's illegal quest for
nuclear weapons and uranium. Civilian and security officials are implicated in drug trafficking that threatens neighbors in the Andes, the
Caribbean, Central America, Mexico, and the United States, as well as countries in Africa and Europe. An $8-9 billion arms buildup threatens to
fuel an arms race in the region, and weapons have been shipped from Venezuelan caches to terrorists in South America and the Middle East.[4]
A once-proud democracy and reliable US friend has been twisted into a hostile and potent criminal enterprise. Clearly, the response of US
diplomats and the intelligence community has been inadequate. Policymakers justify their inaction as a conscious ploy to avoid provoking
Chávez, failing to notice that US passivity has sent the message to Iran, China, and Russia that the United States does not care if they join his
conspiracy. Under Washington's nose, Chávez has made strides
toward terminating US access to Venezuelan oil by
finding a new buyer in China, provided Iran's terrorist state with a strategic platform from which to
operate near US shores, and resuscitated Cuba's implacable dictatorship.[5] Some in Congress have
advocated designating Venezuela as a terrorist state. Although it is inconceivable that the State Department will abandon
its passive stance in this way, Congress can question why US law enforcement agencies have yet to bring indictments against Chávez's circle of
corrupt cronies and to launch an inquiry against state-run Petróleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA). By exposing suspected money-laundering
activities conducted by PDVSA and a network of complicit bankers, US prosecutors can attack the foundation of Chávez's criminal enterprise
and his corrupt power base. The
incoming chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Representative Ileana Roshas targeted PDVSA for abetting Iran's energy sector, which would subject Venezuela's
largest company to US sanctions. In a September 24, 2010, letter to PDVSA president Rafael Ramírez, congressional leaders
Lehtinen (R-FL),
demanded that the company prove that it is not doing business with Iran. Evidence from sources within the Venezuelan regime clearly indicates
that Chávez is making good on his commitment
serious US investigation will find that Chávez
in these suspect transactions.
to provide gasoline to Iran to help it circumvent sanctions. Any
has engaged oil companies from China, Algeria, and other countries
General Popular
Congress’s support for Venezuela runs high
Fox News 3-06 [“Obama, US lawmakers see 'new chapter' in Venezuela after Chavez's death”,
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/obama-us-supports-venezuelan-people-as-begin-newchapter-after-chavez/>]
U.S. officials quickly cast Hugo Chavez's death as an opportunity for America to rebuild a relationship
with Venezuela and for the country itself to pursue “meaningful democratic reforms," with President Obama heralding a "new chapter"
in the Latin American country's history. Chavez, who had been battling cancer since 2011, died Tuesday after 14 years in power. An election is
expected to be held in 30 days – the transition marks one of the first major challenges for newly appointed 8Secretary of State John Kerry.
Obama kept a measured tone in a statement released Tuesday evening. "At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez’s passing, the
United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan
government,"
Obama said. "As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains
committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human
rights. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were less reserved. “Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to
live in fear,” Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a written statement. “His death dents the alliance
of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator.”
He said that, while not guaranteed, “closer U.S.
relations with this key country in our Hemisphere are now possible.” Royce’s Democratic counterpart
on the committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., also said Chavez’s death is an “opportunity” for the people
of Venezuela to “chart a new course.” “This is a moment to review and renew our relationships with Venezuela and nations
throughout the Americas based upon fundamentally shared values that bind our entire hemisphere,” he said. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.,
expressed hope for a peaceful transition “with real, meaningful democratic reforms.”
Impacts
Turns Case
Turns Latin American Relations
Immigration Reform helps relations with Latin America
Meacham, Carl 6/13/13 “director of the CSIS Americas Program ;
http://csis.org/publication/us-
immigration-reform-good-americas-0 “
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.
Comprehensive immigration reform 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 United States 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.
Immigration Reform will help trade relations and more with Latin America
Pecquet, Julian 5/4/13 “ Foreign Affairs writer for The Hill; http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/297805obama-no-senior-partners-in-us-relationship-with-latin-america#ixzz2WQkRan00”
Obama continued his Latin American charm offensive on Saturday, telling Central American business
leaders that he wants a relationship of equals with America's southern neighbors.¶ Wrapping up a three-day visit to Mexico
and Costa Rica, Obama reiterated his calls for cross-border cooperation to boost jobs and the economy on
both sides of the Rio Grande. He called for joint investments in border infrastructure as a way to save
money at a time of budget shortfalls while rooting out security risks. “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.” 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: comprehensive immigration reform 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,
President
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
Failure to pass immigration reform will hurt US-Latin American relations
Inter-American Dialogue 4/12 “Leading US Center for Policy Analysis, exchange and
communication on issues in the Western Hemisphere ;
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf”
Relations between the United States and Latin America are at a curious juncture . In the past decade, most Latin
American countries have made enormous progress in managing their economies and reducing inequality and, especially, poverty,
within a democratic framework . These critical changes have brought greater autonomy, expanded global links, and grow- ing self-confidence .
It is now the United States that is in a sour mood, struggling with a still weak economic recovery, diminished international stature and
influence, and fractured politics at home .¶ These recent changes
have profoundly affected Inter-American relations
. While relations are today cordial and largely free of the antagonisms of the past, they also seem without vigor and purpose .
Effective cooperation in the Americas, whether to deal with urgent problems or to take advantage of new opportunities, has been
disappointing .¶ The Inter-American Dialogue’s report is a call to all nations of the hemi- sphere to take stock, to rebuild cooperation, and to
reshape relations in a new direction . All governments in the hemisphere should be more attentive to emerging opportunities for fruitful
collaboration on global and regional issues ranging across economic integration, energy security, protection of democracy, and climate change .
The United States in must regain its cred- ibility the region by dealing seriously with an unfinished
agenda of problems—including immigration, drugs, and Cuba—that stands in the way of a real partnership .
To do so, it needs the help of Latin America and the Caribbean.¶ If the current state of affairs continues, the strain
between the United States and Latin America could worsen, adversely affecting the interests and well- being of all in
the hemisphere . There is a great deal at stake . This report offers a realistic assessment of the relationship within a changing regional and
global context and sets out an agenda of old and new business that need urgent attention . A collaborative effort should begin immediately at
the sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia .
CIR’s key to Latin American relations
Shifter 12 Michael is 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
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.
Turns US-Mexico Relations
Immigration reform critical to relations with Mexico, and it MUST happen now
Persad 12 [Khara, “Mexican ambassador says now is the time for immigration reform”,
<http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/11/15/mexican-ambassador-says-now-is-the-time-forimmigration-reform/>]
The Mexican ambassador to the United States said Wednesday that immigration reform is vital for
relations between the two countries and that the time for reform is now. “I’ve said it before – I don’t think
there’s as an important issue for the future wellbeing of our bilateral relationship than getting
immigration reform right,” Arturo Sarukhan said at a news conference in Washington. “I think the time is ripe,”
he said. That comment was echoed later Wednesday by President Barack Obama, who said in an unrelated White House
news conference that he is “very confident” that Washington can get immigration reform done in his
second term. It also comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill are expressing a new willingness to deal with
the issue. Kyrsten Sinema, the incoming member of Congress from Arizona’s 9th District, said Tuesday that the state is ready for
a solution to immigration issues. “Arizona … is Ground Zero for the fight on immigration,” Sinema said. “I hope that members of
Congress are sincerely interested in working on a solution.” The Hill newspaper reported Tuesday that Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Mesa, is
expected to be part of any Republican effort on reform after he is sworn in to the Senate in January. A Flake spokeswoman would
only say in an email Wednesday that the congressman “expects to take an active role in any immigration reform efforts next year.”
But the intent to get something done does not mean it will be easy, said Michelle Mittelstadt, spokeswoman at the Migration Policy
She said all
three parts of comprehensive reform – legalization of immigrants living here illegally now, increased
border enforcement and temporary worker programs that would meet future demands – have to be
pursued at the same time. “The political reality is, to do it comprehensively, you must address them
all at one time,” she said. Sarukhan did not lay out specifics for a preferred reform plan, only saying that it should deal with
Institute. “There is a commitment and desire to do something, but there are still ideological divides,” Mittelstadt said.
the 11.5 undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and with temporary worker programs. That drew a sharp response from Ira Mehlman
of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, who said Mexico should mind its own business. “They should not be
interfering with the internal policy of the United States,” Mehlman said. “It’s not their call.” Whatever the U.S. decides to do,
Sarukhan said, it should not be the “piecemeal approach” of the past. “I understand the merits of the piecemeal approach,” he said.
“I understand why people would feel that comprehensive (reform) has failed to convince members of Congress and the American
public that it’s the right way to go, but I think it would be a big mistake to go down the piecemeal approach.” But supporters said
they believe reform is coming. “I
think the stars are aligning for having an overdue discussion about
immigration reform,” said James Garcia, chairman of the Arizona Latino Research Enterprise, a nonpartisan advocacy
group. Garcia, Sarukhan and Laura Vazquez of the National Council of La Raza all pointed to the newfound strength of Latino voters
in last week’s elections as one reason for their optimism. “We
fully expect that this is … an issue that’s going to be
taken up,” said Vazquez, legislative analyst for La Raza’s Immigration Policy Project. “We’re in a good
place.” She said politicians have “seen that there is support for action on this issue. They have to go
through the Latino community.” Garcia said he is hopeful that, if Flake gets involved in any meaningful way in discussions,
he can be a serious player in reform and “a voice for pushing that forward.” Sarukhan is also hopeful. He pointed to the changing
U.S. landscape, where Latinos are gaining political power and immigration issues are pressing, as indicators that change is not too
“The logical window of opportunity for this happening is between 2013 and 2014,” Sarukhan
said. “There is a chance that this issue could be resolved.”
far off.
Immigration Reform key to US-Mexico relations, boosts trade
Bruce, Mary 5/2/13 “ Writer for ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/in-mexicopresident-obama-says-immigration-reform-is-critical-to-trade/”
President Obama arrived in Mexico City today, where the economy and trade were intended to top the
agenda of his three-day trip to Mexico and Costa Rica. With Congress poised to overhaul the nation’s immigration
laws, however, border security and immigration reform are overshadowing much of the public discussion. “I’m optimistic about us
getting this done because it’s the right thing to do. We’ve seen leaders from both parties indicate that now’s
the time to get comprehensive immigration reform done,” Obama said at a joint press conference with Mexican
President Enrique Pena Nieto. “If we’re going to get that done, now’s the time to do it.”
Obama argued that reforming the
U.S. immigration system is an economic imperative
and, given the amount of trade between the U.S. and its southern
neighbor, that it’s important for the countries not to get bogged down with border issues. Mexico is the United States’ second-largest
trading partner. One day after Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said that the immigration reform bill will struggle to pass if border security
provisions are not strengthened, Obama defended his administration’s efforts to boost the border. “We’ve put enormous resources
into border security,” he said, before admitting that “there are areas where there’s still more work to be done.” Obama
also
recommitted the U.S. to help in the fight against illegal drug trafficking
amid tension over Pena Nieto’s decision
to limit the amount of access Mexico gives to U.S. security agencies. “I agreed to continue our close cooperation on security, even as
the nature of that cooperation will evolve,” Obama said. “As I told the president, it is obviously up to the Mexican people to
determine their security structures and how it engages with other nations, including the United States.”
Immigration key to US-Mexico relations
Morrison 4-26 [James, “Immigration Debate Resurfaces, Though Prospects for Reform Dim”,
<http://washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6016:immigrationdebate-resurfaces-though-prospects-for-reform-dim-&catid=1:may-2010&Itemid=238>]
In his newsletter, Sarukhan said, "Mexico fully understands that immigration reform in this country is a
domestic process that will be and should be addressed and debated solely by Americans and their representatives in Congress."
However, the ambassador added in his favorite catch phrase: "You need two to tango." "Mexico has a
central role to play in getting immigration right and has been doing so since the beginning of President
[Felipe] Calderón's administration," he wrote. "We have set in motion a set of programs and structural reforms to create
more jobs and trigger growth that, in time, will reduce migration levels." Those levels have already gone down slightly as a result of the
For now though, Mexico continues to rely heavily on money received in remittances from
both legal and illegal Mexicans in the United States, receiving about $24 billion a year in remittances.
economic crisis.
The ambassador acknowledged the difficulties of fixing what many regard as a "broken" U.S. immigration system, with supporters of an
overhaul advocating for a pathway to citizenship for the country's undocumented workers, while critics argue the focus needs to be on securing
the border rather than providing amnesty for lawbreakers who drain social services. "It will certainly not be easy because hard choices and
tough issues never are," Sarukhan wrote. "As community organizer and writer Saul Alinsky once said, 'Change means movement; movement
means friction; friction means heat; and heat means controversy.'" That controversy is once again brewing even though immigration reform
had largely faded from the headlines in recent years. At the height of the debate in 2006 and 2007, the Bush administration had proposed
tougher border enforcement and workplace monitoring, as well as a program to bring in guest workers for U.S. employers and a pathway for
millions to earn legal status. The effort earned some bipartisan support but ultimately stalled in the face of strong conservative opposition. But
a recent push has put immigration back on the front burner. In March, thousands of demonstrators crowded onto the National Mall demanding
And this month, President Calderón will bring Mexico's views to Capitol
Hill as he addresses a joint session of Congress on May 19. During the official state visit to Washington
— marking Obama's second since taking office — Calderón will become the first Mexican president to
speak to both chambers since former President Vicente Fox appeared at the Capitol in 2001. The visit
will no doubt resurrect the immigration debate in the halls of Congress, where Democrats have tepidly begun
that Congress pass comprehensive reform.
broaching the issue. In December, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) introduced a bill to create an avenue for legal status for illegal immigrants if they
have not committed a felony and can prove they have been working in the United States, in addition to paying a $500 fine, submitting to a
criminal background check and learning English.
Immigration reform perceived positively by Mexico
Rodriguez and Shoichet 1-30 [Rey and Catherine E., “Mexico 'welcomes' new U.S. immigration
reform push”, <http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/world/americas/mexico-immigration-reformreaction>]
Mexico City (CNN) -- The new U.S. push for immigration reform is drawing praise -- but some skepticism -- south
of the border. Mexico's foreign ministry said Tuesday that it "welcomes the principles that have been set
out" in U.S. President Barack Obama's remarks calling for immigration reform, and the proposal
presented Monday by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators. A Mexican lawmaker told CNN en Español
that U.S. politicians were proposing a plan that would help millions of undocumented immigrants in
the United States -- nearly 60% of whom are Mexican, according to government estimates. "It's a real
reform" and a significant step, said Sen. Marcela Guerra of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary
Party. The Mexican government hasn't weighed in on specific details in this week's proposal from eight U.S. senators, a plan that
would give undocumented immigrants immediate but provisional legal status to live and work in America, and eventually allow
there are an estimated 6.8 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico
living in the United States who could benefit from such an overhaul of the U.S. immigration system.
And that's a statistic that isn't lost on Mexican officials, who have been pushing for changes in U.S.
immigration policies for years. In legal briefs and public speeches, they've argued against racial profiling they said would be
them to apply for green cards. But
fostered by U.S. state immigration laws and called for changes in federal laws to bring millions of undocumented immigrants out of
The fresh possibility of immigration reform in the United
States has made headlines in Mexico's leading newspapers this week. In the central Mexican city of Atlixco,
where many residents have family members living in the United States, proposals to change U.S. immigration policies
were hailed as a positive step. "It's good news," said Rene Velasquez, who watched a Spanish translation on Mexican
the shadows. 'At last, the U.S. government is taking notice'
television of Obama's Tuesday speech. "At last, the U.S. government is taking notice of this problem that is important for their
country and ours." Eduardo Palacios, who came back to Atlixco to run a pizza restaurant after working as an immigrant in the
United States, said he was happy to hear that change could be coming. "I'm glad immigrants may be able to fix their documents," he
said, "because many die on the border or suffer a lot." In Mexico's capital, the new push for immigration reform in the United States
was met with some skepticism. "It is possibly a waste of time. I don't see it succeeding," said Luis Gonzalez, an accountant. "There is
no compassion, and we need to work much more diplomatically." Nancy Perez, director of the Mexico-based immigrant rights
organization Sin Fronteras (Without Borders), cautioned against high expectations for reform based on recent comments from U.S.
politicians. "These are the first steps," she said, adding that what the government does will speak volumes. "We find contradictions
in the willingness expressed publicly and the concrete actions of the government," she said, noting that deportations from the United
States have increased in recent years. Mexico's foreign ministry noted Tuesday that the push for immigration policy changes seemed
to be gaining momentum. "The priority of protecting the rights of individuals, regardless of their migratory status, has been rightly
While the issue is an internal U.S.
political matter, the foreign ministry said, it concerns millions who live in Mexico and in other
countries. "Because of this, the Mexican government will continue respectfully promoting an
informed debate of the many dimensions of this topic, and protecting the rights of its citizens
abroad," the foreign ministry said.
included at the center of this debate," the foreign ministry said in a written statement.
Mexican government is very interested in immigration reform
Rodriguez and Shoichet 1-30 [Rey and Catherine E., “Mexico 'welcomes' new U.S. immigration
reform push”, <http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/world/americas/mexico-immigration-reformreaction>]
The Mexican government hasn't shied away from pushing for changes in U.S. immigration laws in the
past. In recent years, Mexico has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in lawsuits challenging state measures aimed at cracking down on illegal
immigration in Arizona and Alabama, arguing that the measures would lead to profiling and violate the human rights of Mexican nationals. And
Mexico's foreign ministry has sharply condemned what it has called "disproportionate use of lethal force in the exercising of immigration
control functions" by U.S. Border Patrol agents. Shortly
after he was named as Mexico's new ambassador to the
United States earlier this month, Eduardo Medina Mora said the issue of immigration reform was of
"great interest" to the Mexican government, while noting that it was a complicated political issue in the United States.
"This is an issue on the internal political agenda of the United States. It is not an issue on the bilateral
agenda. Nonetheless we have a very great interest, an unavoidable responsibility to defend the
interests of our fellow citizens and to promote an argument that increases opportunities for them,"
Medina Mora told reporters. For more than a decade, the Mexican government has played an active role advocating for millions of migrants
abroad. Shortly after taking office in 2000, then-President Vicente Fox met with migrants in his official residence and soon created a Cabinetlevel position dedicated to Mexicans who were living in other countries. During his administration, Mexicans won the right to vote abroad in
2005 after a hard-fought legislative campaign. And
Mexican government officials have created matching programs
aimed at using the money Mexicans sent home to fund public works projects south of the U.S.-Mexico
border. It's a significant shift in a country where emigrants were once treated as traitors abandoning their homeland. Now, it's common
for Mexican officials to acknowledge emigrants' contributions, and to advocate on their behalf. In a
visit to the White House last year, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said he supported Obama's
push for immigration reform. "More than demanding what you should do, I do want to tell you that
we want to contribute," he said. "We really want to participate and we want to contribute toward the
accomplishment, so we can participate in the betterment and well-being of so many people who live
in your country."
Immigration reform is key to US-Mexico relations
Stratfor 5-02 [“Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit”,
<http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexico-relations-and-obamas-visit>]
While Mexico reorients its internal focus to structural changes that its leaders hope will lay foundations for
economic development, the country could also be affected by domestic issues under debate in the United
States. For years, Mexico has been pressing the United States to enact stricter gun laws. Though a prominent gun control bill
failed in the U.S. Senate on April 17, the issue will likely re-emerge later in 2013, and at least some gun control measures currently
demographic changes in the United States are driving a debate about
immigration reform that, if implemented, would require collaboration with Mexico, many of whose
citizens would seek to legalize their residential status in the United States. Though the passage of
these reforms will similarly be determined solely by U.S. domestic political factors, their success
would be a significant boon for bilateral relations with Mexico. Indeed, for Obama and Pena Nieto,
the effects each feel of the other's policy decisions will be magnified by the unique demographic,
geographic and economic ties binding their countries. Yet, the domestic environment and political calculations in
enjoy broad popular support. Meanwhile,
each country will ultimately shape the effects of this period of political change. The U.S. political decision-making process is largely
isolated from international influence, and the Pena Nieto administration likewise appears to be consolidating key policy areas under
Mexico's steady emergence as an economic power in North
America sets the stage for a bilateral relationship much more heavily focused on opportunities for
economic cooperation.
Mexican control at the expense of U.S. influence. Still,
Immigration is an important issue in US-Mexico relations
Cooke 5-07 [Daniel, “Obama Welcomes A New Dawn For US-Mexico relations”,
<http://www.shoutoutuk.org/2013/05/07/obama-mexico/>]
Speaking at the National Anthropology Museum in Mexico City President Obama gave an insight into what he
hopes will be a more modern and more equally beneficial relationship between Mexico and the US.
His speech focused on areas such as the role of the US in the drug wars, the economic potential of a mutual and friendly relationship
and most importantly
Obama pressed the urgent need for immigration reform stating the he is
“absolutely convinced” that reform could be passed by the end of 2013. Throughout his time spent in Mexico
City Obama has also focused his talks on the dispelling of the stereotypes and strictly held discriminations held in the US about the
issues at the border saying that “it is time to put old mind sets aside and time to recognize new realities”. On top of this the President
urged for a mutual effort in this respect, asking for Mexicans to stop viewing the US as a disrespecting nation set on isolating itself
The talks on immigration however centered on the idea of a new and prosperous job
market within Mexico and more viable opportunities for temporary and even permanent work visas
to the US. By establishing seasonal visas and making residency a more attainable endpoint Obama wants to begin to tackle the
huge number of illegal immigrants currently residing in the US. Of a proposed 11 million illegals over half are from
Mexico and so through the establishing of a more healthy relationship at the border the people of
both countries will be able to benefit. The relationship of these two countries has, in the past, been one encapsulated by
drug wars, homicide, and security issues surrounding the 2000 miles of shared border. These talks with the Mexican
President, Enrique Peña Nieto, are for Obama just the beginning of what is hopefully a great and
mutually prosperous relationship. With the new Mexican government already cracking down on the death rates
surrounding the cartels the people of Mexico are ready to engage with this new dawn on the future of this
influential partnership. With both sides of the border set to benefit both socially and financially with
potential reform in immigration policy and with crimes rates set to be lowered through a more comprehensive and
focused approach to the policing of the drug issues the future only seems bright for these two nations as they
gear up for a more peaceful relationship.
from it’s neighbors.
Immigration Reform perceived positively by Mexico
Licon and Stevenson 4-17 [Adriana Gomez and Mark, “Mexicans cautiously welcome US
immigration reform”, <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/mexicans-cautiously-welcome-us-immigrationreform>]
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexicans reacted with cautious optimism to the immigration reform bill
submitted to the U.S. Senate Wednesday, saying that while it proposes a long wait for migrants to
gain U.S. citizenship, it at least gives them a stable path to do so. "There are some people who would like to
become citizens right away," said Ismael Mota Ortega, 48, who heads the Illinois federation of clubs of migrants from the central
Mexico state of Zacatecas. "But there are others who see things sensibly, that you have to demonstrate that you can truly be a good
citizen, step by step." But Marco Antonio Castillo, who leads an advocacy group called the Popular Assembly of Migrant Families,
complained about the numerous conditions the measure would impose on applicants, saying, "The immigration reform doesn't
appear to be as just as possible." "We don't want to be pessimistic, because this is an unusual step" to get a reform bill at least
Mexico's Foreign Relations
Department welcomed the proposed reform, calling it "a positive step." "The commitment expressed
by President Barack Obama and members of both parties in Congress on this issue is very
encouraging," it said. "As the U.S. legislative process proceeds, it will be fundamentally important that
the contributions of migrants are taken into account, and that their rights are respected." The bill would
presented, Castillo said. "But it is fundamentally important that the demands of society be met."
allow migrants in the country before 2012 to apply for "registered provisional immigrant status." That would not allow them to
collect federal benefits, but they could at least work safely in the United States and visit their homelands. That is a big issue for many
of the millions of Mexican migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and who have been unable to visit relatives in Mexico, in some
cases for years, because of fear they would not be able to return to U.S. jobs.
Turns US-Mexico Economic Engagement
Immigration reform will boost economic engagement with Mexico
Seminara 6-26 [Dave, “Nations Keep Watchful Eye on U.S. Immigration Reform”,
<http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9347:nations-keepwatchful-eye-on-us-immigration-reform&catid=1504&Itemid=428>]
But it's not just domestic interests that are trying to influence the debate. Immigration reform is also a
hugely important issue for the foreign countries that send the most migrants to the United States.
Notably Mexico and Central American nations, which rely heavily on remittances from workers in the
United States — workers who could become eligible for eventual U.S. citizenship — are paying close
attention to what happens in Congress this summer. As the Hill's Julian Pecquet reported earlier this year,
government officials from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and other nations are making their opinions known,
albeit discreetly given that immigration reform is a domestic matter. "They all are extremely
diplomatic in how they go about talking about this," Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) told the newspaper.
"But it's no hidden secret that it's important for a lot of these ambassadors and their governments to
see comprehensive immigration reform pass."
Immigration would boost US-Mexico economic engagement
Dwoskin 5-02 [Elizabeth, “Why Immigration Reform Is Good for Mexico”,
<http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-02/why-immigration-reform-is-good-for-mexico>]
Obama isn’t likely to face a tough job persuading the Mexicans that revising U.S. immigration rules
will benefit both countries. The U.S. is Mexico’s largest trading partner. Nearly half a trillion dollars in goods was traded
between the two countries last year. Remittances—the parcels of money that Mexicans living abroad send
home—account for about 2 percent of Mexico’s GDP. If a large portion of the estimated 6.5 million
Mexicans living in the U.S. were to become citizens, their incomes would likely rise, and with it, their
remittances, which totaled about $1.7 billion in 2012. That money could go even further if remittances
flowed through the traditional banking system, says Raúl Hinojosa, associate professor of Chicano/Chicana studies at
the University of California Los Angeles. Mexican citizens could invest their remittance payments, earning
interest and getting loans. Right now, remittances are cash payments routed through money transfer companies like
Western Union and Vigo. The economic benefits of citizenship extend well beyond remittances, says Demetrios
Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. Immigrants who receive
amnesty would be able to invest more freely in cross-border businesses. They’d also be able travel
freely, which means they’d be more likely to visit home more often, spending money there. All of
which makes U.S. immigration reform a good deal for Mexico, even if Mexicans aren’t shouting it from the
rooftops.
Turns US-Venezuelan Relations
Turns US-Venezuelan relations – Maduro believes current US immigration policies are
racist
Mora 10 [Edwin Mora May 11, 2010 CNS News “Venezuela Slams Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law, Says America Must Overcome ‘Old
Habits of Racism’” http://cnsnews.com/news/article/venezuela-slams-arizona-s-illegal-immigration-law-says-america-must-overcome-oldhabits]
Immigrants in the United States, according to Venezuela's foreign minister, are treated in a way that is
'inconsistent with human rights &hellip; a perennial violation against our fellow Latin Americans.' (CNSNews.com) –
Venezuela's minister of foreign affairs said the country’s socialist president, Hugo Chavez,demand[ed]
that Arizona’s law against illegal immigration be “repealed” and that America turn away from its “old
habits of racism.” Not only [did] Chavez oppose the Arizona law, but Venezuela as a nation wants the
United States to “begin to respect and overcome its old habits of racism and contempt" for people
from Latin America, Venezuela's information ministry quoted Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro as saying. Immigrants in the
United States, according to Maduro, are treated in a way that is “inconsistent with human rights … a
perennial violation against our fellow Latin Americans.” He said the Arizona law against illegal
immigration must be repealed because the measure is disrespectful to human beings "who have only
gone to the nation to work to generate wealth." Maduro made the remarks on May 3 from Buenos Aires, Argentina, before
attending a meeting of the 12-member Union of South American Nations. The union as a whole also denounced the Arizona law, calling it racist.
Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the legislation (the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, Arizona SB
1070) into law on Apr. 23. The
new state law mirrors existing federal law against illegal immigration. It gives
Arizona police officers the authority during a lawful stop to check an individual’s immigration status .
Federal law already requires that immigrants carry documentation of their status. If a person were pulled over for speeding, for example, a
police officer could demand that the driver show his driver’s license and, if the officer suspects the driver is an illegal immigrant, he could order
that person to show proof of his immigration status.
Turns Heg
Reform’s key to all aspects of US hegemony
Nye 12. [Joseph S., a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor
at Harvard University. “Immigration and American Power,” December 10, Project Syndicate, http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye]
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent immigrants can rise
In
recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an important role in the Republican Party’s presidential
nomination battle in 2012. But Barack Obama’s re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.¶ As a
result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its antiimmigration 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
CAMBRIDGE –
to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution – a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its ancestors – as “fellow immigrants.”¶
American power .¶ Fears 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. ¶ During
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. ¶ Both 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.¶ But 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.¶ While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term,
immigration strengthens US power. It is estimated that at least 83 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.¶ For example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, 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. ¶ Today, 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.¶ In 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.¶ Equally 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.¶ Likewise, 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 .¶ Singapore’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. ¶ That 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.
Turns Human Rights
Immigration Bill solves Human Rights
Ginatta ’13 Advocacy director for the U.S. program of Human Rights Watch (Antonio, “Immigration reforms
should protect families”, Human Rights Watch Publication, 6-21-13,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/21/immigration-reform-should-protect-families)//TQ
The immigration reform bill now being debated on the floor of the US Senate, while not perfect, would bring millions of
undocumented immigrants and their families out of the shadows, and deserves to be passed into law. Key
sections recognize the harm caused to families by the current system – especially “mixed status” families deeply
rooted in the US but living day to day in fear of being split apart after a traffic stop or an immigration raid. The vast majority of the 11
million undocumented immigrants in the United States have US citizen relatives. Yet they live in fear – “fear of
being deported... of heartbreak... of suffering... worrying about if they can go to the store, [or] do they have to stay home?”
as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently put it. I think of people like Sonia D., an undocumented restaurant owner, living in the
US for 12 years, with two US citizen children and one US citizen grandchild, who feared losing her business permit due to her immigration
status. Or Sara M., brought to the US at seven and now mother to two US citizen children, who feared taking her daughter to the hospital for
fear of being stopped while driving. Or Leticia M., living in the US since she was one and mother to a US citizen child, who was having difficulty
getting water service for her home due to her lack of documentation. All three stories, described in a Human Rights Watch report, are all about
families in Alabama, all in the US for more than 10 years – going to church, sending their American children to school, earning a living and in
some cases starting their own businesses, and paying taxes. The
Senate bill contains provisions that would reduce the
fears of many families like these. It would allow immigration judges to stop a deportation proceeding if it would result in hardship to a
US citizen parent, spouse, or child. And it permits the government to waive prohibitions against entering the country if doing so would cause
hardship to a US citizen child. The
bill also recognizes that under the current system, injustices have piled up
over the years. People with strong family ties in the US have been deported, and young people who could have qualified for the DREAM
Act, which would grant a path to legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, have also been deported. So the
bill gives the Homeland Security Secretary discretion to allow some of these people to apply for provisional immigrant
status under the bill, and rejoins their families in the US.
Turns Soft Power
Immigration key to soft power
Nye 12- Joseph S., former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US
National Intelligence Council, University Professor at Harvard University,
“Immigration and American Power” Dec 10, 2012 http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-americas-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
Equally 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. Likewise, 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. Singapore’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. That 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.
Economy
Comprehensive immigration reform is key to the economy and highly skilled workers
Farrell 12/13/12 (Chris, a contributing editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. From 1986-97, he was on the magazine's staff, as a
corporate finance staff and department editor and then as an economics editor. Farrell wrote Right on the Money: Taking Control of Your
Personal Finances and Deflation: What Happens When Prices Fall? Among Farrell's many awards are a National Magazine Award, two Loeb
Awards, and the Edward R. Murrow Award. Farrell is a graduate of the London School of Economics and Stanford University. “Obama’s Next
Act: Immigration Reform” http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-13/obamas-next-act-immigration-reform)
Washington won’t get much of a reprieve from verbal pyrotechnics once the drama of the fiscal cliff is over. Up next: major immigration
reform. President Obama
has made it clear that a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s badly frayed
immigration system is a second-term priority. Many Republican lawmakers are convinced the big takeaway from the 2012
election results is that conservatives need to rethink their hard-line stance on immigration—including illegal immigrants. Here’s what
Washington should do before tackling the tough job of rewriting the immigration laws: Create a quicksilver path to citizenship for the 11 million
to 12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. (excluding the small number convicted of violent crimes or multiple felonies). The shift in status
acknowledges that these foreign-born newcomers, like previous generations of immigrants, overcame significant obstacles to come to the U.S.
to make a better life for their families. Illegal immigrants are neighbors heading off to work, sending their kids to school, and attending church.
Their everyday lives would vastly improve by moving from the shadows of society into the mainstream. More important from a public-policy
perspective, the
change would give a boost to the economy’s underlying dynamism. “What you’re doing in the
short run is making it easier for workers to move between jobs, a relatively small effect,” says Gordon Hanson, a
professor of economics at the University of California at San Diego. “The larger effect from
eliminating uncertainty for these immigrants is creating incentives for them to make long-term
investments in careers, entrepreneurship, education, homes, and community.” Let’s state the obvious: A rapid
transformation of illegal immigrants into legal immigrants isn’t in the cards. Amnesty—let alone citizenship—is an anathema to large parts of
the electorate. Too bad, since the
scholarly evidence is compelling that immigrants—documented or not, legal or illegal—
are a boon to the net economy . “Competition fosters economic growth,” says Michael Clemens, senior
fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington. The economic return from attracting
skilled immigrants to the U.S. is well known. Foreign-born newcomers account for some 13 percent of
the population, yet they are responsible for one-third of U.S. patented innovations . The nation’s hightech regions such as Silicon Valley, the Silicon Hills of Austin, Tex., and Boston’s Route 128 rely on immigrant scientists,
engineers, entrepreneurs, and employees. Better yet, economist Enrico Moretti at the University of California at
Berkeley calculates that a 1 percent increase in the share of college-educated immigrants in a city hikes
productivity and wages for others in the city. Less appreciated is how much the economy gains from
the efforts of less-skilled immigrants, including illegal workers. Throughout the country, foreign-born newcomers have
revived beaten-down neighborhoods as immigrant entrepreneurs have opened small businesses and
immigrant families have put down stakes. Immigrant workers have played a vital role keeping a number of
industries competitive, such as agriculture and meatpacking. Cities with lots of immigrants have seen
their per capita tax base go up, according to David Card, an economist at UC Berkeley. Despite the popular impression that a rising
tide of immigrants is associated with higher crime rates, research by Robert Sampson of Harvard University and others offer a compelling case
that it’s no coincidence that the growing ranks of immigrants tracks the reduction in crime in the U.S. But
don’t newcomers—legal and
illegal—drive down wages and job opportunities for American workers? Not really. A cottage industry of
economic studies doesn’t find any negative effect on native-born wages and employment on the
local level . On the national level the research shows the impact on native-born Americans doesn’t drift far from zero, either positively or
negatively. “In both cases, immigrants are more likely to complement the job prospects of U.S.-born citizens
than they are to compete for the same jobs as U.S.-born citizens,” Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University
of California at Davis, writes in Rationalizing U.S. Immigration Policy: Reforms for Simplicity, Fairness, and Economic Growth. The
counterintuitive results reflect a numbers of factors. Immigrants
expand the size of the economic pie by creating new
businesses, new jobs, and new consumers. Middle-class families find it easier to focus on careers with
affordable immigrant labor offering gardening, child care, and other services. Many illegal immigrants
aren’t fluent in English, so they don’t compete for the same jobs as native-born workers. Another factor behind the
lack of direct competition is the higher educational level of native-born Americans. In 1960 about half of U.S.-born working-age adults hadn’t
completed high school, while the comparable figure today is about 8 percent. The
real downside concern is on the fiscal side
of the immigrant ledger. Yes, more taxes would go into Social Security, Medicare, and the like with
legalization, but more people would qualify for Medicaid, welfare, and other benefits. At the local level,
many school districts are strained financially from educating immigrant children, legal and illegal. That said, the prospect of fiscal
costs would diminish as newly legalized immigrant workers move freely around the country seeking
jobs, entrepreneurs are comfortable expanding their payrolls, and immigrant parents push their
children to live the American Dream. “Over time, as entrepreneurs emerge and families are better able to get their kids through
high school and college, you’re reducing the long-run fiscal claim of the group ,” says Hanson. There is no
economic evidence that making roughly 6 percent of the workforce illegal will benefit the economy.
Plenty of research supports the opposite case . A fast track to legality offers Washington a rare twofer: a
just move that’s economically efficient.
Economic decline risks multiple global nuclear wars
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-lieberthal-ohanlon]
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.
Ext. CIR k2 Econ
Immigration reform key to the economy
Johnson 6/20- Simon, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is the Ronald A.
Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management, “How Immigration
Reform Would Help the Economy” June 20, 2013 http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/howimmigration-reform-would-help-the-economy/?ref=immigrationandemigration&_r=0
The assessment is positive. This precise immigration proposal would improve the budget picture (see this
helpful chart) and stimulate economic growth. The immediate effects are good and the more lasting
effects even better. If anything, the long-run positive effects are likely to be even larger than the C.B.O. is willing to
predict, in my assessment. (I’m a member of the office’s Panel of Economic Advisers but I was not involved in any way in this
work.) The debate over immigration is emotionally charged and, judging from recent blog posts, the Heritage Foundation in
particular seems primed to dispute every detail in the C.B.O. approach – and to assert that it is underestimating some costs
(including what happens when illegal immigrants receive an amnesty and subsequently claim government-provided benefits, a
point Heritage has emphasized in its own report). There is good reason for the C.B.O.’s careful wording in its analysis; it
operates within narrow guidelines set by Congress, and its staff is wise to stick to very well-documented points. Still, as the
legislation gains potential traction, it is worth keeping in mind why there could be an even larger upside for
the American economy.
In 1776, the population of the United States was around 2.5 million; it is now more than 316
million (you can check the real-time Census Bureau population clock, but of course that is only an estimate). Think about this:
What if the original inhabitants had not allowed immigration or imposed very tight restrictions – for example, insisting that
immigrants already have a great deal of education? It’s hard to imagine that the United States would have risen as an economy
and as a country. How many United States citizens reading this column would be here today? (I’m proud to be an immigrant
and a United States citizen.) The long-term strength of the United States economy lies in its ability to create
jobs. For more than 200 years as a republic (and 400 years in total) immigrants have not crowded together on a fixed amount
of existing resources – land (in the early days) or factories (from the early 1800s) or the service sector (where most modern jobs
arise). Rather the availability of resources essential for labor productivity has increased sharply. Land is
improved, infrastructure is built and companies develop. Most economic analysis about immigration looks at
wages and asks whether natives win or lose when more immigrants show up in particular place or with certain skills. At the low
end of wage distribution, there is reason to fear adverse consequences for particular groups because of increased competition
for jobs. In fact, the C.B.O. does find that income per capita would decline slightly over the next 10 years before increasing in
the subsequent 10 years: “Relative to what would occur under current law, S. 744 would lower per capita G.N.P. by 0.7 percent
in 2023 and raise it by 0.2 percent in 2033, according to C.B.O.’s central estimates.” And it is reasonable to ask who will pay how
much into our tax system – and who will receive what kind of benefits. This is the terrain that the C.B.O. and the Heritage
Foundation are contesting. (See, too, a letter to Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, from Stephen Gross, the chief
actuary of the Social Security Administration. Mr. Gross said immigration reform would be a net positive; of the current 11.5
million illegal immigrants, “many of these individuals already work in the country in the underground economy, not paying
taxes, and will begin paying taxes” if the immigration legislation are adopted. New illegal immigration would decline but not be
eliminated.) But the longer-run picture is most obviously quite different. The process of creating businesses and
investing – what economists like to call capital formation – is much more dynamic than allowed for in many
economic models. People will save and they will invest. Companies will be created. The crucial question is who will have
the ideas that shape the 21st century. (See, for example, the work of Charles I. Jones of Stanford University on this point and a
paper he and Paul Romer wrote for a broader audience.) This is partly about education – and the proposed legislation
would tilt new visas more toward skilled workers, particularly those in science, technology, engineering, and
math (often referred to as STEM). But it would be a mistake to limited those admitted – or those allowed legal status and
eventual citizenship – to people who already have or are in the process of getting a university-level education. To be clear,
under the new system there may well be more low-wage immigrants than high-wage immigrants, but the transition to a point
system for allocating green cards is designed to increase the share of people with more education and more scientific
education, relative to the situation today and relative to what would otherwise occur. Many people have good ideas. The
Internet has opened up the process of innovation. I don’t know anyone who can predict where the next big technologies will
come from. I also don’t know who will figure out how to organize production – including the provision of services – in a more
effective manner. We are competing in a world economy based on human capital, and people’s skills and abilities are
the basis for our productivity. What we need more than anything, from an economic point of view, is more people
(of any age or background) who want to acquire and apply new skills. Increasing the size of our domestic market
over the last 400 years has served us well. Allowing in immigrants in a fiscally responsible manner makes a great deal of sense
— and the reports from the Joint Committee on Taxation and C.B.O. are very clear that this is now what is on the table. If the
children of immigrants want to get more education, we should welcome the opportunity that this presents. When you cut off
the path to higher education, you are depriving people of opportunity – and you are also hurting the economy. The deeper
political irony, of course, is that if the Heritage Foundation and its allies succeed in defeating immigration legislation, there are
strong indications that this will hurt the Republican Party at the polls over the next decade and beyond. Yet, even so, House
Republicans seem inclined to oppose immigration reform. That would be a mistake on both economic and political grounds. We
are 316 million people in a world of more than 7 billion – on its way to 10 billion or more (read this United Nations report if you
like to worry about the future). We should reform immigration along the lines currently suggested and increase the
supply of skilled labor in the world. This will both improve our economy and, at least potentially, help
ensure the world stays more prosperous and more stable.
It solves long-term growth
Krudy ‘13 [Edward. Politics for Reuters. “Analysis: Immigration Reform could Boost US Economic
Growth” Reuters, 1/29/13 ln]
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 U nited S tates 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 . REPUBLICANS' HISPANIC PUSH Other economists say the potential benefit to growth is much lower. Richard Freeman, an
economist at Harvard, believes most of the benefits to the economy from illegal immigrants already in the United States has already been
recorded and legalizing their status would produce only incremental benefits. While opposition to reform lingers on both sides of the political
spectrum and any controversial legislation can easily meet a quick end in a divided Washington, the chances of substantial change seem to be
rising. Top Republicans such as Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are not mincing words about the party's need to appeal to the Hispanic
community and foreign-born voters who were turned off by Republican candidate Mitt Romney's tough talk in last year's presidential
campaign. A previous Obama plan, unveiled in May 2011, included the creation of a guest-worker program to meet agricultural labor needs and
something similar is expected to be in his new proposal. The senators also indicated they would support a limited program that would allow
companies in certain sectors to import guest workers if Americans were not available to fill some positions. An
additional boost to
growth could come from rising wages for newly legalized workers and higher productivity from the
arrival of more highly skilled workers from abroad. Increased tax revenues would help federal and state authorities plug
budget deficits although the benefit to government revenues will be at least partially offset by the payment of benefits to those who gain legal
status. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that proposed immigration reform in that year would have generated $48 billion in
revenue from 2008 to 2017, while costing $23 billion in health and welfare payments. There is also unlikely to be much of a saving on
enforcement from the senators' plan because they envisage tougher border security to prevent further illegal immigration and a crackdown on
those overstaying visas. One way to bump up revenue, according to a report co-authored by University of California, Davis economist Giovanni
Peri, would be to institute a cap-and-trade visa system. Peri estimated it could generate up to $1.2 billion annually. Under such a system, the
government would auction a certain number of visas employers could trade in a secondary market. "A more efficient, more transparent and
more flexible immigration system would help firms expand, contribute to more job creation in the United States, and slow the movement of
operations abroad," according to a draft report, soon to be published as part of a study by the Hamilton Project, a think tank. There was no
immediate sign that either the Obama or the senators' plan would include such a system. The long-term argument for immigration is a
demographic one. Many developed nations are seeing their populations age, adding to the burden of pension and healthcare costs on wageearners. Immigration in the United States would need to double to keep the working-age population stable at its current 67 percent of total
population, according to George Magnus, a senior independent economic adviser at UBS in London, While Magnus says a change of that
magnitude may prove too politically sensitive, the
focus should be on attracting highly skilled and entrepreneurial
immigrants in the way Canada and Australia do by operating a points system for immigrants rather than focusing mainly on family
connections. "The trick is to shift the balance of migration towards those with education (and) skills," he added. HARD ROAD Academics at
major universities such as Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology often lament that many of their top
foreign graduates end up returning to their home countries because visas are hard to get.
"We have so
much talent that is sitting here in the universities," said William Kerr, a professor at Harvard Business School. "I find it very difficult to swallow
that we then make it so hard for them to stay." The last big amnesty for illegal immigrants was in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan legalized
about 3 million already in the country. Numerous studies have shown that subsequently their wages rose significantly. Research on how
immigration affects overall wages is inconclusive. George Borjas at Harvard says immigration has created a small net decrease in overall wages
for those born in the United States, concentrated among the low-skilled, while Giovani Peri at UC Davis found that immigration boosts native
wages over the long run. Hinojosa-Ojeda
stresses that any reform needs to make it easier for guest workers
to enter the country to avoid a new build-up of illegal workers. "If we don't create a mechanism that
can basically bring in 300,000 to 400,000 new workers a year into a variety of labor markets and
needs, we could be setting ourselves up for that again," said Hinojosa-Ojeda. Nowrasteh at Cato also believes an
expanded guest worker program would stem illegal immigration and allow industries to overcome
labor shortages. He found that harsher regulations in recent years in Arizona were adversely affecting agricultural production, increasing
financial burdens on business and even negatively impacting the state's struggling real estate market. Some large companies have fallen foul of
tougher enforcement regulations. Restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc fired roughly 500 staff in 2010 and 2011 after undocumented
workers were found on its payrolls. Putting the chill on other employers, it is now subject of an ongoing federal criminal investigation into its
hiring. " The
current system doesn't seem to work for anyone ," Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said.
CIR key to the economy and economic growth
Hinojosa-Ojeda 12 (Founding Director of the North American Integration and Development Center at
UCLA Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Cato Journal,
Vol. 32, No. 1 Winter 2012)
The historical experience of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act indicates that comprehensive
immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional
tax revenue. Even though IRCA was implemented during a period that included a recession and high unemployment (1990–91), it still
helped raise wages and spurred increases in educational, home, and small business investments by
newly legalized immigrants. Taking the experience of IRCA as a starting point, we estimate that comprehensive
immigration reform would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years.
1 This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current “vicious cycle” where
enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on
already low wages, and toward a “virtuous cycle” of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure
on wages.
Key to the economy
Peter Crabb, staff writer, 12-18-2012, “The Economy by Peter Crabb: Immigration reform should boost
the free trade of labor,” Idaho Statesman,
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/12/18/2384708/immigration-reform-should-boost.html
Political issues like immigration have economic principles at their core. With all the debate about how to avoid a recession
next year, it seems policymakers could find some common ground on immigration and, in the process, help
fix other economic problems ahead of us. Economic theory shows, and historical evidence supports, the
contention that the key to economic growth is higher productivity. Higher worker productivity lowers
product costs and increases output, raising our standard of living. By training and keeping students in
the STEM fields, we can boost the nation’s overall productivity. Advances in science, engineering and math lead to
better tools and more technology for workers. With these tools and skills, workers produce more with less. STEM immigrants will
help us find these technological advancements. Unfortunately, immigration and productivity in the U.S. are both stagnant.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, 1,062,040 people obtained U.S. permanent-resident status in 2011, but only 139,339 for
employment reasons. Furthermore, as a percentage of our labor force, the number of legal immigrants has declined over the last decade. Some
fear reforms to immigration laws because illegal immigration is itself a problem. But even that is down. The Census Bureau reported this month
that there were 11.1 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. in 2011, down from a peak of 12 million in 2007. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported this month that productivity at nonfarm businesses is currently growing at just 1.7 percent a year. This compares with an average
annual rate of about 2.5 percent over the last decade. STEM immigrants can help bring this rate back up. Demographic
studies also
show we need more immigrants. David Wessel, economics editor of The Wall Street Journal, argues that ambitious
immigrants will help lift living standards and bring faster growth. Allowing more working immigrants
will do more to repay the massive federal debt than any other economic policy, because a higher GDP
growth rate brings in more tax revenue. A low growth rate in the labor force and longer life
expectancy for retirees combine to create the massive Social Security problem that has yet to receive
the attention it deserves. As long as our economy produces jobs many workers will seek our shores through any means possible.
AT: High Skilled Visas Depress Wages
Studies prove – increasing immigration doesn’t lower wages
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 H1B 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 H-1B 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).
Competitiveness
Reform is key to U.S. competitiveness
Bush et al 09 – co-chairmen and director of a Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy (7/21/09,
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty and Edward Alden, “Nation needs comprehensive, flexible immigration
reform,” http://www.ajc.com/opinion/nation-needs-comprehensive-flexible-97393.html)
Our immigration system has been broken for too long, and the costs of that failure are growing. Getting
immigration policy right is
fundamental to our national interests — our economic vitality, our diplomacy and our national
security. In the report of the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations’ Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, we lay out what is at stake for the
United States. President Barack Obama has made it clear that reform is one of his top priorities, and that is an encouraging and welcome signal. Immigration
has long been America’s secret weapon. The U.S. has attracted an inordinate share of talented and
hardworking immigrants who are enticed here by the world’s best universities, the most innovative companies, a vibrant labor market and a
welcoming culture. Many leaders in allied nations were educated in the U.S., a diplomatic asset that no other country can match. And the contributions
of immigrants — 40 percent of the science and engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. are foreign-born, for example — have helped maintain the
scientific and technological leadership that is the foundation of our national security. But the U.S. has
been making life much tougher for many immigrants. Long processing delays and arbitrary quota backlogs keep out many would-be
immigrants, or leave them in an uncertain temporary status for years. Background and other security checks are taking far too long in many cases. Other
countries are taking advantage of these mistakes, competing for immigrants by opening their
universities to foreign students and providing a faster track to permanent residency and citizenship.
Competiveness key to economy and hegemony
Segal, 04 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/isamerica-losing-its-edge.html)
The U nited S tates' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and
industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and
technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power.
It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead.
Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious
challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential
policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future
innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian
companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types
of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications
software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors,
aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development
is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S.
technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The
U nited S tates will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can
remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its
privileged position in the world, the U nited S tates must get better at fostering technological
entrepreneurship at home.
Hegemonic decline causes great power wars – 1930’s prove
Zhang & Shi, Researcher @ The Carnegie Endowment, ’11
[Yuhan Zhang, Researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Lin Shi, Columbia
University, Independent consultant for the Eurasia Group, Consultant for the World Bank, “America’s
decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry,” January 22nd 2011,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/]
Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military.
Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US
hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to
mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so
will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is
more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars
may be harder to avoid. As history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation.
For example, in the late 19th century America’s emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain.
By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to
challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western
Hemisphere’s security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining
this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on
the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad
segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible
financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system,
proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as America’s influence
declines? Given that America’s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern
Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly
detrimental way. Public
imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would
return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore,
multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For
example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washington’s
withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free
markets would become more politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers would compete for
supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late
1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also
becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A
world
without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international
system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, antiglobalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be
devoid of unrivalled US primacy.
CIR key to Competitiveness Ext.
Undocumented workers key to economy and competitiveness; immigration reform
will keep this workforce stable
Auburn Journal 6/4/10 (News media source, “We need them,” June 4, 2010, accessed from
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/151531.html on June 30, 2010.)
The Texas-based Perryman Group has published an in-depth study of the undocumented immigrant workforce in USA. It
includes a sobering scenario of what would happen if the illegal workforce were suddenly deported. - For
the US economy, the immediate negative effect of eliminating the undocumented immigrant workforce
would mean $1.757 trillion in lost spending annually, $651.511 billion a year in lost output, and $8.1
million in lost jobs. - If all undocumented workers were suddenly removed from the workforce, a number
of industries would face critical labor shortages and American citizens would have to be induced into the labor pool or provided
incentives to take jobs far below their current education and skill levels. For the latter phenomenon to occur, substantial domestic wage escalation
would likely be necessary, eroding North American competitiveness in global markets. - As the domestic workforce becomes older, larger and
better educated, US production increasingly requires more low-skilled workers. In 1960 about 50% of men in this country who were not high
school graduates joined this low-skilled labor force. That number is now less than 10%. Shortages in the low-skilled labor force
are likely to continue to escalate. - There is clear evidence that undocumented workers are making
contributions to the US economy that far exceed their cost in social benefits. Undocumented workers pay
more in taxes overall than they receive in government benefits. - The amount of Social Security taxes
alone paid by undocumented workers is $9 billion annually. Paycheck withholding collects federal tax
from illegal workers, just as it does for legal workers. But undocumented workers can't collect the
benefits they pay for. The Social Security Administration estimates that three-quarters of illegal workers
pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare. In 2005 (the last year for
which figures are available) $9 billion in taxes was paid on $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms
with incorrect or mismatched data. This typically includes illegal immigrant workers who draw paychecks
using fake names and SS numbers. The beneficial effect to Social Security is critical because most of that money is never claimed
by the people who pay it. Instead, helps cover SS retirement checks to legal workers. (federal law prohibits paying Social Security to illegal
immigrants). Any realistic immigration policy needs to recognize the inescapable reality that the resource
represented by undocumented workers is, at least for the foreseeable future, an absolutely essential
element of the modern US economy.
Reform of US immigration policies will increase competitiveness by attracting skilled
individuals.
Siskind 6/13/10 (Greg Siskind, J.D. from the University of Chicago, “Brain Gain,” June 13, 2010,
accessed from http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0614-siskind.shtm on June 29, 2010)
The Brookings Institute's Darrell West has authored a new book entitled Brain Gain: Rethinking US Immigration Policy
which makes the case that comprehensive immigration reform is critical to keeping the US
competitive in the 21st century global economy. From the Brookings description of the new work: Many of
America’s greatest artists, scientists, inventors, educators, and entrepreneurs have come from
abroad. Rather than suffering from the “brain drain” of talented and educated individuals
emigrating, the United States has benefited greatly over the years from the “brain gain” of
immigration. These gifted immigrants have engineered advances in energy, information
technology, international commerce, sports, arts, and culture. To stay competitive, the United
States must institute more of an open-door policy to attract unique talents from other nations. Yet
Americans resist such a policy despite their own immigrant histories and the substantial social, economic, intellectual, and cultural benefits
of welcoming newcomers. Why? In Brain Gain, Darrell West asserts that perception
or “vision” is one reason reform in
immigration policy is so politically difficult. Public discourse tends to emphasize the perceived
negatives. Fear too often trumps optimism and reason. And democracy is messy, with policy
principles that are often difficult to reconcile. The seeming irrationality of U.S. immigration policy arises from a variety
of thorny and interrelated factors: particularistic politics and fragmented institutions, public concern regarding education and employment,
anger over taxes and social services, and ambivalence about national identity, culture, and language.
Full scale immigration reform will bring overseas talent to the US and keep us
competitive.
Smith 5/11/10 (Richard Herman Robert L. Smith, staff writer for the Providence Journal, May 11, 2010,
accessed from http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/CT_immi11_05-1110_ANI8L98_v15.4084ea5.html on June 29, 2010.)
With Arizona imposing the toughest immigration laws in the land, and right-wing radio hosts calling for snipers at the border, President
Obama says it’s time to take another crack at comprehensive immigration reform. His call to renew
the immigration debate no doubt leaves many Americans thinking, “Here we go again,” exhausted as we all are from the national brawl over
health-care reform. Goodbye public option, hello amnesty? But there
lies a path to immigration reform that could
both transform an outdated system and win the speedy approval of most Americans. The seeds
of the solution lie in the reform bill being hammered out in the offices of U.S. Senators Lindsey
Graham (R.-S.C.) and Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.). Their package of proposals includes a provocative idea
that has not been getting the attention it deserves. The senators call for a dash of high-skill
immigration reform. More specifically, their plan would offer fast-track visas to immigrants
with rare talent and ingenuity. They would, in other words, extend a wider welcome to men and
women most likely to enhance America’s competitiveness and create jobs. Now that’s an idea a skeptical
public might not bother to oppose. Oh, there are other far-reaching and surely controversial proposals in their bill, according to what the
senators have so far divulged. Tamper-proof national ID cards. A mea culpa from immigrants who entered illegally. Harsher sanctions for
employers who willingly hire them. But the
high-skill stuff is the game changer. So powerful and sensible is
high-skill immigration, it might as well inspire its own reform bill. Graham and Schumer might keep that in
mind if comprehensive change proves impossible in a poisonous political climate. To welcome high-skill immigrants is to promote a
lucrative and little-know phenomenon. While the country was preoccupied with illegal immigrants, legal immigrants were building the New
Economy. The
founders of Google, Intel, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems, AST Research, eBay and YouTube are all
largely immigrants. New Americans are behind more than half of the high-tech companies in
Silicon Valley and about a quarter of the biotech companies in New England. In a global
economy fueled by technology and innovation, high-skill immigrants have become America’s
competitive edge.
Bad immigration policies hold back the US; Comprehensive immigration reform gets
the nation back on track in the global scene.
Giovagnoli 6/22/10 (Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center, “Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Is More Than a Piece of Legislation,” June 22, 2010, accessed from
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/147285/comprehensive_immigration_reform_is_more_than_a_p
iece_of_legislation on June 30, 2010.)
As the Immigration Policy Center has consistently pointed out, comprehensive immigration reform is the solution to a
problem that is far more pervasive than most Americans (still) realize. Our broken immigration system contributes
to our stalled economy, undermines our reputation in the world, costs us billions of dollars in
unworkable enforcement only strategies, and chips away at the moral values of the country. The
problem is so big, in fact, that no one bill will ever fix all the pieces at once. But a systematic overhaul,
one that includes legalization for the roughly 11 million people already here, a reduction in immigration
backlogs that keep families apart, a flexible and fair system for bringing in new workers, and reasonable
enforcement would create a solid base on which to build an immigration system that helps the country
succeed in the 21st century.
High Tech Visas Impacts
Immigration reform will increase high-tech visas.
Smith, 11/7/2012 (Gerry, Technology Industry Puts Immigration Reform As Top Hope For Obama's
Second Term, p. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/technology-immigration-reformobama_n_2087457.html)
Many startups in New York's "Silicon Alley" say they can't hire enough qualified engineers because of a shortage
of temporary work visas and green cards. They have been pushing for legislation that would allow
more immigrants with high-tech skills to remain in the country. The issue was not a priority during the president's first
term. But on the campaign trail, Obama hinted that it would be a priority in his next term. And in his acceptance speech early
Wednesday morning, he said "fixing our immigration system" would be one of the policy issues that he would address "in the coming weeks
and months." But to accomplish that, Obama will need help from Congress, which after Tuesday's election, remains divided. Democrats
maintained control of the Senate and Republicans kept control of the House. The issue of expanding visas for highly-skilled immigrants has
faced opposition from both parties. The STEM Jobs Act, which would have granted more visas to immigrants with math and science degrees,
was widely supported by the tech community. But it failed to pass this year in part because Democrats demanded more comprehensive
immigration reform. And expanding visa programs are politically controversial: Critics claim they produce an influx in foreign-born workers who
depress wages and make it more difficult for American-born workers to find jobs in high-tech fields. Over the past four years, Obama has
received high marks from the tech community on some measures. He recently signed laws, for example, that will allow entrepreneurs to use
“crowdfunding” to raise capital. But they've expressed disappointed that he hasn't accomplished more. "He hasn’t done as much on tech as we
would like but he's clearly leaning toward many of our policy goals," said Andrew Rasiej, chairman of NY Tech Meetup, which hosts monthly
gatherings for tech entrepreneurs. Besides immigration, those goals include increasing investment in research and development and science
and math education. In a letter he sent last month to NY Tech Meetup, which has more than 27,000 members, Obama said he planned to
recruit 10,000 math and science teachers over the next decade and train 2 million workers for high-tech jobs. Now that the election is over,
some are optimistic that Obama will give more attention to their top policy issue. "We think the
president was sincere in his talk about the need for immigriaton reform in the second term, and we think he'll
have a receptive House and Senate who want to look at that issue as well," said Mark Heesen, the president of the National
Venture Capital Association, an industry group. One factor may help explain the tech community's optimism
that Obama will prioritize their issues in his next term: the industry made sizable contributions to his
campaign. Obama raised $7.1 million from members of the tech industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
CIR’s key to STEM worker infusion
Jones ’13 (Richard M. Jones Government Relations Division American Institute of Physics,
“Immigration Reform Would Enhance STEM Workforce” FYI: The AIP Bulletin of Science Policy News,
Number 20 - January 31, 2013, American Institute of Physics)
Momentum is increasing on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to change the way in which visas would be
provided to recent college graduates and professionals in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics fields. There have been three significant events this week related to the reform of immigration law, all of which
are intended to strengthen the STEM workforce in the United States.¶ During a January 29 speech on immigration,
President Obama stated “the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform.” Stressing
that by doing so “we can strengthen our economy and strengthen our country’s future,” he said:¶ “There’s another economic reason why we
need reform. It’s not just about the folks who come here illegally and have the effect they have on our economy. It’s also about the folks who
try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the effect that has on our economy.¶ “Right now, there are brilliant students from
all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. They’re earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer
science. But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there’s a good chance they’ll have to leave our country. Think about that.¶
“Intel
was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Instagram
was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Right now in one of those
classrooms, there’s a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea - their Intel or Instagram - into a big
business. We’re giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then we’re going to turn
around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace
else? That’s not how you grow new industries in America. That’s how you give new industries to our
competitors. That’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform.”¶ The White House released a Fact Sheet
regarding the President’s proposal that includes the following:¶ “’Staple’ green cards to advanced STEM diplomas.
The proposal encourages foreign graduate students educated in the United States to stay here and contribute to our economy by ‘stapling’ a
green card to the diplomas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) PhD and Master’s Degree graduates from qualified
U.S. universities who have found employment in the United States. It also requires employers to pay a fee that will support education and
training to grow the next generation of American workers in STEM careers.”¶ The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines a “green card”
as follows: "A
Green Card holder (permanent resident) is someone who has been granted authorization to live
and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a person is granted a permanent resident
card, commonly called a ‘Green Card.’"¶ Also in the President’s proposal:¶ “Create a new visa category for employees of
federal national security science and technology laboratories. The proposal creates a new visa category for a limited
number of highly-skilled and specialized immigrants to work in federal science and technology laboratories on critical national security needs
after being in the United States for two years and passing rigorous national security and criminal background checks.”
Aerospace Impact
Labor crisis in aerospace now – temporary workers key to industry competitiveness
and innovation
AIAA 10 [American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, "Recruiting, retaining, and developing a
world-class aerospace workforce: An AIAA Information Paper, presented at the AIAA's 13th Annual AIAA
Congressional Visits Day in March 2010, pdf, http://www.doleta.gov/brg/indprof/aerospace_report.pdf]
Without a strong aerospace workforce, the United States will lose the resulting economic and national
security benefits. Incentives are needed for industry to invest in domestic aerospace workforce development, and for U.S. students to
choose an engineering career. Barriers to employing talented foreign nationals must also be removed. Aerospace
represents about $200 billion (or 1.5%) of the domestic economy and in 1997 provided a $56 billion positive trade balance. The aerospace
workforce is the foundation of the industry’s success, yet unique workforce demographics present challenges. Figure 11
shows the age distribution of the aerospace business workforce compared to the total U.S. workforce. Up to half of the current
aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within five years. Aerospace workforce composition does not match
national demographic averages. Compared to the total US workforce, the aerospace industry and NASA have a disproportionately large
percentage of workers aged 4055, and a disproportionately small percentage of workers younger than 40. Student loans, research dollars to
support universities, and service scholarships can provide incentives for younger workers to consider aerospace and join the industry. If
talented young engineers are not recruited, retained, and developed to replace the workforce generation that is near retirement, then the U.S.
stands to lose the valuable economic and critical national security benefits of the domestic aerospace industry. As shown in Figure 22, large
percentages of engineers are working outside the science and engineering professions. Engineering
students burdened with college loans are seeking greener pastures. As shown in Figure 33, aerospace engineering
salaries are low compared to other industries. If the U.S. is to retain its edge in this industry, salaries need to rise and incentives given for
entering the industry. Further, since 1980, the number of nonacademic science and engineering jobs has grown at more than four times the
rate of the U.S. labor force as a whole2. With
a growing number of science and engineering jobs anticipated, the
supply of visas set aside under law for “highly qualified foreign workers,” – 65,000 a year4 – is not enough. A
decline in student, exchange, and temporary high-skilled worker visas issued since 2001 interrupted a long-term
trend of growth. The number of student visas and of temporary high-skilled worker visas issued have both declined by more than 25%
since FY 2001. These declines were due both to fewer applications and to an increase in the proportion of visa applications rejected2.To add
to the supply pressures of science and engineering workers in our economy, there is increased recruitment of highskilled labor, including scientists and engineers, by many national governments and private firms. For example, in 1999,
241,000 individuals entered Japan with temporary high-skill work visas, a 75 percent increase over 19925. Research and development
[R&D] expenditures keep the aerospace industry strong and help maintain US leadership in this sector. As
shown in Figure 46, the R&D tax credit is working to increase corporate spending on this important activity. In the early 1990s, after
implementation of the R&D tax credit legislation, private expenditures on R&D rose2. Yet even with this incentive, U.S. industry research and
development funding is lagging. In 2001, US industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development4. Perhaps as a result,
American companies are lagging in patents. In 2005, only four American companies ranked among the top 10 corporate recipients of patents
granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office4. And to further add to this distressing R&D dollars situation, federal research
funding is lagging as well. The amount invested annually by the US federal government in research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and
engineering combined is less than what Americans spend on potato chips7,8. RECOMMENDATIONS To remain globally competitive, the
U.S.
must adopt policies to increase our talent base in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), must
educate, engage, and retain STEM professionals using means consistent with generational changes in technologies and markets, and must
provide incentives for investment in research and development that helps to attract applicable talent. The AIAA recommends policies
in three areas to achieve these goals: incentives for college students to study engineering, and corporate incentives for investing in the
aerospace workforce, and immigration for STEM professionals. In the area of incentives for college students to study engineering, forgivable
loan programs should be implemented for students who study engineering and enter the domestic technical workforce. Service scholarships
should be created to pay college for students who desire to and will serve in aerospace-related U.S. government agencies after graduation. In
addition, investments must be made in aerospace research infrastructure and increasing R&D funding to universities, since good research
opportunities attract talented students into graduate STEM studies. R&D dollars provide a fourfold return by supporting graduate students,
generating knowledge, creating innovation opportunities for small businesses around universities, and building the next generation of talented
engineers. In the area of corporate incentives for investing in the aerospace workforce, targeted tax credits or incentives should be instituted
for domestic aerospace workforce development expenses. An IR&D-like program for aerospace workforce development should be established
by allowing a small percentage of government contract funding to aerospace companies to go into a development fund to be used on effective
programs to expand domestic workforce capabilities. In addition, the R&D tax credit should be made permanent, providing stability to
corporate fiscal policies, and thereby fostering a critical technology and engineering research environment that attracts the best and brightest
into the technology and engineering fields. Lastly, in
the area of immigration, barriers should be removed so that the
US may retain talented foreign nationals in STEM professions critical to the aerospace industry.
Strong aerospace key to overall US air power
Thompson 9 (David, President – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, “The Aerospace
Workforce”, Federal News Service, 12-10, Lexis)
Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security, economic prosperity, technological
vitality, and global leadership . Aeronautical and space systems protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies
abroad. They connect the farthest corners of the world with safe and efficient air transportation and
satellite communications , and they monitor the Earth, explore the solar system, and study the wider universe. The U.S. aerospace
sector also contributes in major ways to America's economic output and high- technology employment. Aerospace research and development
and manufacturing companies generated approximately $240 billion in sales in 2008, or nearly 1.75 percent of our country's gross national
product. They currently employ about 650,000 people throughout our country. U.S. government agencies and departments engaged in
aerospace research and operations add another 125,000 employees to the sector's workforce, bringing the total to over 775,000 people.
Included in this number are more than 200,000 engineers and scientists -- one of the largest concentrations of technical brainpower on Earth.
However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing the most serious demographic challenge in his 100-year history. Simply put, today, many
more older, experienced professionals are retiring from or otherwise leaving our industrial and governmental aerospace workforce than early
career professionals are entering it. This imbalance is expected to become even more severe over the next five years as the final members of
the Apollo-era generation of engineers and scientists complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition to well-deserved retirements. In fact,
around 50 percent of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just the next five years. Meanwhile, the supply of
younger aerospace engineers and scientists entering the industry is woefully insufficient to replace the mounting wave of retirements and
other departures that we see in the near future. In part, this is the result of broader technical career trends as engineering and science
graduates from our country's universities continue a multi-decade decline, even as the demand for their knowledge and skills in aerospace and
other industries keeps increasing. Today, only about 15 percent of U.S. students earn their first college degree in engineering or science, well
behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in many European and Asian countries. Due to the dual-use nature of aerospace technology and the
limited supply of visas available to highly-qualified non-U.S. citizens, our industry's ability to hire the best and brightest graduates from
overseas is also severely constrained. As a result, unless effective action is taken to reverse current trends, the U.S. aerospace sector is
expected to experience a dramatic decrease in its technical workforce over the next decade. Your second question concerns the implications of
a cutback in human spaceflight programs. AIAA's view on this is as follows. While U.S. human spaceflight programs directly employ somewhat
less than 10 percent of our country's aerospace workers, its influence on attracting and motivating tomorrow's aerospace professionals is much
greater than its immediate employment contribution. For nearly 50 years the excitement and challenge of human spaceflight have been
tremendously important factors in the decisions of generations of young people to prepare for and to pursue careers in the aerospace sector.
This remains true today, as indicated by hundreds of testimonies AIAA members have recorded over the past two years, a few of which I'll show
in brief video interviews at the end of my statement. Further evidence of the catalytic role of human space missions is found in a recent study
conducted earlier this year by MIT which found that 40 percent of current aerospace engineering undergraduates cited human space programs
as the main reason they chose this field of study. Therefore, I think it can be predicted with high confidence that a major cutback in U.S. human
space programs would be substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace workforce. Such a cutback would put even greater stress on
an already weakened strategic sector of our domestic high-technology workforce. Your final question centers on other issues that should be
considered as decisions are made on the funding and direction for NASA, particularly in the human spaceflight area. In conclusion, AIAA offers
the following suggestions in this regard. Beyond the previously noted critical influence on the future supply of aerospace professionals,
administration and congressional leaders should also consider the collateral damage to the space industrial base if human space programs were
substantially curtailed. Due to low annual production rates and highly-specialized product requirements, the
domestic supply chain
for space systems is relatively fragile . Many second- and third-tier suppliers in particular operate at marginal
volumes today, so even a small reduction in their business could force some critical suppliers to exit this
sector. Human space programs represent around 20 percent of the $47 billion in total U.S. space and missile systems sales from 2008.
Accordingly, a major cutback in human space spending could have large and highly adverse ripple effects throughout
commercial, defense, and scientific space programs as well, potentially triggering a series of disruptive changes in the
common industrial supply base that our entire space sector relies on.
That’s a key internal link into sustaining heg – solves nuke wars & aggression
Wyne, 8 – Michael W. Wynne, Secretary of the Air Force [“Sovereign Options: Securing Global Stability
and Prosperity A Strategy for the US Air Force”, Air University, Strategic Studies Quarterly,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508798&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf]
Over the last century, the scope of US international responsibility has vastly increased, but the Constitutional imperatives that guide our
military’s mission remain unchanged. When scholars look at the role the United States has played in the international system since WWII, they
sometimes compare it to the Pax Romana or the Pax Britannica of previ ous centuries. here is some truth to this, but
if there is an
American Pax, it is a very generous one; the sort that seeks to increase the well-being and liberty of all
who wish to join and asks only that those who do not join refrain from using violence against those who
do. The benefits the international system derives from US leadership are impressive. For over half a century, the
United States has been the world’s foremost defender of international stability and has taken the
leading role in building and leading the coalitions that preserve it. This leadership led to the fall of the
Nazi and Soviet regimes and provided the stable backdrop against which countries like Japan, Germany, and
China initiated their economic miracles. It also contributed to 60 years without major-power war, the
establishment of open international trading relations, and the unprecedented spread of democratic
governance. Unfortunately, in the current era, many have become so accustomed to global stability that they wonder why the United
States continues to invest in its armed forces. Over the last two decades, we have allowed our strategic forces to atrophy as
our major-power competitors have increased their own; and we have readily discussed peace dividends
as we stretched our combat forces to the breaking point. It is true there is a great deal of goodwill in the international
system to day, yet the current security and prosperity enjoyed by those living within the borders of the
United States and its allies are based on more than good will. Major-power competitors regularly probe
US defenses in the air and continuously attack our military infrastructure in cyberspace. Mid-range competitors
persistently purchase technologically advanced surface-to-air missiles and fighters that undermine our
deterrent forces. Numerous ac tors have the capability and desire to disrupt the existing system. Since the
last days of the Cold War, US-led coalitions have fought wars in six countries—Panama, Kuwait, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq—and
participated in many other military operations. Perhaps more
important than the wars we have fought over the last two
decades are the wars we have not fought. It has been many years since an opposed major power threatened us directly. Our
globally deployed forces, our alliances and coalitions, and the quality and quantity of our strategic forces
signal states around the world that aggression does not pay. This type of peace through strength was the dream of the
League of Nations and later of the United Nations, but neither organization achieved the consensus necessary to carry out its vision. Today the
United States, acting with allies or ad hoc coalitions of the willing, has let both the peaceful and violent states of the world know through its
action that we will preserve peace. The impact of this deterrent presence cannot be overstated. In
most regions of the world,
peaceful states no longer feel the need to build large armed forces to defend against bellicose
neighbors, and many potentially revisionist states understand that the resource requirements to
compete militarily with the United States are too high—our own capability deters such conflicts from even
emerging. While we fight vicious battles on the frontiers, we must not forget that the zone of stability we have
created through our vigilance and forward presence is the largest in history. This is not a responsibility
the United States can shirk or hand of to another state or organization. No other country in the world today is able to
pick up the US leadership mantle. No other country or coalition is able to project power globally; nor could
anyone else develop that capability in the face of the current antiair and antisea threat environment.
From one perspective, America’s existing global power projection capability is a unique historical accident. At a time when the United States
controlled almost half of the world’s GNP, it also faced a bellicose Soviet Union. This combination led the United States to spend
unprecedented sums on its strategic forces (approximately half of its robust defense budget on the Air Force alone). The global web of bases,
air refueling aircraft, strategic bombers, satellites, and air superiority technology has served us well for half a century. Like
the legendary
Roman roads that enabled the Pax Romana, or the fleet and global network of naval bases that underwrote the Pax
Britannia, US airpower vastly magnifies our ability to project power beyond our borders. Maintaining these
strategic forces carries a price tag, but the United States does not fight so regularly or deter so thoroughly for purely altruistic reasons.
Without the peaceful environment facilitated by American diplomacy and arms, the United States would
not enjoy its current level of security and prosperity. The security and economic health of the United States are closely
intertwined with the stability and prosperity of the international system. Our citizens enjoy peaceful lives at home because
no major power believes it can challenge us and win; they prosper because we protect the global
commons. The United States cannot neglect its position of leader ship without grave consequences.
When Rome surrendered its mantle of leadership, the lights went out in Europe for a thousand years.
Between the time the British Empire declined and the United States rose, the world fought two world wars and
numerous lesser conflicts. It is true that the role the US military plays in the world today carries a price tag, but is more
than worth the cost. The Threats We Face In the current international system, the United States and its allies face two principal threats.
The first comes from major-power opponents with access to modern conventional and nuclear weapons. It is easy to dis miss the
possibility of major-power war in today’s peaceful system, but big wars, with their apocalyptic potential for suffering
and destruction have a tendency to happen unexpectedly. Even when they do not occur, America’s
opponents often base their demands on their perception of our ability to fight and win wars. Such major
conventional or nuclear wars are by far the gravest military threat we face, and the perception that we are
too weak to stand behind our global commitments is the surest route to such a war. Above all, the US
military must prevent major-power opponents from believing they can benefit from using their military
power against America’s vital interests.
Biotech Impact
A shortage in STEM workers cripples US biotech leadership- thas necessary to develop
countermeasures to bioterrorism
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].
China/India Impact
Immigration reform expands skilled labor --- spurs relations and economic growth in
China and India.
L os A ngeles Times, 11/9/2012 (Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, p.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-bysource-countries.html)
"Comprehensive immigration reform 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/India relations averts South Asian nuclear war.
Schaffer, Spring 2002 (Teresita – Director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Security, Washington Quarterly, p. 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.
Chinese economic growth prevents global nuclear war
Kaminski 7 (Antoni Z., Professor – Institute of Political Studies, “World Order: The Mechanics of
Threats (Central European Perspective)”, Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 1, p. 58)
As already argued, the economic advance of China has taken place with relatively few corresponding changes in the political system, although
the operation of political and economic institutions has seen some major changes. Still, tools are missing that would allow the establishment of
political and legal foundations for the modem economy, or they are too weak. The tools are efficient public administration, the rule of law,
clearly defined ownership rights, efficient banking system, etc. For these reasons, many experts fear an
Considering the importance of the state for the development of the global economy, the crisis would
economic crisis in China.
have serious global
repercussions. Its political ramifications could be no less dramatic owing to the special position the military occupies in the Chinese
political system, and the existence of many potential vexed issues in East Asia (disputes over islands in the China Sea and the Pacific). A
potential hotbed of conflict is also Taiwan's status. Economic recession and the related destabilization of internal policies
could lead to a political, or even military crisis. The likelihood of the global escalation of the conflict is high, as
the interests of Russia, China, Japan, Australia and, first and foremost, the US clash in the region.
Clean Tech Impact
High skilled immigrants solve clean tech
Norris 10--Teryn, "Racing for Clean Tech Jobs: Why America Needs an Energy Education Strategy", Daily Kos, March 18th,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/18/847363/-Racing-for-Clean-Tech-Jobs:-Why-America-Needs-an-Energy-Education-Strategy
In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the
U nited S tates faces serious questions about the future of its economy and jobs
market. Where will the good jobs of the future come from, how do we prepare the American workforce, and what is our
strategy to maintain economic leadership in an increasingly competitive world? A growing consensus suggests that clean tech will be
one of our generation's largest growth sectors . The global clean-tech market is expected to surpass
$1 trillion in value within the next few years, and a perfect storm of factors - from the inevitability of a carbon-constrained world, to
skyrocketing global energy demand, to long-term oil price hikes - will drive global demand for clean-energy technologies. That is why the
national debate about global clean-tech competitiveness is so important, sparked by the rapid entry of China and
other nations. My colleagues and I recently contributed to the discussion with "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a large report providing the first
comprehensive analysis of competitive positions among the U.S. and key Asian challengers. In order to compete, we found,
"U.S. energy
policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean-technology R&D,
manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure." But even if the United States adopts a real industrial policy for clean
energy, there is little evidence that our workforce is skilled enough to compete . Unfortunately, according to the
Department of Energy, "The U.S. ranks behind other major nations in making the transitions required to
educate students for emerging energy trades, research efforts and other professions to support the
future energy technology mix." A competitive energy workforce requires much more than technicians and
building retrofitters. Scientists, engineers, high-tech entrepreneurs, and advanced manufacturers will play a
critical role, just as they have in strategic sectors like infotech, aerospace, and biotech. The federal government has started to address the need
for green technician and efficiency retrofit training, such as with the Green Jobs Act, but it has not implemented an education strategy to keep
the U.S. at the leading edge of energy science, technology, and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, the
majority of our colleges and
universities lack degree programs focused on energy, and the U.S. power engineering education
system is on the decline. Over the next five years, 45 percent of electric utility engineers will be eligible for retirement, along with 40
percent of key power engineering faculty at U.S. universities, according to a report by IEEE. "Engineering workforce shortages are already
occurring," the report concludes. "We
need more electrical engineers to solve industry challenges, and to build the
21st century electric power grid... Meeting these needs requires long-term investment now." Meanwhile, other countries are
producing a substantially larger portion of scientists, engineers, and researchers that will benefit their
clean-tech industries. Science and engineering make up only about one-third of U.S. bachelor's
degrees, compared to 63 percent in Japan, 53 percent in China and 51 percent in Singapore, and the
number of Chinese researchers is now on par with the U nited S tates (though some have pointed out that the quality
of these graduates and researchers is not always comparable). "Over time," stated a recent report by the National Science Board, "the
U nited S tates has fallen from one of the top countries in terms of its ratio of natural science and
engineering degrees to the college-age population to near the bottom of the 23 countries for which data are available." The
energy workforce deficit and STEM education gap will substantially limit the nation's ability to lead
the clean-tech industry and accelerate clean energy development. As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman put it, "If you had
to explain America's economic success with one word, that word would be 'education.'" In order to succeed in the clean-tech industry, the
U.S. must develop an energy education strategy to develop tens of thousands of advanced energy
scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, as well as technicians.
Solves warming, the environment, and resource wars
Klarevas 9 –Louis Klarevas, Professor for Center for Global Affairs @ New York University, 12/15, “Securing American Primacy While
Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-klarevas/securing-americanprimacy_b_393223.html
As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference,
the time is ripe to re-assess America's current energy policies - but within the larger framework of how a
new approach on the environment will stave off global warming and shore up American primacy. By not
addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the U nited S tates is squandering an opportunity to secure
its global primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S. must rely on innovation
to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that
will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver potential great power
rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the greening of American strategy must occur soon. The U.S.,
however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is
portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action. This, though, is an unfair
characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead one between
realists and liberals. Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are
not seen as advancing national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis-à-vis the other major powers in the system:
Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global
warming might very
well become the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined
national interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote
American national interests. What both sides need to understand is that by
becoming a lean, mean, green fighting
machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective interest
which benefits every nation, while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the
future. To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's first
ever green hegemon. Hegemons are countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries in times of global
crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and
cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia
laid in ruin, the global economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system
longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed. The
U.S., emerging the least scathed by the
systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the postwar (and current)
liberal order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S.
was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S. With the
U.S. becoming bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of
American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to
challenge the U.S. on a variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace. Not all hope is
lost however. With
the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds
itself in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international
community collectively and the U.S. selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is
fueling animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its
'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty
zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major power rivals - a contest
which threatens American primacy and global stability. Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run national economies
is producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the global economy remains oildependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are predicting as much as a 60% increase in
carbon dioxide emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely means more devastating water shortages,
droughts, forest fires, floods, and storms. In other words, if global competition for access to energy resources does not
undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the instability. Oil arguably has been the most
precious energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will be green gold clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no alternative. And the sooner we realize
this, the better off we will be. What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's firstever green hegemon. For starters, the
federal government must drastically increase investment in energy and
environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice, committing
upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent. By promoting a new
national project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown in a pool of oil.
Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and
expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries that can store
massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels, and hydrogen-based fuels;
and even fusion. Such
innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an
edge in the global competition for hegemony . If the U.S. is able to produce technologies that allow
modern, globalized societies to escape the oil trap, those nations will eventually have no choice but to
adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of
leverage that can be employed to keep potential foes in check. The bottom-line is that the U.S. needs to become green
energy dominant as opposed to black energy independent - and the best approach for achieving this is
to promote a national strategy of greengemony.
Ext. CIR k2 Climate/Warming
Current immigration law endangers all innovation – reform is key
McCraw, professor emeritus at Harvard Business School, 11/1/2012
(Thomas, “Innovative Immigrants,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/immigrants-asentrepreneurs.html?pagewanted=all)
SOME 70 million immigrants have come to America since the first colonists arrived. The role their labor has played in economic
development is widely understood. Much less familiar is the extent to which their remarkable innovations have driven American
prosperity. Indeed, while both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have lauded entrepreneurship, innovation and “job creation,” neither
candidate has made comprehensive immigration reform an issue, despite immigrants’ crucial role in those fields. Yet understanding how
immigrants have fueled innovation through history is critical to making sure they continue to drive prosperity in the future.
At the country’s beginning, the three most important architects of its financial system were immigrants: Alexander Hamilton, from St. Croix,
then part of the Danish West Indies; Robert Morris, born in Liverpool, England; and Albert Gallatin of Geneva. Morris was superintendent of
finance during the Revolutionary War, using every resource at his command to support the army in the field. Hamilton, as the first secretary of
the Treasury, rescued the country from bankruptcy and designed its basic financial system. Gallatin paid down much of the national debt,
engineered the financing of the Louisiana Purchase and remains the longest-serving Treasury secretary ever. Immigrants’ financial innovations
continued through the 19th century. In 1808 Alexander Brown, from Ireland, founded the nation’s first investment bank, and his immigrant
sons set up Brown Brothers. The Lehman brothers, from Germany, began as dry-goods merchants and cotton brokers in Alabama, then moved
to New York just before the Civil War and eventually founded a bank. Many other immigrants, including Marcus Goldman of Goldman Sachs,
followed similar paths, starting very small, traveling to new cities and establishing banks. Meanwhile, “Yankee” firms like Kidder, Peabody and
Drexel, Morgan — whose partners were native-born — remained less mobile, tied by family and high society to Boston and New York.
Immigrant innovators were pioneers in many other industries after the Civil War. Three examples were Andrew Carnegie (Scotland, steel),
Joseph Pulitzer (Hungary, newspapers) and David Sarnoff (Russia, electronics). Each came to America young, poor and full of energy. Carnegie’s
mother brought the family to Pittsburgh in 1848, when Andrew was 12. He became a bobbin-boy in a textile mill, a telegram messenger, a
telegraph-key operator, a low-level manager at the Pennsylvania Railroad, a division superintendent for the same railroad and a bond salesman
for the railroad in Europe. Recognizing the limitless market for the rails that carried trains, Carnegie jumped to steel. His most important
innovation was “hard driving” blast furnaces, wearing them out quickly. This violated the accepted practice of “coddling” furnaces, but he
calculated that his vastly increased output cut the price of steel far more than replacing the furnaces cost his company. In turn, an immense
quantity of cheap steel found its way into lucrative new uses: structural steel for skyscrapers, sheet steel for automobiles. Pulitzer was the
home-tutored son of a prosperous Hungarian family that lost its fortune. He came to the United States in 1864 at age 17, recruited by a
Massachusetts Civil War regiment. Penniless after the war ended, he went to St. Louis, a center for German immigrants, whose language he
spoke fluently. He worked as a waiter, a railroad clerk, a lawyer and a reporter for a local German newspaper, part of which he eventually
purchased. In 1879, he acquired two English-language papers and merged them into The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In 1883, he moved to New
York, where he bought The New York World and began a fierce competition with other New York papers, mainly the Sun and, later, William
Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. The New York World was pro-labor, pro-immigration and, remarkably, both serious and sensationalist. It
achieved a huge circulation. Sarnoff was just 9 years old when he arrived from Russia in 1901. He earned money selling Yiddish newspapers on
the street and singing at a synagogue, and then worked as an office clerk, a messenger and, like Carnegie, a telegraph operator. From there he
became part of the fledgling radio firm RCA and rose rapidly within its ranks. Sarnoff was among the first to see radio’s potential as “point-tomass” entertainment, i.e., broadcasting. He devoted a huge percentage of profits to research and development, and won an epic battle with
CBS over industry standards for color TV. For decades, RCA and electronics were practically synonymous. As these men show, one
of the
key traits of immigrant innovators is geographic mobility, both from the home country and within the United States. Consider
the striking roster of 20th-century immigrants who led the development of fields like movies and information technology: the Hollywood
studios MGM, Warner Brothers, United Artists, Paramount and Universal; the Silicon Valley companies Intel, eBay, Google, Yahoo and Sun
Microsystems. The economist Joseph Schumpeter — yet another immigrant, and the most perceptive early analyst of innovation — considered
it to be the fundamental component of entrepreneurship: “The typical entrepreneur is more self-centered than other types, because he relies
less than they do on tradition and connection” and because his efforts consist “precisely in breaking up old, and creating new, tradition.” For
that reason, innovators always encounter resistance from people whose economic and social interests are threatened by new products and
methods. Compared with the native-born, who have extended families and lifelong social and commercial relationships, immigrants
without such ties — without businesses to inherit or family property to protect — are in some ways better prepared to play
the innovator’s role. A hundred academic monographs could not prove that immigrants are more innovative than native-born Americans,
because each spurs the other on. Innovations by the blended population were, and still are, integral to the economic
growth of the U nited S tates. But our overly complex immigration law hampers even the most obvious innovators’
efforts to become citizens. It endangers our tradition of entrepreneurship, and it must be repaired — soon.
Solves warming
Norris and Jenkins 9, *Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute, * Director of Energy and Climate Policy, The Breakthrough
Institute,(Teryn and Jessie, “ Want to Save the World? Make Clean Energy Cheap,” Huffington Post, March 10,
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/03/want_to_save_the_world_make_cl.shtml)
Whatever the cause, we
have very little chance of overcoming climate change without enlisting young
innovators at a drastically greater scale. Simply put, they represent one of the most important catalysts
for creating a clean energy economy and achieving long-term prosperity. The reason is this: at its core,
climate change is a challenge of technology innovation. Over the next four decades, global energy
demand will approximately double. Most of this growth will happen in developing nations as they continue
lifting their citizens out of poverty and building modern societies. But over the same period, global greenhouse gas
emissions must fall dramatically to avert the worst consequences of climate change. Shortly before his
untimely death in 2005, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Smalley coined this the "Terawatt Challenge": increasing global energy
production from roughly 15 terawatts in 2005 to 60 terawatts annually by 2100 in a way that simultaneously confronts the challenges of global
warming, poverty alleviation, and resource depletion. The
single greatest obstacle to meeting the Terawatt Challenge is the
"technology gap" between dirty and clean energy sources. Low-carbon energy technologies remain significantly more
expensive than fossil fuels. For example, solar photovoltaic electricity costs up to three to five times that of coal electricity, and plug-in hybrid
and electric vehicles can be twice as expensive as their gasoline-fueled competitors. Unless
this technology gap is bridged and
clean energy technologies become affordable and scalable, poor and rich nations alike will continue
opposing significant prices on their carbon emissions and will continue relying primarily upon coal and
other fossil fuels to power their development. This will virtually assure massive climate
destabilization. So the task is clear: to avoid climate catastrophe and create a new energy economy,
we must unleash our forces of innovation - namely, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs- to invent a new
portfolio of truly scalable clean energy technologies, chart new paths to bring these technologies to
market, and ensure they are affordable enough to deploy throughout the world.
Ext. Climate – Solves Internationally
Causes international cooperation
Herman and Smith ‘10, *founder of a immigration and business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio which serves a global clientele in over
10 languages, *veteran journalist who covers international cultures and immigration issues for the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Richard and Robert,
“Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy,” Immigration Policy Center, 2010, http://immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/whyimmigrants-can-drive-green-economy)
It should come as no surprise that immigrants will help drive the green revolution . America’s young scientists and
engineers, especially the ones drawn to emerging industries like alternative energy, tend to speak with an accent. The 2000 Census found that
immigrants, while accounting for 12 percent of the population, made up nearly half of the all
scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees. Their importance will only grow. Nearly 70 percent of the men and women
who entered the fields of science and engineering from 1995 to 2006 were immigrants. Yet, the connection between immigration and the
development and commercialization of alternative energy technology is rarely discussed. Policymakers
envision millions of new
jobs as the nation pursues renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, and builds a smart
grid to tap it. But Dan Arvizu, the leading expert on solar power and the director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the
U.S. Department of Energy in Golden, Colorado, warns that much of the clean-technology talent lies overseas, in
nations that began pursuing alternative energy sources decades ago. Expanding our own clean-tech
industry will require working closely with foreign nations and foreign-born scientists, he said.
Immigration restrictions are making collaboration difficult . His lab’s efforts to work with a Chinese energy lab, for
example, were stalled due to U.S. immigration barriers. “We can’t get researchers over here,” Arvizu, the son of a once-undocumented
immigrant from Mexico, said in an interview in March 2009, his voice tinged with dismay. “It makes no sense to me. We need a much more
enlightened approach.” Dr. Zhao Gang, the Vice Director of the Renewable Energy and New Energy International Cooperation Planning Office of
the Ministry of Science and Technology in China, says that America needs that enlightenment fast. “The Chinese government continues to
impress upon the Obama administration that immigration
restrictions are creating major impediments to U.S.China collaboration on clean energy development,” he said during a recent speech in Cleveland. So what’s the problem?
Some of it can be attributed to national security restrictions that impede international collaboration on clean energy. But Arvizu places greater
weight on immigration barriers, suggesting that national secrecy is less important in the fast-paced world of green-tech development. “We are
innovating so fast here, what we do today is often outdated tomorrow. Finding solutions to alternative energy is a complex, global problem that
requires global teamwork,” he said. We
need an immigration system that prioritizes the attraction and retention
of scarce, high-end talent needed to invent and commercialize alternative energy technology and
other emerging technologies. One idea we floated by Arvizu was a new immigrant “Energy Scientist Visa,” providing
fast-track green cards for Ph.D.s with the most promising energy research, as reviewed by a panel of top U.S. scientists. Arvizu
enthusiastically responded, “Wow, that’s a brilliant idea.” As the recent submission of the Startup Visa Act bill suggests, there’s really no
shortage of good ideas of leveraging immigration to jumpstart the economy. The challenge is getting the American people to understand that
high-skill immigration creates jobs, that the current system is broken, and that action is required now.
Cyberwar Impact
Increasing green cards generates effective IT experts to combat cyber war
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 United States, 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.
That deters and solves the impact to cyberattacks
Saydjari 8 (O. Sami, Cyber Defense Agency, LLC, “Structuring for Strategic Cyber Defense: A Cyber
Manhattan Project Blueprint”, 2008 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference,
http://www.acsac.org/2008/program /keynotes/saydjari.pdf)
As a step toward a security research plan that includes such capabilities, we should identify endstates—
goals in terms of how we want our systems to ideally operate. This fresh perspective includes the overall
strategic picture and connects clearly with strategic actions that significantly mitigate strategic
vulnerabilities. If, for example, the nation has a capability to quickly recover its critical information
infrastructure, then the end-state is that strategic attack damages are mitigated and critical services
are restored quickly, possibly deterring adversaries from attempting a future attack. Desired EndStates. The National Cyber Defense Initiative (NCDI) Opening Moves Workshop [4] identified important
end-states, the outcome of a 10- year research effort to create critical capabilities. The following endstates appear in the workshop proceedings: --Continuity of Critical Information Infrastructure
Operations. Create technology that would be the basis for a resilient US cyber infrastructure that
would sustain critical functions in the face of attacks, including those that could be affected by
determined adversaries. --Well-Defended Critical Assets. Make it economically prohibitive for an
adversary to cause strategic damage to critical US infrastructures. Currently, adversaries can attack
critical systems without investing substantial resources.
Key to leadership
Bush and McLarty 9 (Jeb, Former Governor – Florida and Thomas F. III, President – McLarty
Associates, et al., “U.S. Immigration Policy”, CFR Independent Task Force Report, 63, July,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/20030/ us_immigration_policy.html)
Immigrants are especially important in science, technology, and engineering, which are so critical to U.S.
economic competitiveness. Foreign students and immigrants make up more than half the scientific
researchers in the United States; in 2006, they received 40 percent of science and engineering PhDs and 65
percent of computer science doctorates. Among postdoctoral students doing research at the highest levels, 60 percent are foreign born. This is
not a recent development; even in the 1980s, some 40 percent of engineering and computer science students in the United States came from
abroad. On one significant measure of innovation, the number of patents issued each year, the United States far surpasses any country in the
world; immigrants
produce nearly 25 percent of those patents, or roughly twice their share of the U.S. population.30 Other
studies have shown that an increase in the number of foreign graduate students in the United States results in
significant increases in the number of patent applications.31 Overall, the share of all patents awarded to U.S. scientists of
Chinese and Indian origin grew from just 4 percent in the late 1970s to 14 percent in the early part of this decade; at Intel, the world’s largest
semiconductor maker, 40 percent of the patents are for work done by Chinese or Indian immigrants. Just as important, this increased
innovation by recent immigrants actually coincided with an increase in the number of patents awarded to nativeborn scientists as well, indicating that American-born and immigrant scientists are feeding off each other to
enhance the country’s overall innovative capacity.32 One in four engineering and technology companies established in the
United States between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder.33 The four countries that create the greatest number of new companies per
capita—the United States, Canada, Australia, and Israel—all have large immigrant populations.34 It is not an overstatement to say that the
United States would not enjoy anything close to its current technological and entrepreneurial leadership if it had
maintained a closed immigration policy. Amy Chua, the Yale historian and legal scholar, argues in her recent book, Day of
Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance—and Why They Fall, that the successful great powers in history have been
those able to attract and make use of the most talented people the world has to offer. “At any given historical
moment,” she writes, “the most valuable human capital the world has to offer—whether in the form of intelligence, physical
strength, skill, knowledge, creativity, networks, commercial innovation, or technological invention—is never to be found in any one
locale or with any one ethnic or religious group. To pull away from its rivals on a global scale, a society must pull
into itself and motivate the world’s best and brightest, regardless of ethnicity, religion or background.” America, she argues, has
been more successful than any other country in the world in recent history in attracting and mobilizing such talents. The Task Force believes
that maintaining
robust levels of immigration, allowing for fluctuations based on the state of the economy, is firmly in
America’s national interests. In particular, continuing to attract highly skilled immigrants is critical to the
competitiveness of the U.S. economy, and to America’s ability to remain the world’s leader in
innovation. The United States must open its doors more widely to such people.
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
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
details of VLF submarine communication methods can be found online, including PC-based VLF reception.
“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 destroyed. 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 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
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 nonnuclear 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
may be imminent, yet they can no longer verify it.
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.
AT: High Skill Inev
Will only happen as part of CIR – no chance of piecemeal legislation
Pando Daily 2-28 (News source for Silicon Valley-related news. “Gang of Eight senator: Startup visa
has a 'good chance'” LexisNexis)
A member of the so-called 'Gang of Eight' senators who are leading the charge on bi-partisan immigration reform today said
that a startup visa has a 'good shot' at being included in the final legislative proposal put before
Congress. Startup community leaders have been lobbying Congress to include a visa for foreigners who want to start companies in the US in
legislation for comprehensive immigration reform. While the Gang of Eight has indicated ready support for increasing the cap on H-1B visas for
high-skilled immigrants and creating visas to keep people with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math in the US, they
have so far given no public indication as to whether or not their final proposal would also include a provision for a startup visa. The omission
has concerned startup advocates, who argue that such a visa is crucial for attracting and retaining top tech talent that would help fuel job
growth in the country. Earlier today, the Kauffman Foundation released a report[1] that said a startup visa could help create 1.6 million jobs
over the course of 10 years. Speaking today at a roundtable event on immigration hosted by Engine Advocacy and the Consumer Electronics
Association in the Capitol, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) provided hope for supporters of the visa. In
response to a question from
PandoDaily about how likely it is that such a visa would be included in the final proposal put before
Congress, Sen. Flake said 'There's a good chance.' He did not, however, address a part of the question that asked why such a visa
has so far not been mentioned among the Gang of Eight's proposals. Perhaps partly because of that lack, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) has made a
startup visa a key part of his recently introduced Startup Act 3.0[2] bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Chris Coons (DDE), and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO). Meanwhile, three other members of Congress at the roundtable all expressed support for innovation-friendly
reform of immigration laws. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, 3rd District) stood out as a lone voice calling for 'piecemeal' reform that would separate
high-skilled immigration issues from more controversial issues like finding a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. 'We need to tackle this
piecemeal as opposed to one big comprehensive bill,' Chaffetz said. He urged the audience of startups, who were attending the session as part
of Startup Day on the Hill[3], to help prevent the bill from collapsing under its own weight. 'The comprehensive side has been tried in the past
and it has fallen down at the finish line every time,' he said. However, Chaffetz was occupying a minority position. President Obama
and
the Democratic-controlled Senate have said they will formally oppose any immigration reform bill
that isn't comprehensive. Rep. Susan DelBene (D-WA, 1st District), a former entrepreneur, said she comes from a unique district that
encompasses high-tech companies such as Microsoft and Amazon, as well as agricultural areas that rely on immigrant labor. She said that it's
important to pass comprehensive reform to serve all those groups. 'It is important for them and our overall economy that we address those
issues quickly,' she said. Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA, 27th District) said that 'We should have in this country the philosophy that we value immigrants.'
She also argued that the family visa, which has not been updated in two decades, should be a priority. Even if an immigrant gets an H-1B visa,
she noted, his or her spouse are still not allowed to work in the US, can't get a driver's license, and can't open a bank account. It was Sen. Flake,
however, who had the most sobering message for his fellow Republican, Chaffetz. Flake, who earlier joked that he joined the Gang of Eight
because 'I just always wanted to be part of a gang!' said that Congress
must consider comprehensive reform because of
stark political realities. Said Sen. Flake: 'We have to realize it's not our party that's in control of the
Senate.' [Read our series on immigration reform.][4] [Illustration by Hallie Bateman[5] for Pandodaily] Hamish McKenzie Hamish McKenzie is
a Baltimore-based reporter for PandoDaily who covers media, politics, and international startups. His first name is pronounced "hey-mish" and
you can follow him on Twitter[6].
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.
Agriculture Impacts
CIR k2 Agriculture
Ag industry’s collapsing now---immigration’s key to revive it
Serrano ’12 [Alfonso Serrano 12, Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on
Immigration Laws, Time, 9-21-12, http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmersblame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/]
The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state anti-immigration laws account
for acute labor shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom, stringent
immigration laws have forced waves of
undocumented immigrants to flee certain states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of crops
have been left to rot in the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic
help.¶ “The enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that we’ve depended
on for 20 or 30 years,” said Ralph Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National Immigration Forum, adding that last year
Washington farmers — part of an $8 billion agriculture industry — were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. “It’s
getting worse each year,” says Broetje, “and it’s going to end up putting some growers out of business if
Congress doesn’t step up and do immigration reform.”¶ (MORE: Why Undocumented Workers Are Good for the Economy)¶
Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No
U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by
anti-immigration measures threaten
Nationwide, labor
to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition.
shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
CIR key to agriculture industry stability
Abou-Diwan 1-28 (Antoine, “Bipartisan immigration proposal acknowledges agriculture's needs”
January 28, 2013, Imperial Valley Press)¶
Bipartisan immigration proposal acknowledges agriculture's needs¶ The bipartisan proposal unveiled
Monday paves the way to legalization of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants with a program described as “tough but fair.”¶ It
also addresses
the concerns of the agricultural industry, whose labor pool by some estimates is
composed of some 50 to 70 percent unauthorized workers.¶ “Agricultural workers who commit to the longterm stability of our nation’s agricultural industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented
population because of the role they play in ensuring that Americans have safe and secure agricultural
products to sell and consume,” states the proposal.¶ Total farmworkers in Imperial County fluctuated between 8,000 and 11,000 in
2012, according to data from the Employment Development Department.¶ “There’s definitely recognition that agriculture will be taken care
of,” said Steve Scaroni, a Heber farmer who has lobbied Washington extensively on immigration
reform.¶ The proposal is based on
four broad principles: a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants living in the United States,
reform of the system to capitalize on characteristics that strengthen the economy, the creation of an effective
employment verification system and improving the immigration process for future workers.¶ The
principles are broad and many details need to be worked out.¶ “The principles acknowledge that the situation in
agriculture is distinct and requires different treatment,” said Craig Regelbrugge, chairman of the
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, a group that represents the landscape and nursery industry.¶ Access to a
legal and stable work force is vital, Regelbrugge said, as is a workable program that eliminates or reduces
hurdles for a future work force.¶ “We would like to see the agriculture legalization program attractive so there are incentives for
them to work in the sector,” Regelbrugge noted.¶ The proposals also acknowledge that the United States immigration system is broken, and
address criticism that not enough is being done to enforce existing immigration laws. To that end, Monday’s proposals are contingent on secure
borders.¶ But, the acknowledgement of the agriculture sector’s needs allows for some optimism.¶ “As
long as the labor supply
solutions are there, we can support the enforcement solutions,” Regelbrugge said.
Immigrants key to agricultural production
Yglesias 6/22 [Matt Yglesias 06/22/2012 “Broad Immigration Reform Necessary To Bolster Economic
Growth”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/immigration-reform-economic-growth_n_1619451.html]
Last week, the Obama administration reignited the immigration debate with a modest effort to accomplish some of the goals of the DREAM
legislation that’s languished in Congress for over a year. But while the administration’s decision to suspend deportations of certain young illegal
immigrants is a huge deal for the people directly impacted, his order affects a very small number of people. It is more a political gesture than a
game-changing economic policy, which is too bad, because broader
immigration reform—aimed explicitly at allowing more people
one of the best things we can do to
bolster economic growth in both the short and long terms. Among those who recognize this, it’s become fashionable to
to come here voluntarily and work, rather than at “securing the border”—remains
focus on the narrow case for immigration of high-skilled workers. Adam Ozimek and Noah Smith recently wrote a wonky piece on this theme
for the Atlantic, and Tim Fernholz delivered a more whimsical take for Reuters. But while the case for high-skilled immigrants is strong, and the
desire to take the focus off the culturally freighted topic of migration from Latin America politically understandable, an excessive focus on the
idea of importing supergeniuses and talented engineers tends to obscure the fact that essentially any able-bodied, hard-working migrant is
good for the American economy. It’s not just the doctors and the Google co-founders. Those who mop floors and cook tacos also serve. That’s
because different
“factors of production”—including unskilled labor—are largely complementary. This can be
most clearly seen in agriculture. Some land in America is farmed, most is not. Much of the land is only profitable to cultivate at a
wage level that few American workers find appealing. When we cut off the flow of migrant farm workers, that doesn’t
magically create high-paying jobs for Americans; it leads in the short term to crops rotting in the fields and in the
long term to less land being cultivated. The land and the unskilled labor, in other words, are complements.
More unskilled labor would mean more cultivated land. That would mean more agricultural output
and more jobs for people who manufacture farm equipment, build food-processing facilities, or provide accounting or
legal services to agricultural firms.
Ag sector suffering due to crackdowns on farms, reforming immigration solves
Rathke 5/10/10 (Lisa Rathke, staff writer for Businessweek, “US Farmers: Immigration Reform needed
for workers,” May 10, 2010, accessed from
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FJROHO0.htm on June 30, 2010.)
Even during the recession, foreign workers harvested vegetables, milked cows and picked apples on many
U.S. farms, doing work that farmers say Americans don't want to do. Most Americans shy away from
jobs such as hand-picking tomatoes or cutting cabbage because the work is seasonal, physically tough, out in the elements and
often in remote areas, farmers say. To get the jobs done, many farmers hire foreign workers, including some
who are illegal, and they say a crackdown on illegal immigration combined with changes to a visa
program for temporary workers could make it even harder for them to find reliable employees.
Farmers want Congress to pass an "AgJobs" bill that would enable those who have worked in U.S.
agriculture for at least 150 days in the previous two years to get some kind of legal status. They also
say the visa program for temporary workers needs to be simplified. Without those changes, some
farmers say they may have to cut back production because of a shortage of reliable labor.
Food Shortages Impact
Comprehensive reform is key to food security
ACIR ‘7 (December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
Dear Member of Congress: The Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) is deeply concerned with pending immigration
enforcement legislation known as the ‘Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007' or ‘SAVE Act’ (H.R.4088 and S.2368).
While these bills seek to address the worthy goal of stricter immigration law enforcement, they
fail to take a comprehensive
approach to solving the immigration problem. History shows that a one dimensional approach to the nation’s
immigration problem is doomed to fail. Enforcement alone, without providing a viable means to obtain
a legal workforce to sustain economic growth is a formula for disaster. Agriculture best illustrates this
point. Agricultural industries that need considerable labor in order to function include the fruit and
vegetable, dairy and livestock, nursery, greenhouse, and Christmas tree sectors. Localized labor
shortages have resulted in actual crop loss in various parts of the country. More broadly, producers are
making decisions to scale back production, limit expansion, and leave many critical tasks unfulfilled.
Continued labor shortages could force more producers to shift production out of the U.S., thus stressing
already taxed food and import safety systems. Farm lenders are becoming increasingly concerned about the stability of
affected industries. This problem is aggravated by the nearly universal acknowledgement that the current H-2A agricultural guest worker
program does not work. Based on government statistics and other evidence, roughly 80 percent of the farm labor force in the United States is
foreign born, and a significant majority of that labor force is believed to be improperly authorized. The bills’ imposition of mandatory electronic
employment eligibility verification will screen out the farm labor force without providing access to legal workers. Careful study of farm labor
force demographics and trends indicates that there is not a replacement domestic workforce available to fill these jobs. This feature alone will
result in chaos unless combined with labor-stabilizing reforms. Continued
failure by Congress to act to address this
situation in a comprehensive fashion is placing in jeopardy U.S. food security and global
competitiveness. Furthermore, congressional inaction threatens the livelihoods of millions of Americans
whose jobs exist because laborintensive agricultural production is occurring in America. If production is forced
to move, most of the upstream and downstream jobs will disappear as well. The Coalition cannot defend of the broken status quo. We support
well-managed borders and a rational legal system. We have worked for years to develop popular bipartisan legislation that would stabilize the
existing experienced farm workforce and provide an orderly transition to wider reliance on a legal agricultural worker program that provides a
fair balance of employer and employee rights and protections. We respectfully urge you to oppose S.2368, H.R.4088, or any other bills that
would impose employment-based immigration enforcement in isolation from equally important reforms that would provide for a stable and
legal farm labor force.
Food insecurity sparks World War 3
Calvin ’98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281,
No. 1, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling.
Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful
countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and
lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries
would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant
remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating
competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far
east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer
do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Food Shortages O/W
Probability- History proves food shortages are the most likely cause of extinction
Brown ’11 (from World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, by Lester R.
Brown © 2011 Earth Policy Institute
For the Mayans, it was deforestation and soil erosion. As more and more land was cleared for farming to support the expanding empire, soil
erosion undermined the productivity of their tropical soils. A team of scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
noted that the extensive land clearing by the Mayans likely also altered the regional climate, reducing rainfall. In effect, the scientists suggest, it
was the convergence of several environmental trends, some reinforcing others, that led to the food
shortages that brought down
the Mayan civilization. 26 Although we live in a highly urbanized, technologically advanced society, we
are as dependent on the earth’s natural support systems as the Sumerians and Mayans were. If we continue with business as usual,
civilizational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when. We now have an economy that is destroying its natural support systems, one
that has put us on a decline and collapse path. We
are dangerously close to the edge. Peter Goldmark, former Rockefeller
death of our civilization is no longer a theory or an academic possibility; it is the
road we’re on.” 2 Judging by the archeological records of earlier civilizations, more often than not food
shortages appear to have precipitated their decline and collapse. Given the advances of modern agriculture, I had
long rejected the idea that food could be the weak link in our twenty-first century civilization. Today I think not only that it
could be the weak link but that it is the weak link.
Foundation president, puts it well: “The
Magnitude- food shortages mean extinction
Takacs ‘96 (David, The Idea Of Diversity: Philosophies Of Paradise, 1996, p. 200-1.)
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value
of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with
global ecology and human futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in
global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human
beings remain heavily dependent
on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in
which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a
thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama:
What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of
climatic change, soil erosion , loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion of
productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local
climates will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem services falter,
mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower life expectancies to the point where cancer
(largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from
a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a
bang but a whimper.
Food Shortages Protectionism Impact
US food shortages cause protectionism
Pollan ‘8 (BOOKS ARTICLESAPPEARANCESMEDIA PRESS KITNEWSRESOURCES TODAY’S LINK Farmer in
Chief By Michael Pollan The New York Times Magazine, October 12, 2008
The impact of the American food system on the rest of the world will have implications for your foreign
and trade policies as well. In the past several months more than 30 nations have experienced food riots,
and so far one government has fallen. Should high grain prices persist and shortages develop, you can
expect to see the pendulum shift decisively away from free trade, at least in food. Nations that opened their markets to
the global flood of cheap grain (under pressure from previous administrations as well as the World Bank and the I.M.F.) lost so many farmers
that they now find their ability to feed their own populations hinges on decisions made in Washington (like your predecessor’s precipitous
embrace of biofuels) and on Wall Street. They
will now rush to rebuild their own agricultural sectors and then seek
to protect them by erecting trade barriers. Expect to hear the phrases “food sovereignty” and “food security” on the lips of
every foreign leader you meet. Not only the Doha round, but the whole cause of free trade in agriculture is probably dead, the casualty of a
cheap food policy that a scant two years ago seemed like a boon for everyone. It is one of the larger paradoxes of our time that the very same
food policies that have contributed to overnutrition in the first world are now contributing to undernutrition in the third. But it turns out that
too much food can be nearly as big a problem as too little — a lesson we should keep in mind as we set about designing a new approach to
food policy.
Protectionism causes extinction
Miller and Elwood ’88 (Miller and Elwood, 1988 International Society for Individual Liberty , http://www.freemarket.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html, gender modified
TRADE WARS: BOTH SIDES LOSE When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of Country "B", the government
of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". The result? A trade war in which both sides
lose. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . . . WHEN
GOODS DON'T CROSS
BORDERS, ARMIES OFTEN DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot
shooting wars: Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when
restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to
exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated US government
imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports - a major factor leading to the American Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a half
trade
barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild
recession, US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and
signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25
other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding
halt, and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The
depression in turn led to World War II. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE The world enjoyed its
greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw
no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted
politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged
policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is the
economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy
century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting
of protectionism is a philosophy of war." Ludwig von Mises THE SOLUTION: FREE TRADE A century and a half ago French economist and
statesman Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: "It is always beneficial," he said, "for a nation to specialize in what it can
produce best and then trade with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home." In the 20th century,
journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because trade makes specialization possible, and
specialization increases output, and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. That being so, the market place is
a most humane institution." WHAT CAN YOU DO? Silence gives consent, and there should be no consent to the current waves of restrictive
trade or capital control legislation being passed. If you agree that free trade is an essential ingredient in maintaining world peace, and that it is
important to your future, we suggest that you inform the political leaders in your country of your concern regarding their interference with free
trade. Send them a copy of this pamphlet. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media and send this pamphlet to them.
Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends. Check on how the issue is being taught in the
schools. Widespread public understanding of this issue, followed by citizen action, is the only solution. Free trade is too important an issue to
leave in the hands of politicians. "For thousands of years, the tireless effort of productive men and women has been spent trying to reduce the
distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of commerce and trade. "Over the same span of history, the slothful and
incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect barriers in order to prohibit competition - thus, effectively moving communities farther
apart. When trade is cut off entirely, the real producers may as well be on different planets. The protectionist represents the worst in humanity:
fear of change, fear of challenge, and the jealous envy of genius. The
protectionist is not against the use of every kind of
force, even warfare, to crush his rival. If [hu]mankind is to survive, then these primeval fears must be
defeated."
Small Farms Impact
Key to small farms
Gual 10, 10/17/2010 (Frank, Farm job, anyone?, Associated Content, p.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5877166/farm_job_anyone.html)
Those calling for tougher immigration laws and the UFW claim that farmers have become accustomed to hiring undocumented workers who are willing to work for little, and now make up half
. Legal immigrants make up a quarter of the farm labor. Those Americans who do get hired to do farm work often disappear
quickly.¶ Farm work is often offered in remote locations which city dwellers find difficult to get to, and one solution would be to provide
transportation from central cities with high unemployment to outlying farms. Another possibility would be to use prisoners incarcerated for minor offenses.¶ A shortage of
farm labor will cause food prices to rise at a time when many people are out of work and may be receiving government assistance. It will also increase our
dependence on imported food, which may not be up to FDA standards and could cause health problems, as has already happened.¶ Another effect of the farm labor shortage
will be the continued disappearance of small family farms, which will either be abandoned or bought
by large conglomerates whose management is far removed from the local community.
the farm labor force
Prevents extinction
Altieri 8 - Professor of agroecology @ University of California, Berkeley. [Miguel Altieri (President,
Sociedad Cientifica LatinoAmericana de Agroecologia (SOCLA), “Small farms as a planetary ecological
asset: Five key reasons why we should support the revitalization of small farms in the Global South,”
Food First, Posted May 9th, 2008, pg. http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2115]
The Via Campesina has long argued that farmers need land to produce food for their own communities and for their country and for this reason has advocated for genuine agrarian
reforms to access and control land, water, agrobiodiversity, etc, which are of central importance for communities to be able to meet
growing food demands. The Via Campesina believes that in order to protect livelihoods, jobs, people's food security and health, as well
as the environment, food production has to remain in the hands of small- scale sustainable farmers and
cannot be left under the control of large agribusiness companies or supermarket chains. Only by changing the export-led, free-trade based, industrial
agriculture model of large farms can the downward spiral of poverty, low wages, rural-urban migration, hunger and
environmental degradation be halted. Social rural movements embrace the concept of food sovereignty as an alternative to the neo-liberal approach that puts
its faith in inequitable international trade to solve the world’s food problem. Instead, food sovereignty focuses on local autonomy, local markets, local
production-consumption cycles, energy and technological sovereignty and farmer to farmer networks.¶ This global movement, the Via Campesina, has
recently brought their message to the North, partly to gain the support of foundations and consumers, as
political pressure from a wealthier public that increasingly depends on unique food products from the South marketed via organic, fair trade, or slow food channels could marshal the sufficient
political will to curb the expansion of biofuels, transgenic crops and agro-exports, and put an end to subsidies to industrial farming and dumping practices that hurt small farmers in the South.
the
But can these arguments really captivate the attention and support of northern consumers and philanthropists? Or is there a need for a different argument—one that emphasizes that
very quality of life and food security of the populations in the North depends not only on the food products, but in the ecological services provided by small farms of the South. In fact, it is
small farming systems still prevalent in Africa, Asia and Latin America—in the post-peak oil era that humanity is entering—
comprise an ecological asset for humankind and planetary survival . In fact, in an era of escalating fuel
and food costs, climate change, environmental degradation, GMO pollution and corporate- dominated
food systems, small, biodiverse, agroecologically managed farms in the Global South are the only viable form of
agriculture that will feed the world under the new ecological and economic scenario.¶ There are at last five reasons
why it is in the interest of Northern consumers to support the cause and struggle of small farmers in the South:¶ 1. Small farmers are key for the world’s
herein argued that the functions performed by
food security¶ While 91% of the planet’s 1.5 billion hectares of agricultural land are increasingly being devoted to agro-export crops, biofuels and transgenic soybean to feed cars
millions of small farmers
produce the majority of staple crops
and cattle,
in the Global South still
needed to feed the planet’s rural and
urban populations. In Latin America, about 17 million peasant production units occupying close to 60.5 million hectares, or 34.5% of the total cultivated land with average farm sizes of about
1.8 hectares, produce 51% of the maize, 77% of the beans, and 61% of the potatoes for domestic consumption. Africa has approximately 33 million small farms, representing 80 percent of all
farms in the region. Despite the fact that Africa now imports huge amounts of cereals, the majority of African farmers (many of them women) who are smallholders with farms below 2
hectares, produce a significant amount of basic food crops with virtually no or little use of fertilizers and improved seed. In Asia, the majority of more than 200 million rice farmers, few farm
more than 2 hectares of rice make up the bulk of the rice produced by Asian small farmers. Small increases in yields on these small farms that produce most of the world´s staple crops will
have far more impact on food availability at the local and regional levels, than the doubtful increases predicted for distant and corporate-controlled large monocultures managed with such
high tech solutions as genetically modified seeds.¶ 2.
Small farms are more productive and resource conserving than large-
scale monocultures ¶ Although the conventional wisdom is that small family farms are backward and unproductive, research shows that small farms are much
more productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop. Integrated farming systems in which the small-scale farmer produces grains, fruits,
vegetables, fodder, and animal products out-produce yield per unit of single crops such as corn (monocultures) on large-scale farms. A large farm may produce more corn per hectare than a
small farm in which the corn is grown as part of a polyculture that also includes beans, squash, potato, and fodder. In polycultures developed by smallholders, productivity, in terms of
harvestable products, per unit area is higher than under sole cropping with the same level of management. Yield advantages range from 20 percent to 60 percent, because polycultures reduce
losses due to weeds, insects and diseases, and make more efficient use of the available resources of water, light and nutrients. In overall output, the diversified farm produces much more
food, even if measured in dollars. In the USA, data shows that the smallest two hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per acre. The largest farms, averaging
15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare. Not only do small to medium sized farms exhibit higher yields than conventional farms, but do so with much
lower negative impact on the environment. Small farms are ‘multi-functional’– more productive, more efficient, and contribute more to economic development than do large farms.
Communities surrounded by many small farms have healthier economies than do communities surrounded by depopulated,
large mechanized farms. Small farmers also take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil erosion
and conserving biodiversity.¶ The inverse relationship between farm size and output can be attributed
to the more efficient use of land, water, biodiversity and other agricultural resources by small farmers. So in terms of
converting inputs into outputs, society would be better off with small-scale farmers. Building strong rural economies in the Global South based on productive small-scale farming will allow the
people of the South to remain with their families and will help to stem the tide of migration. And as population continues to grow and the amount of farmland and water available to each
person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet, especially when large- scale agriculture devotes itself to feeding car tanks.¶ 3.
Small
traditional and biodiverse farms are models of sustainability ¶ Despite the onslaught of industrial farming, the persistence of thousands
of hectares under traditional agricultural management documents a successful indigenous agricultural strategy of adaptability and resiliency. These microcosms of traditional agriculture that
have stood the test of time, and that can still be found almost untouched since 4 thousand years in the Andes, MesoAmerica, Southeast Asia and parts of Africa, offer promising models of
The local knowledge
accumulated during millennia and the forms of agriculture and agrobiodiversity that this wisdom has nurtured, comprise a
Neolithic legacy embedded with ecological and cultural resources of fundamental value for the future of
humankind.¶ Recent research suggests that many small farmers cope and even prepare for climate
change, minimizing crop failure through increased use of drought tolerant local varieties, water harvesting, mixed cropping, opportunistic weeding, agroforestry and
sustainability as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year-round yields even under marginal environmental conditions.
a series of other traditional techniques. Surveys conducted in hillsides after Hurricane Mitch in Central America showed that farmers using sustainable practices such as “mucuna” cover crops,
intercropping, and agroforestry suffered less “damage” than their conventional neighbors. The study spanning 360 communities and 24 departments in Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala
showed that diversified plots had 20% to 40% more topsoil, greater soil moisture, less erosion, and experienced lower economic losses than their conventional neighbors.¶ This demonstrates
that a re-evaluation of indigenous technology can serve as a key source of information on adaptive capacity and resilient capabilities exhibited by small farms—features of strategic importance
for world farmers to cope with climatic change. In addition, indigenous technologies often reflect a worldview and an understanding of our relationship to the natural world that is more
realistic and more sustainable that those of our Western European heritage.¶ 4. Small farms represent a sanctuary of GMO-free agrobiodiversity¶ In general, traditional small scale farmers
grow a wide variety of cultivars . Many of these plants are landraces grown from seed passed down from generation to generation, more genetically heterogeneous than modern cultivars, and
thus offering greater defenses against vulnerability and enhancing harvest security in the midst of diseases, pests, droughts and other stresses. In a worldwide survey of crop varietal diversity
on farms involving 27 crops, scientists found that considerable crop genetic diversity continues to be maintained on farms in the form of traditional crop varieties, especially of major staple
crops. In most cases, farmers maintain diversity as an insurance to meet future environmental change or social and economic needs. Many researchers have concluded that this varietal
richness enhances productivity and reduces yield variability. For example, studies by plant pathologists provide evidence that mixing of crop species and or varieties can delay the onset of
diseases by reducing the spread of disease carrying spores, and by modifying environmental conditions so that they are less favorable to the spread of certain pathogens. Recent research in
China, where four different mixtures of rice varieties grown by farmers from fifteen different townships over 3000 hectares, suffered 44% less blast incidence and exhibited 89% greater yield
than homogeneous fields without the need to use chemicals.¶ It is possible that traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, competitive ability, performance on intercrops,
storage quality, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities which may not be important to farmers (Jordan, 2001). Under this scenario, risk could increase and farmers would lose their ability
to adapt to changing biophysical environments and increase their success with relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs while supporting their communities’ food security.¶
Although there is a high probability that the introduction of transgenic crops will enter centers of genetic diversity, it is crucial to protect areas of peasant agriculture free of contamination
from GMO crops, as traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, food or fodder quality, maturity, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, taste or
cooking properties, compatibility with household labor conditions, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities (i.e. herbicide resistance) which are of no importance to farmers who don’t use
agrochemicals . Under this scenario risk will increase and farmers will lose their ability to produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs under changing biophysical
environments. The social impacts of local crop shortfalls, resulting from changes in the genetic integrity of local varieties due to genetic pollution, can be considerable in the margins of the
Global South.¶
Maintaining pools of genetic diversity, geographically isolated from any possibility of cross fertilization or genetic pollution from uniform
act as
safeguards against potential ecological failure
transgenic crops will create “islands” of intact germplasm which will
extant
derived from the
second green revolution increasingly being imposed with programs such as the Gates-Rockefeller AGRA in Africa. These genetic sanctuary islands will serve as the only source of GMO-free
seeds that will be needed to repopulate the organic farms in the North inevitably contaminated by the advance of transgenic agriculture. The small farmers and indigenous communities of the
Global South, with the help of scientists and NGOs, can continue to create and guard biological and genetic diversity that has enriched the food culture of the whole planet.¶ 5.
Small
farms cool the climate ¶ While industrial agriculture contributes directly to climate change through no less
emissions of the major g reen h ouse g ase s — Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), small, biodiverse
organic farms have the opposite effect by sequestering more carbon in soils. Small farmers usually treat their soils with
than one third of total
organic compost materials that absorb and sequester carbon better than soils that are farmed with conventional fertilizers. Researchers have suggested that the conversion of 10,000 small- to
Further climate amelioration
contributions by small farms accrue from the fact that most use significantly less fossil fuel in
comparison to conventional agriculture mainly due to a reduction of chemical fertilizer and pesticide
use, relying instead on organic manures, legume-based rotations, and diversity schemes to enhance beneficial insects. Farmers who live in rural communities
medium-sized farms to organic production would store carbon in the soil equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road.¶
near cities and towns and are linked to local markets, avoid the energy wasted and the gas emissions associated with transporting food hundreds and even thousands of miles.¶ Conclusions¶
The great advantage of small farming systems is their high levels of agrobidoversity arranged in the form of variety
mixtures, polycultures, crop-livestock combinations and/or agroforestry patterns. Modeling new agroecosystems using such diversified designs are extremely valuable to farmers whose
systems are collapsing due to debt, pesticide use, transgenic treadmills, or climate change. Such diverse systems buffer against natural or human-induced variations in production conditions.
There is much to learn from indigenous modes of production, as these systems have a strong ecological basis, maintain valuable genetic diversity, and lead to regeneration and preservation of
Traditional methods are particularly instructive because they provide a long-term perspective on
successful agricultural management under conditions of climatic variability.¶ Organized social rural movements in the
biodiversity and natural resources.
Global South oppose industrial agriculture in all its manifestations, and increasingly their territories constitute isolated areas rich in unique agrobiodiversity, including genetically diverse
material, therefore acting as extant safeguards against the potential ecological failure derived from inappropriate agricultural modernization schemes. It is precisely the ability to generate and
maintain diverse crop genetic resources that offer “unique” niche possibilities to small farmers that cannot be replicated by farmers in the North who are condemned to uniform cultivars and
to co-exist with GMOs. The “ cibo pulito, justo e buono” that Slow Food promotes, the Fair Trade coffee, bananas, and the organic products so much in demand by northern consumers can
only be produced in the agroecological islands of the South. This “difference” inherent to traditional systems, can be strategically utilized to revitalize small farming communities by exploiting
opportunities that exist for linking traditional agrobiodiversity with local/national/international markets, as long as these activities are justly compensated by the North and all the segments of
Consumers of the North can play a major role by supporting these more equitable markets
which do not perpetuate the colonial model of “agriculture of the poor for the rich,” but rather a model that promotes small biodiverse farms as
the basis for strong rural economies in the Global South. Such economies will not only provide
sustainable production of healthy, agroecologically-produced, accessible food for all, but will allow
indigenous peoples and small farmers to continue their millennial work of building and conserving the agricultural and
natural biodiversity on which we all depend now and even more so in the future.
the market remain under grassroots control.¶
US Ag Key
US agriculture is the key internal link – not inevitable and we solve alt causes
Bidinotto ’10 (How to Cultivate a Food Crisis December/29/10 How to Cultivate a Food Crisis by Robert
James Bidinotto
As any shopper knows, food prices this past year have been rising faster than the overall rate of inflation. “Fears
of a global food crisis swept the world’s commodity markets as prices for staples such as corn, rice and wheat spiraled after the U.S.
government warned of ‘dramatically’ lower supplies,” the Financial Times reported in early October. “There
is growing concern
among countries about continuing volatility and uncertainty in food markets,” said World Bank president Robert
Zoellick later that month. “These concerns have been compounded by recent increases in grain prices.” Confronting this looming
food-supply crisis is the American farmer. His productivity is such that the United States is the world’s
largest agricultural exporter, with $108.7 billion in farm products shipped abroad in 2010. Helping him increase the
supply of agricultural products is the key to addressing both rising food prices and global shortages . His
productivity is also critical to our country’s broader economic recovery.
Remittances Impacts
CIR k2 Remittances
Reform key to remittances
Oppenheimer, writer for the Miami Herald, 1/19/2013
(Andres, “Andres Oppenheimer: Obama may help Latin America - without trying,”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/19/3189668/obama-may-help-latin-americawithout.html#storylink=cpy)
Let’s start with the obvious: Obama doesn’t have a history of special interest in Latin America.
When I interviewed him for the first time in 2007, he had never set foot in the region. And during his
first term, unlike most of his predecessors, he didn’t come up with any grand plan for Latin America —
granted, he had to focus on resurrecting the U.S. economy — and instead stated that his top foreign
policy priority is Asia’s Pacific rim.
Still, he may end up being great for Latin America, for reasons that have very little to do with Latin
America.
First, there are better-than-even chances that — emboldened by his 71-27 victory margin among Latino
voters in the 2012 elections — Obama will be able to pass an immigration reform plan that could
legalize many of the estimated 11 million undocumented residents in the United States.
That would be a godsend to the economies of Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia and
Ecuador. Most experts agree that once undocumented workers get legal status, they get better jobs
and can send more money to their relatives back home.
Microcredit I/L
Remittances key to global microcredit diffusion
Giuliano, Asst Professor Economics – UCLA, fellow – NBER and IZA, ‘6
(Paola, “Remittances, Financial Development, and Growth,” Institute for the Study of Labor, Discussion
Paper No. 2160)
[footnote 3 included]
The relationship between remittances, financial development and growth is a-priori ambiguous. On one
hand, well-functioning financial markets, by lowering costs of conducting transactions, may help direct
remittances to projects that yield the highest return and therefore enhance growth rates. On the other
hand, remittances might become a substitute for inefficient or nonexistent credit markets by helping
local entrepreneurs bypass lack of collateral or high lending costs and start productive activities.3
[footnote 3 begins]
Entrepreneurs in developing countries confront much less efficient credit markets, and available
evidence indicates that access to credit is among their biggest concerns (Paulson and Towsend, 2000).
Several recent papers also suggest that credit constraints play an especially critical role in determining
growth prospects in economies characterized by a high level of income inequality (Banerjee and
Newman, 1993; Aghion and Bolton, 1997; Aghion, Caroli and Garcia Penalosa, 1999)
[footnote 3 ends]
The empirical analysis finds strong evidence that the second channel works: remittances boost growth in
countries with less developed financial systems by providing an alternative way to finance investment
and helping overcome liquidity constraint. In contrast, while more developed financial systems seems
to attract more remittances (the volumes of remittance inflows increase with lower transaction costs
and fewer restrictions on payments), they do not seem to magnify their growth impact.
Although this mechanism has not been studied in a macro context, there is some evidence at the microlevel. Dustmann and Kirchamp (2001) find that the savings of returning migrants may be an important
source of startup capital for microenterprises. Similarly, in a study of 30 communities in West-Central
Mexico, Massey and Parrado (1998) conclude that earnings from work in the United States provided
an important source of startup capital in 21% of the new business formations. Woodruff and Zenteno
(2001) also find that remittances are responsible for almost 20% of the capital invested in
microenterprises throughout urban Mexico.
Microcredit – Warming Impact
Key to climate adaptation
Carraro, OECD Environment Directorate, ‘10
(Maëlis, “Assessing the role of microfinance in fostering adaptation to climate change”, OECD
Environmental Working Paper No. 15)
Core elements of microfinance, a priori, make it attractive for facilitating adaptation by the poor
Microfinance provides access to basic financial services to the poor. Through small loans with
compulsory, frequent repayments to groups or individuals, microfinance helps the poor build up their
assets, establish or develop a business, and protect against risks. Microfinance institutions (MFIs) are
now spread all over the world (including in developed countries), and count over 100 million of the
world’s poor among their clients. Almost 90% of the clients of MFIs are women. The scope of
microfinance services, meanwhile, not only includes the provision of credit for income generation, but
also savings, insurance, money transfer, and educational and health loans. Many MFI’s also provide
“credit plus” complementary services such as skills education and training, health and nutrition
workshops, and advice on agricultural practices.
These elements of microfinance make it an attractive vehicle for facilitating adaptation. MFI’s already
have pre-existing networks of access to the poor – especially women – who are also particularly
vulnerable to climate change. Meanwhile, the nature of microfinance lending, consisting of high
volume, limited value loans, is also consistent with the fundamental nature of a majority of adaptation
actions that will ultimately consist of thousands of decentralised actions by individuals, households
and communities, as they continuously seek to internalise climate risks in their activities.
Despite its theoretical potential, very little is actually known about how microfinance interacts with
adaptation in practice
Through the provision of credit and other financial services microfinance helps the poor develop
alternate livelihood opportunities, build assets and spread risks. These actions would also – in most
cases -automatically reduce vulnerability to climate risk even if there is no explicit consideration of such
risks. From this perspective climate change might simply be one more reason to scale up microfinance.
However, what is perhaps more critical from an adaptation perspective are more specific issues like how
microfinance could be tapped for more targeted climate risk reduction and adaptation, for building
adaptive capacity for climate change, and for reducing incentives for mal-adaptation. Very little is
currently known about these latter, more specific, linkages which can only be examined through
detailed analysis of actual microfinance portfolios in regions that are also particularly vulnerable to the
impacts of climate change. The analysis of Bangladesh and Nepal in this report has been undertaken
within this context. Not only are the two countries particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change, but they also have a vibrant microfinance industry to make such an examination possible.
Empirical analysis of existing portfolios in Bangladesh and Nepal reveals that close overlaps already exist
between ongoing microfinanced activities and key climate change vulnerabilities
Analyses of existing microfinance portfolios of the 22 leading MFIs each in Bangladesh and Nepal reveal
that many existing projects are already directed at sectors and activities that would also be vulnerable
to climate change. This overlap is particularly strong for Bangladesh where agriculture, disaster relief
and preparedness, and water and sanitation – which are all particularly affected by climate change –
constitute almost 70% of the existing microfinance portfolio. For Nepal, meanwhile, the degree of
overlap between the orientation of existing microfinance programs and climate change vulnerabilities is
more limited. The dominant climate change risk in Nepal is in water resources and hydropower, whereas
the related category of microfinance programs, water and sanitation, is a relatively small part of the
overall portfolio. Collectively, the programs related to water, agriculture, health, and disasters (which
are all vulnerable to climate change) constitute slightly less than 47% of the existing portfolio. However,
even if programmatic priorities are closely intertwined with sectors and activities that might be
vulnerable to climate change, not all microfinance activities within these areas might be relevant for
adaptation. A more in-depth analysis of specific loan programs and projects is therefore required for this
purpose.
Microfinance is already promoting some adaptation to reduce vulnerability to current climate risks in
these countries and, in some isolated cases, also to climate change
A more detailed analysis of the credit programs and projects reveals that a number of existing
microfinance lending programs and projects already offer adaptation “win-wins”. In fact, 43% of the
portfolio that was examined in Bangladesh and 37% in Nepal could be classified as win-wins1, i.e.
synergistic with adaptation. These include, for example, lending programs that support disaster relief
and preparedness, crop diversification, improving access to irrigation, and provision of better
sanitation facilities that reduce the risks of water borne diseases. They also include at least a few
programs that go beyond coping or adapting to current climate risks. For example, lending programs to
support construction of weather resistant housing or the adoption of drought and salt tolerant seeds in
Bangladesh would also theoretically facilitate adaptation to longer term climate change. These latter
examples, however, remain isolated at this stage in the case of Bangladesh, and absent almost entirely
in Nepal.
Solves extinction from inevitable warming
Romero, 8
[Purple, reporter for ABS-CBN news, 05/17/2008, Climate change and human extinction--are you ready
to be fossilized? http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05/16/08/climate-change-and-humanextinction-are-you-ready-be-fossilized
Climate change killed the dinosaurs. Will it kill us as well? Will we let it destroy the human race? This was the grim, depressing
message that hung in the background of the Climate Change Forum hosted on Friday by the Philippine National Red Cross at the Manila Hotel.
"Not one dinosaur is alive today. Maybe someday it will be our fossils that another race will dig up in the future , " said
Roger Bracke of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, underscoring his point that no less than extinction
is faced by the human race, unless we are able to address global warming and climate change in this generation. Bracke,
however, countered the pessimistic mood of the day by saying that the human race still has an opportunity to save itself . This
more hopeful view was also presented by the four other speakers in the forum. Bracke pointed out that all peoples of the world must be
involved in two types of response to the threat of climate change: mitigation and adaptation. "Prevention" is no longer
possible, according to Bracke and the other experts at the forum, since climate change is already happening. Last chance The
forum's speakers all noted the increasing number and intensity of devastating typhoons--most recently cyclone Nargis in
Myanmar, which killed more than 100,000 people--as evidence that the world's climatic and weather conditions are turning
deadly because of climate change. They also reminded the audience that deadly typhoons have also hit the Philippines recently,
particularly Milenyo and Reming, which left hundreds of thousands of Filipino families homeless. World Wildlife Fund Climate and Energy
Program head Naderev Saño said that "this generation the last chance for the human race" to do something and ensure
that humanity stays alive in this planet. According to Saño, while most members of our generation will be dead by the time the
worst effects of climate change are felt, our children will be the ones to suffer. How will Filipinos survive climate change? Well, first of all, they
have to be made aware that climate change is a problem that threatens their lives. The easiest way to do this – as former Consultant for the
Secretariats of the UN Convention on Climate Change Dr. Pak Sum Low told abs-cbnews.com/Newsbreak – is to particularize the disasters that
it could cause. Talking in the language of destruction, Pak and other experts paint this portrait of a Philippines hit by climate change: increased
typhoons in Visayas, drought in Mindanao, destroyed agricultural areas in Pampanga, and higher incidence rates of dengue and malaria. Sañom
said that as polar ice caps melt due to global warming, sea levels will rise, endangering coastal and low-lying areas like Manila. He said Manila
Bay would experience a sea level increase of 72 meters over 20 years. This means that from Pampanga to Nueva Ecija, farms and fishponds
would be in danger of being would be inundated in saltwater. Sañom added that Albay, which has been marked as a vulnerable area to
typhoons, would be the top province at risk. Sañom also pointed out that extreme weather conditions arising from climate change, including
typhoons and severe droughts, would have social, economic and political consequences: Ruined farmlands and fishponds would hamper crop
growth and reduce food sources, typhoons would displace people, cause diseases, and limit actions in education and employment. Thus, Saño
said, while environmental protection should remain at the top of the agenda in fighting climate change, solutions to the phenomenon "must
also be economic, social, moral and political." Mitigation Joyceline Goco, Climate Change Coordinator of the Environment Management Bureau
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, focused her lecture on the programs Philippine government is implementing in
order to mitigate the effects of climate change. Goco said that the Philippines is already a signatory to global agreements calling for a reduction
in the "greenhouse gasses"--mostly carbon dioxide, chloroflourocarbons and methane--that are responsible for trapping heat inside the planet
and raising global temperatures. Goco said the DENR, which is tasked to oversee and activate the Clean Development Mechanism, has
registered projects which would reduce methane and carbon dioxide. These projects include landfill and electricity generation initiatives. She
also said that the government is also looking at alternative fuel sources in order do reduce the country's dependence on the burning of fossil
fuels--oil--which are known culprits behind global warming. Bracke however said that mitigation is not enough. "The ongoing debate about
mitigation of climate change effects is highly technical. It involves making fundamental changes in the policies of governments, making costly
changes in how industry operates. All of this takes time and, frankly, we're not even sure if such mitigation efforts will be successful. In the
meantime, while the debate goes on, the effects of climate change are already happening to us ." Adaptation A few nations
and communities have already begun adapting their lifestyles to cope with the effects of climate change. In
Bangladesh, farmers have switched to raising ducks instead of chickens because the latter easily succumb to weather
disturbances and immediate effects, such as floods. In Norway, houses with elevated foundations have been constructed to
decrease displacement due to typhoons. In the Philippines main body for fighting climate change, the Presidential Task Force on Climate
Change, (PTFCC) headed by Department on Energy Sec. Angelo Reyes, has identified emission reduction measures and has looked into what
fuel mix could be both environment and economic friendly. The Department of Health has started work with the World Health Organization in
strengthening its surveillance mechanisms for health services. However, bringing information hatched from PTFCC’s studies down to and
crafting an action plan for adaptation with the communities in the barangay level remains a challenge. Bracke said that the Red
Cross is already at the forefront of efforts to prepare for disasters related to climate change. He pointed out that since the Red Cross was
founded in 1919, it has already been helping people beset by natural disasters. "The problems resulting from climate change are not new to the
Red Cross. The Red Cross has been facing those challenges for a long time. However, the frequency and magnitude of those problems are
unprecedented. This is why the Red Cross can no longer face these problems alone," he said. Using a medieval analogy, Bracke said that the
Red Cross can no longer be a "knight in shining armor rescuing a damsel in distress" whenever disaster strikes. He said that disaster
preparedness in the face of climate change has to involve people at the grassroots level. "The role of the Red Cross in the era of climate change
will be less as a direct actor and increase as a trainor and guide to other partners who will help us adapt to climate change and respond to
disasters," said Bracke. PNRC chairman and Senator Richard Gordon gave a picture of how the PNRC plans to take climate change response to
the grassroots level, through its project, dubbed "Red Cross 143". Gordon explained how Red Cross 143 will train forty-four volunteers from
each community at a barangay level. These volunteers will have training in leading communities in disaster response. Red Cross 143 volunteers
will rely on information technology like cellular phones to alert the PNRC about disasters in their localities, mobilize people for evacuation, and
lead efforts to get health care, emergency supplies, rescue efforts, etc.
Microcredit – Hunger Impact
It solves global hunger
Pronyk, PhD, Rural AIDS & Development Action Research Programme @ the School of Public Health –
University of the Witwatersrand, ‘7
(Paul M, “Microfinance Programs and Better Health,” JAMA 298(16) p. 1925-1927)
A number of mechanisms exist through which access to microfinance may stimulate wider health and social benefits. Foremost
among these is supporting improvements in household economic well-being, including poverty reduction and an enhanced capacity to
meet basic needs such as food security. Notably, the share of people living in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa has
changed little since 1980 and nearly 26% of children in the region are reported to be malnourished.4 Evidence of the effects of
microfinance on poverty reduction from diverse settings is generally encouraging.8 For example, longitudinal
studies from Bangladesh have found an association between poverty reduction and greater
consumption attributable to microfinance participation, particularly among female loan recipients.9 Other evidence
points to substantial financial returns to capital investments made by small-scale entrepreneurs (60% per year
and higher).10-11 Although data from Africa are limited, a recent cluster randomized trial in South Africa reported
improvements in household asset ownership after 2 years of microfinance program involvement.12 Several studies also
suggest microfinance can positively influence nutritional outcomes. For example, longitudinal research from
Ghana, comparing participants both with nonparticipants in the same communities and with residents of control communities, reports
reductions in stunting and wasting in infants.13 Well-established programs in Bangladesh have
demonstrated similar effects on nutrition, where significant improvements in upper arm circumference in children 6 to 72
months old14 and lower rates of general malnutrition have been noted among microfinance households relative to controls.15
Mexican Econ Impact
US remittances key to Mexican economy
Newland, Director and co-founder – Migration Policy Institute, frmr Senior Associate – Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, lecturer – LSE, ‘4
(Kathleen, “Beyond Remittances: The Role of Diaspora in Poverty Reduction in their Countries of Origin,”
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Beyond_Remittances_0704.pdf)
Mexico is the second-largest recipient of remittances in the world. Its Diaspora is unusual in that,
compared to others discussed in this paper, it is so heavily concentrated in one country, the United
States. (Of course, many US citizens of Mexican origin live in parts of the country that were once part of
Mexico; in that sense, they are not a community of migrant origin). Like India, the government of
Mexico for decades had an attitude toward Mexicans who had left the homeland that was ambivalent at
best. Formal programs for Mexicans abroad began only in 1990. Two federal programs, the Paisano
Program and the Program for Mexican Communities Living Abroad (PCMLA) focused on improving the
treatment of returning migrants at the hands of Mexican border and customs officials and on improving
services to Mexicans in the United States. The PCMLA, which also helps channel remittances to local
development projects in Mexico, is implemented by the Foreign Ministry through Mexican consulates
and cultural centers in the United States.
Since 2000, the government has escalated its outreach to the Diaspora, with President Vicente Fox
referring to Mexican migrants as “heroes”. In 2001, his administration established the Presidential
Office for Mexicans Abroad, which was designed to strengthen ties between Mexican emigrants and
their communities of origin. The Fox Administration also introduced legislative changes to allow
Mexicans living abroad to hold US dollar accounts in Mexico and to maintain dual nationality (although
without voting rights). The government’s new activism has a two-fold emphasis: to expand the
opportunities for Mexicans abroad, and to facilitate remittances.
Mexican decline causes U.S. isolationism
Haddick, MBA – U. Illinois, managing editor – Small Wars Journal, ‘8
(Robert, http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-that-would-change-everything.html)
There is one dynamic in the literature of weak and failing states that has received relatively little
attention, namely the phenomenon of “rapid collapse.” For the most part, weak and failing states
represent chronic, long-term problems that allow for management over sustained periods. The collapse
of a state usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems. The collapse of
Yugoslavia into a chaotic tangle of warring nationalities in 1990 suggests how suddenly and
catastrophically state collapse can happen - in this case, a state which had hosted the 1984 Winter
Olympics at Sarajevo, and which then quickly became the epicenter of the ensuing civil war. In terms of
worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear
consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. Some forms of collapse in
Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an
even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear
weapons. That “perfect storm” of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition
forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger with no guarantee they could gain control of
the weapons and with the real possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used. The Mexican possibility
may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all
under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict
turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state.
Any descent by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious
implications for homeland security alone. Yes, the “rapid collapse” of Mexico would change everything
with respect to the global security environment. Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian,
constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal
government, indeed American society at large, would have little ability to focus serious attention on
much else in the world. The hypothetical collapse of Pakistan is a scenario that has already been well
discussed. In the worst case, the U.S. would be able to isolate itself from most effects emanating from
south Asia. However, there would be no running from a Mexican collapse.
Mexican declines causes oil shocks – crashes the global economy.
Moran, policy analyst – CFR, 7/31/’9
(Michael, “Six Crises, 2009: A Half-Dozen Ways Geopolitics Could Upset Global Recovery”)
Risk 2: Mexico Drug Violence: At Stake: Oil prices, refugee flows, NAFTA, U.S. economic stability A story
receiving more attention in the American media than Iraq these days is the horrific drug-related
violence across the northern states of Mexico, where Felipe Calderon has deployed the national army
to combat two thriving drug cartels, which have compromised the national police beyond redemption.
The tales of carnage are horrific, to be sure: 30 people were killed in a 48 hour period last week in
Cuidad Juarez alone, a city located directly across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas. So far, the impact
on the United States and beyond has been minimal. But there also isn’t much sign that the army is
winning, either, and that raises a disturbing question: What if Calderon loses? The CIA’s worst
nightmare during the Cold War (outside of an administration which forced transparency on it, of
course) was the radicalization or collapse of Mexico. The template then was communism, but narcocapitalism doesn’t look much better. The prospect of a wholesale collapse that sent millions upon
millions of Mexican refugees fleeing across the northern border so far seems remote. But Mexico’s
army has its own problems with corruption, and a sizeable number of Mexicans regard Calderon’s
razor-thin 2006 electoral victory over a leftist rival as illegitimate. With Mexico’s economy reeling and
the traditional safety valve of illegal immigration to America dwindling, the potential for serious
trouble exists. Meanwhile, Mexico ranks with Saudi Arabia and Canada as the three suppliers of oil the
United States could not do without. Should things come unglued there and Pemex production shut
down even temporarily, the shock on oil markets could be profound, again, sending its waves
throughout the global economy. Long-term, PEMEX production has been sliding anyway, thanks to oil
fields well-beyond their peak and restrictions on foreign investment. Domestically in the U.S., any
trouble involving Mexico invariably will cause a bipartisan demand for more security on the southern
border, inflame anti-immigrant sentiment and possibly force Obama to remember his campaign promise
to “renegotiate NAFTA,” a pledge he deftly sidestepped once in office.
Indian Econ Impact
Remittances from the U.S. key to Indian econ
Khan, Adjunct Professor Business and Law – Edith Cowan University, ‘9
(Amir Ullah, “NRIs remittances going up,”
http://www.thomex.com/article/resources_details.aspx?ID=R_2007060414180&catid=C_20090310142
1&flag=1, date at http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200905/1243487071.html)
[Note: NRI = Non-Resident Indian]
The Reserve Bank of India has announced that NRI
repatriation to India has already crossed $39 billion mark during the first nine
months of 2008. This means that the total for 2008 will easily be more than 40 billion dollars and even close to 50 billion
dollars. If 39 billion dollars have been received during the period January to September 2008, the last quarter would have received at least 20
per cent of the total which would take the total close to 50 billion dollars. The World Bank had projected that India would receive 30 billion
dollars from NRIs in 2008. This higher figure of at least 40 million dollars in 2008 will mean that NRIs
would have sent money that
is more than 5 per cent of the GDP of the country.
It is followed by Maharashtra. The increase in remittance is not
surprising given the fact that the rupee has been depreciating in value against almost all foreign currencies. In addition, Indian banks now offer
very high interest rates and have been allowed to offer the same high interest returns to Foreign Currency Non Resident accounts and the
nonresident rupee accounts. Two years ago, Non Resident Indians left Non Resident Chinese in the second position when in 2006; NRIs sent
back 27 billion dollars and the nonresident Chinese contributed 23 billion dollars to the Chinese economy. What is important to note is that
there are at least twice as many nonresident Chinese in the world as non resident Indians. Of the total 20 million Indian abroad, it is estimated
that about 8
million NRIs worldwide send money back home. While West Asia constitutes most of the volumes in terms of the
number of transactions, the US leads in terms of absolute value. The obvious questions is that with IT and allied sectors being
hit by the crisis, would many people still go abroad and would they still send as much money back home? The answer is a clear ‘Yes’ due to a
variety of reasons: people will always migrate for better opportunities; the dollar is at a high and is expected to be so for a while; Indian banks
are considered much ‘safer’ options to keep money since the recent crisis; interest rates overseas are abysmally low coupled with the fact that
the RBI too had increased NRE deposit rates, making it more sensible to park the money in India. Also, even though the share market and real
estate markets in India have taken beatings of late, the valuations are at such amazing levels that any investor would find it an extremely
lucrative option to enter. A combination of the last two points would mean that there would probably be a short term shift from the equity and
realty markets to risk-free, capital guaranteed deposits in India. Remittance of funds by expatriates to their home country depends principally
on the origin factors and destination factors. Non-resident
Indians are, in some cases, big earners and in most cases inclined
towards savings. These have resulted in India taking the leadership position in inward remittances from its expatriates. The US
economy is passing through a recessionary phase which in turn is affecting most countries in the world. The financial
sector is in turmoil with major banks and financial institutions (FIs) in a bad shape. These events have caused loss of jobs. NRIs too are
affected by this. However, there are many Indians abroad who will be in jobs. Compared to the major
developed countries, the Indian economy is still on rails and is likely to sustain a 7% GDP growth in the
current fiscal year. The banks and financial institutions in India are in a much better and stable shape. Notwithstanding the
volatile situation in the stock market, there are good investment opportunities in the country. The increase in the exchange rate of the dollar
makes the situation attractive. While loss of jobs and consequent loss of income will somewhat reduce the momentum but this will also see
NRIs returning to India. This will again result in a shift of their funds back to the country. The regular remittances, for family maintenance and
festivals will anyhow continue.
Collapses causes Asian war
Garten 95 (Jeffrey E., Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Development, “U.S. Policy
Toward South Asia”, Federal News Service, 3-7, Lexis)
For example, Lyndon Johnson launched the Indo-American Foundation to help stimulate education and consequently growth in India. He did so
at a major black-tie dinner in Washington attended by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. She accepted the offer -- which was later withdrawn -with great grace and hope. In her remarks she presaged why the relationship between our two peoples was so important. She cited the special
role of the United States in the world. Then she went on to say, "India's
problems today are her own, but they are also the
world's problems. India has a position in Asia which is an explosive position. India, if it is stable, united,
democratic, I think can serve a great purpose. If India is not stable, or if there is chaos, if India fails, I
think it is a failure of the whole democratic system. It is a failure of many of the values which you and we hold dear." Just a
few years later, Pakistan came apart, India invaded what would later become Bangladesh, and the United States was contemplating
intervention against the Indians. Indira Gandhi formalized India's relationship with the Soviet Union and exploded an atomic bomb. Later, Nixon
and Kissinger would come to view these events and American actions as critical turning points of Cold War realpolitik. This situation wasn't
helped when the United States moved even closer to Pakistan, nor when it normalized relations with China, thereby erasing the notion that
India could be our counterfoil against the other Asian giant. Let historians debate whether the Cold War rifts between our two great nations
were the result of genuine divergence of national interests which could not be avoided, or whether diplomacy failed -- or both. But today we
can all be forgiven if we conclude that our obsession with the "great game" of our time, the global successor to Kipling's "great game" for South
Asia, took an unnecessary toll on a relationship that deserved more than periodic infatuations. Now, of course, the Cold War is behind us. The
Soviet Union no longer exists. India, too, has
changed, embarking on a bold course of economic reforms that are
having the effect of opening the enormous Indian market for the very first time. American businesspeople
recognize the value of any market that size, but they also see the promise of India within Asia -- one of the two "elephants" among the tigers.
By the year 2025, for instance, India is likely to be the world's most populous nation in the world's fastest growing region. The Foundation for
Strong Indo-U.S. Ties The artificial barriers and discoloring lenses of Cold War politics now have fallen away. And our self-interest has motivated
us to reexamine the relationship. There is nothing wrong with self- interest, of course. It helps both parties to define and to understand a
relationship -- and it is more reliable than infatuation. But, when viewed in this new light -- this more honest, more revealing light we can see
that there is a basis -- a very strong basis -- for a natural bond between us. India is, after all, the world's largest democracy. America is among
the oldest. India will, within the next decade or so, become one of the worlds biggest and most important emerging markets. The United States
will remain the world's most important and mature market. India and the United States are linked by many cultural values. We share a common
language. We share the historical legacy of having been a colony of Britain. But that's not all. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the great American writer,
was heavily influenced by the Bhagavad- gita, the great Hindu poem written sometime between 400 B.C. and 400 A.D. In 1947, Indian officials
studied the American Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights before drafting their first constitution. These are but
two of many examples of shared values in our societies. Both of our countries are multicultural crucibles, struggling with the tensions cultural
differences bring, but revelling in the richness they offer. We are both revolutionary societies, founded on disobedience to tyranny. In fact, one
of the events leading to our struggle for independence, the Boston Tea Party, was a revolt against the tax which the British imposed on
American imports of Indian tea! We are both preoccupied with the development of human resources in our countries -- including those who
are living below the poverty level, those struggling to make a decent living, and those already possessing the most advanced scientific and
technical skills. We both recognize the importance of traditional values in a time of change, but we face the challenge of not using these values
as an excuse to resist change. We will both play a major role in the world, and are struggling to define that role. We both need one another in
the new era ahead, where commercial ties and commercial enlargement will be at the core of our bilateral and global interests. A New Vision
Recently, India's distinguished Ambassador, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, spoke of the U.S.-Indian relationship. He acknowledged that it would be
fair to characterize our joint history to date as an era of "missed opportunities." But, knowing and admiring him as I do, I believe that he would
be the first to underscore that what is missed is not necessarily forsaken. When Prime Minister Rao visited the U.S. last year, a new spirit was
born. President Clinton in his remarks to the Prime Minister and in private remarks within the Administration has repeatedly emphasized that
he hoped that we were entering a new era in our relationship, one in. which we were motivated by our great mutual interests to forge new,
closer ties. 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.
Nuclear war
Landy, National Security Expert @ Knight Ridder, 3/10/’2K
(Jonathan, Knight Ridder, 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 United States 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.
Deficit Impacts
Path to citizenship solves the deficit
Tucker 10 Cynthia is a columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “We need immigrants to help
pay the deficit,” Nov 19, http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/11/19/we-need-immigrants-to-helppay-the-deficit/
Recommendations for taming the deficit include raising the retirement age, raising the federal gas tax and ending the mortgage
interest deduction for homeowners. Ouch!¶ But there is a palliative that would ease the pain: Put 11 million illegal immigrants on a
path to legalization. And don’t touch birthright citizenship!¶ Yes, you heard that right: Granting legal residency to illegal
immigrants will eventually help sop up some of the federal budget’s red ink. I know that’s counterintuitive since so many
citizens have come to believe that Mexican landscapers and Guatemalan maids are a drain on the treasury. But the fact is that their
relative youth is just what the U.S. economy needs.¶ The explosion of the long-term deficit is largely the
consequence of an aging population, with more retirees depending on taxes from fewer workers. While
the recession, two unfunded wars and Bush-era tax cuts fueled the immediate deficit, a tsunami of long-term red ink will
swamp the budget in about ten years, as a massive wave of baby boomers leaves the workplace. ¶ So
we need as many younger workers as we can find to help support the coming crush of senior citizens. The U.S. is lucky enough to
have a higher birthrate than many other Westernized democracies, even among native-born women. Immigrants are an added demographic
bonus.¶ “When some people think of immigrants, they think of people coming in and immediately absorbing our resources,” said Emory
economist Jeffrey Rosensweig. “Most
immigrants come here to work. They’re young workers, and they’re paying taxes.” Why
not add all of them to the federal tax rolls?
Deficit will collapse hegemony and the economy---trigger global nuclear war
Khalilzad 11 – Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United
Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense
Department from 1990 to 1992, February 8, 2011, “The Economy and National Security; If we don’t get
our economic house in order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity,” online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad
Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach
dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense
budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth.
Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding
a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of
the United States internationally.¶ Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the
economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to
relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic
obligations, precipitating
weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union
If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench,
reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments.¶ We face this domestic challenge while other
to fragment.
major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their
economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to
The closing of the gap between the
U nited S tates and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers , increase
incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to
preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation.¶ The stakes are high. In modern
history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership . By contrast,
act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge.
multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major
wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.¶ American retrenchment could have
devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against
emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises
spiraling into all-out conflict . Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their
geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make
aggressive moves in their regions.¶ As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of
great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range
stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative
economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its
relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still,
hegemony and aggression .
the U nited S tates is the most significant barrier facing Chinese
K-Friendly Impacts
Agency
Illegal immigrants are subjected to virtual slavery
White 9 journalist specializing in liberal politics [Deborah, "Illegal Immigration Explained - Profits &
Poverty, Social Security & Starvation" http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/IllegalImmi.htm]
A major economic drawback, though, to allowing thousands...probably millions...of US businesses to pay
under-market wages and benefits to undocumented workers is that it depresses wages for all workers
in the US. All Americans workers, then have decreased incomes, lower benefits and higher rates of
poverty and hunger. An obvious moral drawback to allowing US businesses to pay under-market, lower than even minimum wage
rates, is that it's wrong. Minimum wage and standard minimal working conditions are established to
humanely provide for the safety and welfare of all workers...not just American-born workers. It's a matter of
decency and human rights, rooted in the United States' Christian-Judeo heritage. It's wrong and exploitative, and it's
immoral. It's an updated form of economic slavery. Writes Dr. Groody, "Immigrants die cutting North
Carolina tobacco and Nebraska beef, chopping down trees in Colorado, welding a balcony in Florida ,
trimming grass at a Las Vegas golf course, and falling from scaffolding in Georgia.... With an economic
gun at their backs, they leave their homes because hunger and poverty pushes them across the
border....Every day, immigrants dehydrate in deserts, drown in canals, freeze in mountains and
suffocate in tractor trailers. As a result, the death toll has increased 1,000 percent in some places."
The devaluation of agency eradicates the capacity to make meaningful political
judgments. Agency is a prerequisite for every value and a necessary condition for
establishing a just society.
Anthony Lang, Jr. The American University in Cairo, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 5
(1): 67-107, 1999, p. 77-79
This article proposes that the attribution of state responsibility undermines the agency of individual citizens. This consequence is morally
important because agency is the basis of first generation human rights, or political and civil rights. Without
agency, individuals will
be subjects and not citizens, that is, they will become pliant adherents to the will of the government and not
political actors interested in and able to affect the future of their political community . Certainly, other factors
will contribute to the undermining of' first generation human rights, ones that have no relation to the attribution of state responsibility, or even
a relation to foreign policy. But, as this article will argue, the attribution of state responsibility contributes toward the undermining of those
rights in a number of ways. What is agency, and why is it so important for civil life? The concept of agency has been a part of' sociology since
Max Weber's analyses of it (Weber, 1964: 87-157). In the past 15 years, it has found its way into the discipline of International Relations as well,
specifically through the works of Alexander Wendt (Wendt, 1987) who has generally followed the debates in sociology that focus on agency and
structure. The debate in International Relations parallels that between Weber from Marx - are individual, goal seeking persons or social and
political structures more important in understanding human interaction? In International Relations, the question has been posed as -- are
individual, goal seeking states or the structure of the international system more important in understanding the outcomes of international
political interaction? While drastically simplified, this question captures the debate in the social sciences, including International Relations,
concerning the question of agency. The notions of agency that underlie the arguments of' this article, however, are drawn more from political
philosophy than from the sociological literature. More specifically, my notion of' agency draws on three political philosophers. Hannah
Arendt has argued that action defines the human person in the political realm, that without the ability
to remake the web of social and political relations that action provides there can be no separate
sphere defined as the political (Arendt, 1958). Charles Taylor has also placed agency at the center of his attempts to understand the
political. He has argued persuasively that human agency is primarily the ability to interpret the self's actions in a meaningful way, i.e. a
self- interpretation that cannot be reduced to mere biological desire (Taylor, 1985). Richard Flathman's analyses of liberalism rely on a form of
agency in his argument that liberalism requires individuals who are able to resist the encroachments of normalization and institutionalization as
they assert themselves through their actions, words and thoughts (Flathman, 1992). Following these three thinkers, I assume the following
meaning for agency -- agency
is the ability to act and speak publicly with meaningful intentions in such a
way as to have an effect on the world. It requires the ability to interpret those actions in ways that may not always be
communicable at first, but do presume some sense of shared meaning (Taylor, 1985: 25).18 Furthermore, following Arendt, the ability to act is
central to the creation of the political sphere. Without action, politics could not take place, for it is through actions that communities are
constituted. Finally following Flathman, strong notions of agency are necessary for liberal and democratic citizenship. Unless
individuals
can think and act qua individuals, they will be unable to create a political community in which their rights are
protected. Agency is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for creation of a community that respects
civil and political rights. While this definition cannot be considered final, the elements of meaningfulness, publicness and willfulness
are all central to the understanding of agency I am using here. How does the attribution of state responsibility undermine individual agency?
Because the attribution of state responsibility does not depend on the responsibility of individuals within the state, there is a prima facie sense
in which individual agency is irrelevant to considerations of international responsibility. While being irrelevant does not cause something to
disappear, it certainly does not help in making that thing an important consideration. But even more importantly, certain manifestations of
state responsibility tend to undermine individual responsibility and agency. This article focuses on three aspects of agency -- physical, legal and
political. Each one of these aspects of agency is necessary to be an active citizen as opposed to simply a pliant subject of a community. Physical
agency means having a level of health and welfare that would allow one to pursue political activity. Legal
agency means having the
legal status as a citizen necessary to protect one's civil rights. Political agency, perhaps the most difficult to identify, is
the set of political beliefs and ideas that prompt an individual to act on behalf of his or her own interests in the public sphere. Again, Arendt's
work on political action captures the idea suggested here -- the idea that political
action is not just an addition to our daily
lives, but something -which distinguishes us from animals and which is necessary for our happiness. To inculcate the idea that
political action is a value in and of itself is a necessary step in the direction of a true democracy (Arendt, 1958)
AT: Impact Defense
AT: XO
No executive action – Obama knows the risks
Hamilton 3-26 (Keegan, “How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants
Today”, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/277799-dont-wait-for-presidentobama-to-act-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2OrYPaWXd)
With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk, it's unlikely he'll waste
political capital by halting deportations or even reducing the immigrant detainee population, despite the
budgetary considerations. The prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans, especially with a compromise so close, alarms activists like Tamar Jacoby,
president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an advocacy group comprised largely of small-business owners.¶ "We
have a Congress for a reason,"
Jacoby says. "To fix anything permanently you need to have legislation, and in order for that to happen it
has to be bipartisan. My worst nightmare is the president thinking, 'I don't need bipartisan legislation.
Why share credit with Republicans? I can just go on and do this myself.' I think that's a disastrous political strategy."¶ If the current
congressional push for immigration reform were to fail, however, a presidential pardon for undocumented immigrants with no criminal history might be Obama's
last ditch alternative to prosecutorial discretion. Rather than scaling back on detentions, Obama could instantly--and permanently-- legalize millions of illegal
immigrants. Beck, the Georgia law scholar, notes that the Constitution empowers the president to "grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United
States, except in cases of impeachment."¶ The question, he says, is "whether coming into the country in violation of the immigration laws or overstaying a visa
could be deemed an 'offense against the United States.'" But the president has broad powers of pardon, and it seems that Obama could exercise those powers here.
Beck cites United States v. Klein, an 1871 Supreme Court case that involved a presidential pardon issued during the Civil War to confederates who rejoined the
union and took an oath of loyalty.¶ But even
if executive-branch lawyers could put forth a legal rationale for the move,
there are political reasons why Obama would likely be reluctant to make it. Although potentially cementing loyalty from a
generation of Latinos, a mass pardon would likely be deeply unpopular with moderates and liberals who put faith in the legislative process, and would be
considered downright treasonous by many Republicans. Obama
could face Congressional censure or perhaps even
impeachment if he had any time remaining in office, and the backlash against Democrats could make the Tea Party-fueled,
Obamacare-inspired shellacking of 2010 look mild. ¶ "If in December 2016 Obama says, 'Unconditional pardon to
everybody in the country illegally,' that would totally dismantle Democratic Party governance for a
generation," Mayer says. " I don't think he wants that to be his legacy ."
XOs can be overturned – means legislation is key and comprehensive changes to the
immigration system must go through Congress
Bloomberg 2-11 (“Obama State of Union Means Executive Power for Defiant Congress”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-11/obama-poised-to-skirt-congress-to-seal-legacy-innew-term-agenda)
On climate change, gun control, gay rights, and even immigration, the White House has signaled a willingness to
circumvent lawmakers through the use of presidential power. Already, plans are being laid to unleash new executive
orders, regulations, signing statements and memorandums designed to push Obama’s programs forward and cement his legacy, according to
administration aides and allies. “The big things that we need to get done, we can’t wait on,” said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer. “If
we can take action, we will take action.” The
tactic carries political risk, beyond the backlash it will spark from
congressional Republicans. Advisers say the president -- who already faces charges from Republicans
that he is concentrating too much power in the White House -- remains cautious about getting too far
ahead of public opinion. And executive orders can be overturned by a future president a lot easier
than can legislation. What’s more, Obama will still need to work through Congress to deal with some
of the nation’s biggest concerns, including tax and spending issues as well as any comprehensive changes in the
immigration system.
Previous XOs have already been overturned
Goldfarb 2-10 (Zachary, writer for the Washington Post. “Obama weighing executive actions on
housing, gays and other issues” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-weighing-executiveactions-on-housing-gays-and-other-issues/2013/02/10/e966cc06-7065-11e2-8b8de0b59a1b8e2a_story.html)
These and other potential actions suggest that Obama is likely to rely heavily on executive powers to set domestic policy in his second term.
One White House official said that while
the president does not see the actions as substitutes for more
substantial legislation, he also wants to move forward on top priorities. But the approach risks
angering Republican lawmakers in Congress, who say they are leery of granting the executive branch
too much power and have already clashed with Obama over the issue. In a ruling last month, a federal
appeals court said Obama exceeded his constitutional powers in naming several people to the National
Labor Relations Board while the Senate was on a break. “It is a very dangerous road he’s going down contrary to the spirit of the
Constitution,” Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a recent interview. “Just because Congress doesn’t act doesn’t mean the president has a
right to act.”
The conclusion of their card flows neg – he’s already doing everything he can
The Hill 2-16 (“Dems: Obama can act unilaterally on immigration reform”
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583-dems-recognize-that-obama-can-actunilaterally-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2LEvg4R5R)
Not all immigration-reform supporters think Obama has so much space to move on immigration
without Congress. Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), vice-chairman of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, said the president has
some license to make border security moves and spending decisions. "But pretty much he's done what he can do right
now," Cuellar said Friday, "and after that it's up to Congress to address the rest of the issues." "It'd be better for
the president to wait for us," Cuellar said. "He can urge us [to act], but it'd be better for us to come up with our own proposal and let the
legislative process work itself."
Aff Answers
CIR Won’t Pass
Won’t Pass – House
Conservative House won’t pass immigration
Bangladesh Government News 6/30- “Conservative Backlash greets US immigration bill” June 30,
2013 http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DASORT&inPS=true&prodId=STND&userGroupName=lom_umichanna&tabID=T004&searchId=R1&resultLis
tType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=7&contentSet=
GALE%7CA335440113&&docId=GALE%7CA335440113&docType=GALE&role=
Conservatives have drawn a bull's eye on the immigration bill passed by the US Senate, insisting the
landmark measure will fail as is and vowing political retribution against Republicans who voted for it.
The bipartisan immigration reform bill passed 68-32 in the Senate Thursday with support from 14 Republicans, many of whom now face
accusations they let down conservatives opposed to legislation that lays a pathway to citizenship for
11 million undocumented people. Those lawmakers, including high-profile figures like Senator Marco Rubio, "will have to go back
home and explain the votes they cast, and explain to their constituents why it's not amnesty, even though it is," Dan Holler of Heritage Action, a
lobbying arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, told AFP on Friday. "In a very real sense, the Senate passage of the Gang of 8's bill killed
what we think is any hope for real immigration reform." The four Republicans who joined four Democrats in crafting the legislation were well
aware of the potential political pitfalls, perhaps none more than Rubio, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who has been a darling of the
small- government tea party movement. "It's been a real trial for me," Rubio said candidly on the Senate floor this week, acknowledging that his
office has been flooded with phone calls and emails by "increasingly unhappy" voters. Conservatives
worry about the bill's $46
billion price tag, and they are skeptical about a Congressional Budget Office report which estimated
that the bill would lead to dramatic deficit reduction. Equally important, many see the Senate making the
same mistakes that plagued 1986 legislation, when Congress approved an amnesty for three million
undocumented workers on the condition that border security and enforcement was tightened. Those
conditions were never met, and millions more slipped illegally across the US-Mexico border or overstayed their visas. Conservative
lawmakers now warn that immigration reform is doomed if it once again puts legalization before
border security. "The Senate immigration bill is a mistake. Border security, not amnesty, is the
answer," congressman Phil Gingrey said on Twitter. Obama, on a trip in Africa, called House Speaker John Boehner in a bid to nudge him to
take up immigration reform. Boehner has already said the chamber will not take up the Senate bill but seek to
pass its own legislation with tougher border security measures. House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte
insists on a piecemeal approach, and his committee has approved four bills, including one that gives state and local government broad interior
enforcement powers. But the most controversial element of potential reform, what to do with 11 million people living in the shadows, has yet
to be addressed. "Chairman Goodlatte does not believe in a special pathway to citizenship," a Judiciary aide said.
Lawmakers headed back to their districts for a week-long break, and some Republicans like Tennessee's Senator Bob Corker will find the
welcome mat missing. Corker co-authored the pivotal amendment that dramatically boosts border security, and while his important role helped
bring some skeptical Republicans on board, it angered
hard-line conservatives. "I think most tea party members feel
completely betrayed" by Corker, Nashville Tea Party president Ben Cunningham told the Jackson Sun. Some tea party activists
have openly called for conservatives to challenge Republican Senators in upcoming primary elections
if they voted for the "amnesty" bill. "There's probably concern about primaries" in the House too, noted a Republican
congressional aide. The party's 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney was ridiculed when he said "self-deportation" was a viable policy for
illegal immigrants. But even after Obama won re-election and Republican leaders called for outreach to minority groups like Hispanics, die-
hard conservatives have largely resisted the Senate's immigration reform. And yet immigration reform
obstructionists could face their own backlash.
House too conservative to pass immigration bill
The Hill 6/28- “Ros-Lehtinen: House conservatives may kill any immigration bill” June 28, 2013
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308385-ros-lehtinen-senate-immigration-bill-notgoing-to-move-in-the-house
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said Friday that she knows the
Senate immigration bill is "not going to move in the
House" and expressed fears that conservative Republicans will block any House legislation from
proceeding. But Ros-Lehtinen nevertheless is hopeful that Republicans can pass some sort of border security bill that would allow a
comprehensive immigration reform deal to be struck in conference committee. "I do support it but I understand that bill is not
going to move in the house," Ros-Lehtinen told CNN. "We're hoping that any bill will pass in the House so we
can go into conference with the Senate, and then out of that conference will be a balanced bill." House
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he will only proceed with immigration bills that have the backing of a
majority of his Republican majority, dimming the prospects for the legislation that passed the Senate in a 68-32
vote on Thursday. Ros-Lehtinen said she was most concerned that warring factions within the House would block
any bill from proceeding, preventing a possible conference committee compromise. "My fear is this -- that the
more conservative members of our party will vote no because they worry about any bill getting into
conference, even though they may agree with that border security bill, and many Democrats may vote no because they
want to deal with the 11 million undocumented first," she said. "We just need to get to conference and try to negotiate
compromise." The Miami Republican admitted that it would be a "very difficult" tightrope to walk, but said
conservative Republicans felt the need to ensure border security protections after an immigration bill
signed during Ronald Reagan's presidency failed to stop illegal immigration to the United States.
Immigration reform won’t pass
The Fiscal Times 7/1- “Why Immigration Reform Won’t Pass the House” July 1 2013
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/07/01/Why-Immigration-Reform-Wont-Pass-theHouse.aspx#page1
The two-term self-styled “conservative constitutionalist” and hardliner on immigration is highly dismissive of any suggestion or
prediction that he and other House Republicans will eventually come to their senses and support the Senatepassed immigration plan if they hope the GOP will remain viable as a national party. Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (RAZ) and other “Gang of Eight” members who drafted the Senate-passed bill contend that House Republicans must support a similar approach –
including a path to citizenship for nearly 11 million illegal immigrants – if they hope to appeal to the potent and fast-growing bloc of Hispanic
voters. “I was moved almost to the point of tears by Senator Schumer’s concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party,” Gowdy
quipped on “Fox News Sunday” yesterday. “But
we are not going to take his advice. The Senate bill is not going to
pass in the House. It’s not going to pass for myriad reasons. I’ll support immigration reform. I think
the current system is broken. “But our framers gave us two legislative bodies,” added Gowdy, who is chairman of the House
Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. “I assumed they did it for a reason. And the House runs every two years with
the theory being that we will be closer to the will of the people.” Gowdy’s
appearance helped explain why it may be
virtually impossible for the two chambers to reach agreement this year on comprehensive
immigration reform. By a solid vote of 68 to 31, the Senate last Thursday passed a bill that combines efforts to tighten security along
the U.S.-Mexican border with a lengthy pathway for illegal immigrants to achieve legal status or citizenship. But many House
Republicans and conservative forces are arrayed against the Senate-passed bill, saying it is
tantamount to “amnesty” without the guarantee of an all-but-impenetrable southwestern border.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has vowed to keep any immigration reform bill from the floor that
lacks majority support of his members.
Immigration reform won’t pass the House
The HIll 6/30- “Gowdy: House won’t take Schumer’s advice on immigration reform” June 30, 2013
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308621-gowdy-house-wont-pass-immigrationreform
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Sunday said that the Senate immigration bill passed last week was a non-starter, rejecting
Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) claim that the House would have to take up the Gang of Eight proposal. "We're going to not take his
advice. The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House for a myriad of reasons," Gowdy said on Fox News
Sunday. Gowdy spoke after Schumer suggested the House would adopt the Senate reform bill because of the potential electoral implications of
failure for the GOP. Gowdy though said in the border control provisions of the
Senate bill in particular were unacceptable to
his constituents. Instead, he said the House will continue to move forward with a piecemeal approach,
passing smaller bills out of the House Judiciary Committee to deal with specific aspects of reform . “I
support immigration reform, I think the current system is broken, but our founders gave us two legislative bodies and I
assume they gave it to us for a reason. The Senate passed an immigration reform package last week on a 68-32 vote, but its
future in the House remains uncertain. Conservatives are refusing to support the bill because they believe it has
inadequate border control provisions and because they are opposed to a pathway to citizenship.
Immigration won’t pass the conservative House
Levey 6/30- Noam, Tribune Washington Bureau ”House Republican leaders remain firm against
immigration bill” June 30, 2013 http://infoweb.newsbank.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/iwsearch/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=14742564051
C8090&p_docnum=88&p_queryname=1
Republican House leaders reiterated their opposition Sunday to the immigration bill passed by the Senate last
week, highlighting the uncertain prospects for enacting a major overhaul of the nation's immigration
laws. "The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said
on CNN's "State of the Union," echoing statements made by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other senior
Republican lawmakers. Even Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading supporter of the Senate legislation, acknowledged the
difficult path the bill faces in the Republican-controlled House. "I'm concerned about the task ahead," he said on "Fox
News Sunday." "It's not going to be easy." Boehner has said that he will not bring up an immigration bill for
a vote that does not have the support of the majority of the Republican House caucus. Goolatte noted Sunday
that the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted against the Senate bill , which would create a system to confer
legal status on 11 million immigrants in the country illegally while bolstering border security and tightening employment rules through an
electronic system to verify workers' immigration status known as e-verify. But many
conservative lawmakers say the
security provisions of the Senate bill are inadequate and may never be implemented. "There is a diminution
of trust among our fellow citizens," Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, said on
Fox News. "And the notion that I can tell them, 'We are going to provide legalization, but trust us on the border security, trust on the internal
security, trust on e-verify,' that's not going to fly in South Carolina." One lawmaker was bullish on the legislation, however. Sen. Charles E.
Schumer, D-N.Y., a leading architect of the Senate bill, predicted on Fox News that Boehner would look to House Democrats to pass the
Senate's immigration overhaul, even if many
House Republicans oppose the bill.
CIR will not pass the House. Key GOP leaders will prevent the ratification of the
Senate’s version of the bill
Jensen and Yost 6/28/13 American Immigration Lawyers Association U.S. Chamber of Commerce Immigration
Subcommittee, Proffesor of Immigration law in Indiana, AND Peter Yost is the head of the Immigration and Global Mobility practice at
Faegre Baker Daniels. He also directs the inbound U.S immigration sector within the practice “Senate passes landmark
comprehensive immigration reform bill; future in House uncertain” http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=26822710c4aa-431c-b74e-e393b2a0820c AJ
On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013"
(S.744). We have written about this bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) bill previously. The vote was 62-38, with all
Democrats and 14 Republicans voting in favor. Republican support was increased by a major amendment that significantly enhanced the
resources to be allocated to border security. The Senate bill represents a major overhaul of the current immigration system: The
approximately 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. without authorization would have a path to lawful status and ultimately
citizenship Border security would be significantly strengthened, with hundreds of miles of additional fencing, aerial and remote sensing,
and a doubling of the Border Patrol All employers would be required to use an electronic employment verification system New visa
categories for lesser-skilled and agricultural workers would provide legal means for foreign nationals to meet future U.S. employment
needs in these areas The number of available H-1B visas for professional workers would increase There would be significant increases in
the number of green cards available for higher-skilled workers, significantly reducing long wait times A new green card category based
on merit would be created
House
With Senate passage
of S.744,
attention now focuses on
of Representatives will (or won't) do. The House will not take up S.744.
what
the GOP-controlled
If the House does anything, it will be
through its own bill or bills. A bipartisan "Gang of Seven"
working on a CIR bill
(Eight, until Rep. Raul Labrador left the group)
is
that will presumably include legalization for the undocumented, stronger border security, work visas for
Rep. Labrador may introduce his own
lesser-skilled workers, and higher-skilled worker visa and green card enhancements.
CIR bill. House Judiciary Chair
Robert
Goodlatte does not favor a comprehensive approach . He
prefers to address the various aspects of immigration reform through separate bills . The Judiciary
Committee has so far passed bills on immigration enforcement, agricultural workers and employment verification. The committee is now
working on a bill that would be beneficial for employment-based temporary visas and green cards. So far,
the Judiciary
Committee has not considered any bill that would provide for legalization of the
undocumented. Prospects for passage of CIR in the House are uncertain . Speaker John Boehner has
stated that he
will not bring an immigration bill to
a
vote unless a majority of the House Republicans
support the bill ; that condition may not be met. Many Republican strategists think the party needs to pass CIR to improve its
election results with fast-growing Latino and other immigrant communities. But
conservative districts where their concern is
many House Republicans are in
not reaching out to immigrant communities, but rather
avoiding a primary challenge from a more conservative opponent.
If any immigration bill were to pass
the House, the House bill and S.744 would go to a conference committee to work out a compromise bill.
Any bill coming out of
committee would likely be seen by immigration reform proponents as more restrictive than S.744 . A
conference committee bill would have to pass both the Senate and House. Timing is a factor. Many commentators still say that CIR must
happen in 2013 or it will not happen at all because 2014 is an election year. Getting House members to vote in favor of a controversial
immigration bill as the election draws closer will be a major challenge.
In
addition,
the House
has other important matters to deal
with during the rest of 2013, so there is some question as to whether the Representatives will use their limited time to pursue
immigration reform when
many in the chamber are opposed . Stay tuned.
The GOP is going to wait until immigration dies and is replaced by another fiscal crisis
Johnson 6/24 [Fawn Johnson, June 24, 2013, writer for the National Journal, “Time’s Up. Immigration Won't Pass This Year Plenty of
effort will be devoted to reform over the next month, but it will die in August, just like last time.” http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/time-sup-immigration-won-t-pass-this-year-20130623
Nothing less than a miracle will get major immigration legislation through Congress this year. It’s not the
Senate’s fault, not this time. The upper chamber is well on track to comfortably pass this week a sweeping bill that would legalize millions of
undocumented immigrants and dramatically boost troops on the border. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a leader in the immigration effort, said
on CNN's State of the Union that two-thirds of the Senate is already in favor of the bill. But the
House is slogging along on a
piece-by-piece approach that does nothing but stretch out the debate until all that’s left are wisps of
ideas on work visas, local police enforcement, and electronic verification of workers. Indeed, the
House might not kill the bill outright, but the GOP players are passing the ball around until the clock
runs out. What’s that clock look like? After senators get the bill done – probably in time to make their
weekend barbeques -- they have a weeklong July 4 break. And then they get to wait for colleagues on
the other side of the Capitol who will have four weeks – four weeks – to deliberate before Congress
takes off for an even lengthier recess in August. Once Washington meets autumn, immigration falls off
the priority track thanks to the reemergence of fiscal crisis.
The house will not vote for CIR, GOP is worried about reelection and leadership
doesn’t support it
Cillizza and Sullivan 6/25 [Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan, writers for the Washington Post, June 25, 2013, “The Senate is going
to pass immigration reform. And the House doesn’t care.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/25/the-senate-is-goingto-pass-immigration-reform-and-the-house-doesnt-care/]
Two things have become clear over the past 24 hours: 1. The Senate is going to pass some sort of
comprehensive immigration reform bill, and 2. The House doesn’t much care. Welcome to Washington, circa
2013! “Why should a minority of the minority in the Senate influence a majority of the majority in the
House,” asked Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole. “While most Senators aren’t up for election next
year, every member of the House will be on the ballot.” Rewind back a few months and the idea that a vote to proceed
to debate on a key border security measure would win 67 votes — as it did Monday night — would be greeted with something between
disbelief and joy by immigration reform advocates. But,
even before the Senate voted Monday night, it was obvious
that no matter what the vote looked like it would have little influence on the plans of the GOPcontrolled House. House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) had told his Republican colleagues that no
immigration legislation would be brought the floor if a majority of the GOP majority didn’t support it.
And, anyone who has spent any time around the current Republican majority in the House — or
watched as the farm bill failed last week – recognizes that the Senate immigration bill (and, perhaps,
any bipartisan immigration bill) isn’t going to be backed by a majority of the Republican majority in
that chamber. How the Senate voted on Monday also affirms that the immigration legislation could
well be dead on arrival in the House. Not a single member of the Senate GOP leadership voted for cloture. All told, 27
Republicans voted against it while 15 voted in favor of the cloture motion. (Four GOP Senators did not vote, largely due to bad weather in and
around Washington Monday that delayed flights.) Those numbers provide little of the momentum or pressure that some Republicans had
hoped might be foist upon the House with a strong Senate GOP vote for the bill. “It
doesn’t matter at all,” said one senior
GOP House leadership aide about the Senate vote on immigration. “It wouldn’t be something a
Republican Senate would bring to the floor. Why should a Republican House just take it up?” Added
another House Republican leadership staffer: “Even if the bill passes with 70-plus votes in the Senate,
the path to 218 in the House is very perilous. Many Republicans are skeptical of even voting on
something as simple as border security, as they feel that it provides a ‘path to Conference
[committee]‘ where they are afraid an untenable compromise will emerge.” During the “fiscal cliff” debate, the
Senate passed a bipartisan measure with 89 votes over the opposition of only five Republicans. But over in the House, less than
40 percent of Republicans supported it, reinforcing the reality that nothing in the Senate guarantees
passage in the lower chamber. What Republicans in the House want, according to Cole, is a chance to
pass their own bill through the normal legislative order and then try to negotiate a compromise
between their version and what passes the Senate. “If that cannot be done then no bill should or will
pass the House,” he said. Now, it’s important to remember that the Senate vote on Monday night was simply to move ahead on one
proposed part of a larger package. But it was a significant step toward a final vote on passage before Congress breaks around July 4. It’s
possible that votes in the Senate could shift between Monday and the final vote on the measure. (Of course, it would be strange if any of the 27
Republicans who opposed cloture then turned around and voted for the legislation.) And, it’s
also possible that the House GOP
leadership will change its approach between now and then. Neither scenario seems likely, however.
Which means that immigration reform — at least at the moment — looks to be teetering on the edge
of failure.
The immigration bill won’t pass the house
Davis and Gomez 6/27 [Susan Davis and Alan Gomez, writers for USAToday, June 27, 2013, “House GOP opposes Senate-passed
immigration bill” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/ 06/27/immigration-faces-battle-in-gop-house/2465017/]
The Democratic-led U.S. Senate approved an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, but the
legislation faces broad opposition in the Republican-led U.S. House. WASHINGTON — Senate passage
of a comprehensive immigration overhaul sparked no excitement in the GOP-controlled House, where
Republican leaders continue to oppose the Senate bill in favor of a piecemeal approach to addressing
the nation's immigration system. "The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate
passes. We're going to do our own bill through regular order, and it'll be legislation that reflects the
will of our majority and the will of the American people," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
"And for any legislation, including a (final bill), to pass the House, it's going to have to be a bill that
has the support of the majority of our members." Boehner has faced criticism in his own party for passing major legislation
– including the bill at the start of the year to avert the "fiscal cliff" – by relying on the support of House Democrats to overcome the opposition
of conservative Republicans. He vowed Thursday that he would not do so on immigration. House Republicans will hold a special closed-door
meeting July 10 to discuss the way forward on immigration, but leading lawmakers have made clear that there
is broad opposition
to the Senate's comprehensive approach and little GOP interest in a bill that includes a pathway to
citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants until the U.S.-Mexican border is secured. "My
view is: Break this down. Break it down into smaller components," said Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., a
top vote-counter for Republicans. "Clearly where our conference is, is all about trying to deal with a
secure border. Once there is a level of confidence on a secure border, then you can begin to move
forward on these other elements." Roskam said House Republicans are wary of any legislation the size
and scope of the Senate bill because it is reminiscent to GOP lawmakers of President Obama's health
care law. There is also a generally held view among Republicans that bills that size are politically
perilous because the public doesn't trust them. "The House has no capacity to move that (Senate) bill
in its entirety. It just won't happen. It is a pipedream to think that that bill is going to go to the floor
and be voted on," he said. The bill is politically difficult for most House Republicans, who represent less diverse and more
conservative districts after the 2012 process that redrew district lines based on population shifts. According to the non-partisan
Cook Political Report, about 80% of House Republicans represent districts so conservative they are
unlikely to ever face a general election threat. In that climate, Republicans are more likely to face
primary election threats, and immigration has long been a divisive issue within the GOP. I nstead, Rep. Bob
Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has been moving bills that deal with isolated components of immigration. Last
week, the committee passed bills that would revamp the visa system for agricultural workers and encourage state and local law enforcement
agencies to help enforce federal immigration laws. This week, it worked on bills that would provide more work visas to foreigners trained in
high-tech fields and nationalize a program requiring business owners to check the immigration status of new hires. No bills have been filed to
address the central questions of border security and a pathway to citizenship. And none of the bills heard in the Judiciary Committee has
received any Democratic support because of how they approach each issue. There
is considerably more support among
House Democrats for a Senate-style comprehensive overhaul that includes both border security and a
pathway to citizenship, and House Democratic leaders have warned Republicans that a piecemeal
approach is less likely to win Democratic support. "There are obviously some issues which have greater support than
others, and to simply adopt those that have an economic consequence to the business community or other people without addressing the
issues of families and immigrants, employers, I think would be a mistake," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the party's top vote
counter. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told USA TODAY's "Capital Download" that "at the end of the day we have to have a path to
citizenship" for Democrats to support a final bill. Rep. Luis
Gutierrez, D-Ill., is one of the members of a bipartisan
group of representatives trying to craft an all-encompassing bill similar to the one passed by the
Senate. He said he has been disappointed by individual Republican bills fueled by "vitriolic rhetoric
that is being used to support them, the criminalization of immigrants." He worries that approach will
lead to partisan attacks on both sides that will kill any chance of reaching a compromise with the
Senate. "We will start the process of condemnation and demonization," Gutierrez said of the bills
advancing in the House. "But does that lead us to a solution?" Instead, he said, his group hopes to offer a bill after the
July 4 recess that both Democrats and Republicans can embrace. He will appear alongside Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., on CNN on Sunday to
show a sign of bipartisanship and will join Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada on Monday for a symbolic passing of the torch on
immigration. Gutierrez said he plans to prove that not all House Republicans are opposed to a comprehensive bill. "If you create an avenue for
Democrats and Republicans to work together to be a counterpoint to Goodlatte, that's something people can rally for vs. something they can
rally against."
House GOP members have multiple reasons to vote against CIR
Jones 7/1 [Susan Jones, July 1, 2013, writer for CNS news, Gowdy: 'More Interested in Getting It Right' Than Following Senate on
Immigration” http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gowdy-more-interested-getting-it-right-following-senate-immigration]
(CNSNews.com) - Joking that he was "moved almost to the point of tears by Sen. (Chuck) Schumer's concern for the future prospects of the
Republican Party," Rep.
Trey Gowdy said on Sunday the immigration bill passed by the Senate is dead on
arrival in the House: "The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House. It's not going to pass for myriad
reasons," Gowdy told "Fox News Sunday." "I'll support immigration reform. I think the current system is broken. But our framers gave us
two legislative bodies. And I assume they did it for a reason. And the House runs every two years with the theory being that we will be closer to
the will of the people." Gowdy
noted that the House has passed four separate bills addressing different
facets of the immigration issue, such as enforcement. "So, we are making progress and we will
continue to do so. I'm more interested in getting it right than doing it on Senator Schumer's schedule,"
Gowdy said. Schumer told "Fox News Sunday" he thinks the House will pass the Senate immigration bill by the end of the year, partly
because if they don't, Republicans will be the minority party for many years; and partly because "the bishops, the evangelicals and business
leaders" want immigration reform. "And, finally, and very importantly as well, we're not going to let this issue go away," Schumer said. "The
strong supporters of immigration are going to be at the town hall meetings of Republican congressmen. They're going to be visiting them in
their offices. They're going to be traipsing in the halls of Congress. We have seen the power of the DREAM Act kids." House
Speaker
John Boehner (R-Ohio) has promised to pass a House immigraton bill through regular order -- sending
it through committee before a floor vote. "And it will be legislation that reflects the will of our
(Republican) majority and the will of the American people," Boehner said. But Gowdy said the
difficulty with the Senate bill lies in its details: "I cannot sell in South Carolina a border security plan
where the security comes after the legalization. I can't sell a border security plan where Janet
Napolitano gets to tell us the border is secure. I can't sell a border security plan where the executive
can turn on and off triggers for political expedient reasons. Nor would I try to sell any of those plans.
"So, you can agree in theory on border security but disagree very strongly on how it's achieved."
Pressed on why he insists on border security before legal status, Gowdy cited trust in government:
"There is a diminution of trust among our fellow citizens. And the notion that I can tell them, we're
going to provide legalization but trust us on the border security, trust us on the internal security, trust
us on E-Verify, that's not going to fly in South Carolina. I doubt it's going to fly in Arizona or New
York." Putting security in place shows respect for the rule of law, Gowdy said. "I'm fine with showing humanity. But the order in which it's
done is important," he added. Gowdy also noted that the estimated 11 million people who are in the U.S.
illegally are not a homogenous group: Some don't want to become American citizens, he said, and
some couldn't pass a background check. "All of the 11 million are not similarly situated," Gowdy said.
"You would agree with me you should have a different level of scrutiny for a child who's been here for
10 years and was brought through no will or no action of his or her own, as opposed to a 30-year-old
who's been here for three weeks. You would not want the same scrutiny or the same level of analysis
for those two groups. "So, I know it's tempting to think of them as 11 million, as this all one group
with the same characteristics. But the reality is, there are a number of subgroups that frankly are
worthy of different levels of scrutiny and I hope the House plan will have that." Gowdy also noted
that the House immigration plan would allow state and local law enforcement to help federal agents
enforce immigration laws. "Well, that's a non-starter in the Senate," he said. "The Senate is fine with law enforcement enforcing
every other category of crime, from child pornography, to murder, to narcotics trafficking, the bank robbery. But heaven forbid they get
involved in immigration." Speaker Boehner has summoned Republican House members to a July 10 discussion about immigration legislation:
"We’re going to have a special conference and we’re going to lay all of this out and listen to what the members have to say."
Bill won’t pass the house – pathway to citizenship is contested and Republicans feel
no pressure to please Latinos
Hesson 7/1 [Ted Hesson, July 1, 2013 Ted Hesson is the immigration editor for Univision News. Before joining the team in 2012, he served
as online editor for Long Island Wins, a non-profit organization focusing on local and national immigration issues. Ted has written for a variety
of magazines, newspapers, and online publications, including The Huffington Post, Time Out New York, and the Philadelphia City Paper. He
earned his master’s degree at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and his bachelor’s degree at Boston College. Born and
raised in Philadelphia, Ted has lived in New York City since 2003. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/taking-temperatureimmigration-reform-house/story?id=19544319#.UdHam_nqlsl]
Last week, the
Senate passed a bill that would overhaul the nation's immigration laws. Getting legislation
through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will be a lot harder, however. Here's what you
need to know about where immigration reform stands in the House: 1. Republicans aren't feeling the Senate bill After an
immigration plan cleared the Senate last week, the House's top Republican said the bill was dead-onarrival at its next stop: "Apparently some haven't gotten the message: the House is not going to take
up and vote on whatever the Senate passes," said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "We're going to do our own
bill...and move the legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people." Basically Boehner is saying
that any bill considered on the floor of the House will need the support of the majority of Republicans
-- and the Senate immigration bill won't have that. That doesn't mean some type of immigration plan can't pass the House.
Here's why: 2. Smaller immigration bills are moving The immigration reform bill in the Senate was nearly 1,200 pages long. But some
conservatives in the House are taking a piecemeal approach to reform, passing a series of individual bills instead of one large package. Any
immigration bill passed in the House could then be combined with the Senate immigration bill, through what's known as a "conference
committee." Boehner could hypothetically bring a combined bill to the floor of the House without the support of most Republicans. That would
give the legislation a chance. A move like that would go against what he said about having majority support for the bill. But both supporters and
opponents of reform have said that's a possibility, and the Speaker has reversed his position in the past. A group of Democrats and Republicans
are also working on a comprehensive bill in the House. But that effort hasn't yielded anything yet, and legislators don't have a timetable for
when they might produce something. In any case, it's unlikely that the majority of House Republicans would support an immigration reform bill
similar to the one in the Senate, even if it was the combined bill mentioned above. Here's why: 3. Most
Republicans aren't
affected by demographic pressure Since President Barack Obama won reelection with runaway
support from Latino and Asian voters, Republican strategists have said immigration reform could be a
way for the party to win over people who aren't older and white. But while the GOP may be worried
about appealing to Latino voters on a national level, that isn't as much of a concern for individual
representatives. That's because the vast majority of House Republicans are in districts where Latinos
aren't a large voting bloc, according to The Wall Street Journal. Only 38 of the 234 Republicans in the
House are from districts where Latinos make up 20 percent or more of the population. So while immigration
reform may be good for the Republican party as a whole, most House conservatives aren't feeling the same sort of pressure to pass a bill. That
could be a problem for immigration reform for one big reason: 4. Citizenship for undocumented immigrants is not negotiable Democratic
leaders have said that a pathway to citizenship for the country's estimated 11 million undocumented
immigrants isn't negotiable. So whatever the House produces, the final immigration bill will need to
have a road to citizenship included, or else Democrats will kill it. So far, House leadership hasn't taken
a position on citizenship, but expect any proposal with citizenship for the undocumented -- what
opponents call "amnesty" -- to encounter resistance among the majority of House Republicans. 5. July 10
is the next big reveal The House Republican Conference will hold a special meeting on that day to discuss immigration reform, Politico reports.
GOP leadership will give an overview of the issue and the individual bills that have been developed in the House already. This will also be a
chance for House Republicans to make their opinions heard, and for leadership to gauge the party's appetite for reform. Expect
to hear
from border hawks like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who will likely oppose any broad immigration bill
with a path to citizenship for the undocumented. But more interesting will be whether more moderate party leaders like
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who is widely respected and has already spoken in favor of reform, will step up public support.
The majority of Republicans in the House will vote against immigration – they feel
more pressure from the tea party than the senate
Burlij and Bellantoni 7/1 [“House Republicans Take Foot Off Gas in Drive for Immigration Reform”
Terence Burlij and Christina Bellantoni, writers for PBS Newshour July 1, 2013,http://www.pbs.org/ne wshour/rundown/2013/07/houserepublicans-take-foot-off-gas-in-drive-for-immigration-reform.html]
When it comes to the immigration bill, the game plan in Congress is hurry up and wait. The Senate
passed the so-called Gang of Eight's plan last Thursday ahead of Majority Leader Harry Reid's Fourth
of July deadline, but House Republicans have made clear they intend to chart their own path on
immigration reform and do not appear to be in any rush to pass legislation by a date certain. House
Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said Sunday that Republicans would like to duplicate the
bipartisan outcome that emerged from the Senate, but that the House version should reflect the fact
that the chamber is controlled by the GOP. "We would love to have a bipartisan group produce a bill, because it would help to
inform the House, just like the Senate bill helped to inform the Senate," Goodlatte said on CNN's "State of the Union." "But 70 percent of
the Republicans in the Senate voted against the immigration bill. Republicans are in the majority in
the House." Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a member of a bipartisan group working on a comprehensive proposal in the House, charged that
Republicans are not following the Senate model. "What the House Republicans are doing is giving a Republican
solution. And a Republican solution isn't what we saw was successful in the Senate," Gutierrez said on
CNN. "What happened in the Senate was that Republicans and Democrats decided that bipartisanship
was going to lead to a solution, that compromising was going to lead to a solution." Gutierrez suggested the
decision for whether immigration reform passes or not will likely fall to House Speaker John Boehner. "There are a majority of Democrats and
Republicans that are ready to solve this problem. Will he allow a small group, maybe even a majority of his caucus, to control the debate and
the future on this issue? If he decides to do that, we will then end in a stalemate and an impasse once again," the Illinois Democrat said. Sen.
Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., predicted that public pressure on Congress to pass immigration reform would continue to build and Boehner will
ultimately bring the Senate plan up for a vote. "Within several months Speaker Boehner will find two choices -- no bill or let a bill pass with a
majority of Democratic votes and some Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans. He'll find that the better choice. We'll pass the Senate bill by
the end of this year even though most House members don't think so," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday." Fellow Gang of Eight member Sen.
John McCain said he was "concerned about the task ahead" of lawmakers, but the Arizona Republican added that he also remained "hopeful
that we can convince our House colleagues" to move forward with a bill. For
Republicans in the House, a major sticking
point is likely to be the pathway to citizenship in the Senate version. Goodlatte signalled that House
Republicans might be willing to support a "pathway to legalization" but "not a special pathway to
citizenship, where people who are here unlawfully get something that people who have worked for
decades to immigrate lawfully do not have." Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., added that House Republicans would also proceed at
their own pace. "We are going to work our will like we have been doing for the past weeks. We have passed four separate bills out of House
Judiciary and an additional bill out of Homeland Security. So we are making progress and will continue to do so. And I'm more interested in
getting it right than doing it on Senator Schumer's schedule," Gowdy said on "Fox News Sunday." But President Barack Obama on Saturday told
reporters traveling with him in Africa that the ball is "in the House's court," and he would like to see this done on his speedy timeline. "I do urge
the House to try to get this done before the August recess," he said. "There is more than enough time. This thing has been debated amply and
they've got a bunch of weeks to get it done and now is the time." Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had a similar message on the op-ed pages of the
Wall Street Journal Monday, urging his fellow Republicans to get on board. Bush, joined by his immigration book co-author Clint Bolick, writes:
Here the GOP's informal "Hastert Rule" requires Speaker John Boehner to have majority support
among Republicans before he will bring legislation to the floor for a vote. That means an immigration
bill will need a far greater share of Republican House members than the Senate version received
(where fewer than one-third of Republicans voted "aye"). This is a tall order. But it is one to which House
Republicans should respond. No Republican would vote for legislation that stifled economic growth, promoted illegal immigration, added to the
welfare rolls, and failed to ensure a secure border. Yet they essentially will do just that if they fail to pass comprehensive immigration reform-and leave in place a system that does all of those things. But tea party activists disagree. Politico reported Monday that tea
party groups
"are promising to spend the congressional recess reminding lawmakers who support the Gang of Eight
legislation what the base is capable of. Think loud town halls, jammed phone lines and primary
challenges down the road -- echoes of Obamacare three years ago." Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation,
told Politico that activists are "more upset about the amnesty bill than they were about Obamacare." Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press,"
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., played political pundit, talking about what Republicans need to do "if they ever wanna win a
presidential race" and saying she hopes the Senate Republicans who backed that chamber's bill can persuade their House colleagues. "We
wouldn't even be where we are right now had it not been that 70% of Hispanics voted for President Obama, voted Democratic in the last
election. That caused an epiphany in the Senate, that's for sure," Pelosi said. She said she thinks "there are enough" supportive House
Republicans to get to the 218 votes needed to pass a bill, but: "The question is do we have to have these Pi r-squared mathematical formulas
about what it takes to bring something forth." At
a briefing in Washington Friday hosted by Bloomberg
Government, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., suggested that pressure was supposedly off for House
Republicans on immigration reform. Diaz-Balart is a player from the chamber's seven-member bipartisan working group on the
subject. NewsHour Politics Online Production Assistant Meena Ganesan reported on the event, which also included Democratic Rep. Zoe
Lofgren of California. "The
assumption that because of the Senate bill, individual members of the House will
feel pressure, that's inaccurate," Diaz-Balart said. "I think the real pressure is the pressure to fix an immigration system
that's broken." Without going into any specifics about how the newly-passed Senate version differs from the House bill, Lofgren admitted she
could vote for the Senate bill while Diaz-Balart said he thought the group's effort would be a better work-product than the Senate version. He
suggested this still-unreleased House compromise would also be the only type of legislation that would pass both the House and the Senate.
The group has been discreet with its process, meeting at length for three years, according to Lofgren. "We've been careful because we wanted
to keep the politics out," Diaz-Balart said. Lofgren also said Friday that a number of the bills they've begun markup on in the House Judiciary
Committee have been "absurd." She's expressed outrage over Gowdy's SAFE Act. Repeating a phrase she had used during the hearing on his
measure, she said, "To make every undocumented person a criminal, that's unwarranted." House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor,
meanwhile, told Yahoo News he's considered the fact that the bill is more than 1,000 pages. He said
he doesn't know everything that's in it, and he's unsure if senators do, either. The Morning Line will keep an eye
on Congress, the president and national politics through Wednesday, and then we'll take a brief holiday of our own.
Republicans won’t pass and aren’t effected
Hesson 13 Immigration editor for Univision News (Ted, “5 Things You Need to Know About
Immigration in the House”, “ABC News Publication, 7-1-13,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/taking-temperature-immigration-reformhouse/story?id=19544319#.UdHUy_lQGSp//TQ
Last week, the Senate passed a bill that would overhaul the nation's immigration laws. Getting legislation through the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives will be a lot harder, however. Here's what you need to know about
where immigration reform stands in the House: 1. Republicans aren't feeling the Senate bill. After an immigration plan
cleared the Senate last week, the House's top Republican said the bill was dead-on-arrival at its next stop: "Apparently
some haven't gotten the message: the House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,"
said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "We're going to do our own bill...and move the legislation that reflects
the will of our majority and the will of the American people." Basically Boehner is saying that any bill considered on
the floor of the House will need the support of the majority of Republicans -- and the Senate immigration
bill won't have that. That doesn't mean some type of immigration plan can't pass the House. Here's why: 3. Most Republicans
aren't affected by demographic pressure. Since President Barack Obama won reelection with runaway support from Latino and
Asian voters, Republican strategists have said immigration reform could be a way for the party to win over people who aren't older and white.
But while
the GOP may be worried about appealing to Latino voters on a national level, that isn't as
much of a concern for individual representatives. That's because the vast majority of House Republicans
are in districts where Latinos aren't a large voting bloc, according to The Wall Street Journal. Only 38 of the 234
Republicans in the House are from districts where Latinos make up 20 percent or more of the
population. So while immigration reform may be good for the Republican party as a whole, most House conservatives aren't feeling the
same sort of pressure to pass a bill.
Won’t Pass – House Won’t Pass Senate Bill
House won’t pass Senate’s immigration bill
Dinan 13 Washington Times writer and CEO of The Shift Network (Stephen, “Boehner: House won’t
pass Senate immigration bill”, Washington Times Publication, 5-23-13,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/23/boehner-house-wont-pass-senate-immigrationbill/?page=all)//TQ
Boehner:“While we applaud the progress made by our Senate colleagues, there are numerous ways in which the House will
approach the issue differently,” the Republican leaders said in their statement. “The House remains committed to
fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is
emerging in the Senate if it passes. Rather, through regular order, the House will work its will and produce its own
legislation.” Mr. Boehner is playing a proxy game of political checkers with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, as a
bipartisan group of lawmakers tries to craft a broad immigration deal that would include legal status for illegal immigrants and a rewrite of the
legal immigration system. Members of that “Gang of Eight” announced they had reached the outlines of a deal last week, then hit some snags,
and said Thursday that they were back on track. “A
bipartisan bill in the House has the best chance of passing the
House and the best chance of producing a good immigration reform proposal when conferenced with the
Senate’s bipartisan bill,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat who is part of the group.
Republicans will not pass the bill
Gowdy 13 Republican representative of the House for South Carolina ( Trey, “Rep. Gowdy: ‘The
Senate Bill Is Not Going To Pass In The House’”, Real Clear Politics Video and transcript of Fox News
Interview, 6-30-13,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/30/rep_gowdy_the_senate_bill_is_not_going_to_pass
_in_the_house.html)//TQ
JOHN ROBERTS: I assume you heard Senator Schumer talking about immigration. He is fairly positive, he has a bold prediction:
the House eventually will pass the Senate bill. What do you say? REP. TREY GOWDY (R-S.C.): Well, I was moved,
almost to the point of tears, by Senator Schumer’s concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party, but we’re going to not take his
advice. The
Senate bill is not going to pass the House. It’s not going to pass for myriad reasons. I support
immigration reform; I think the current system is broken. But our framers gave us two legislative
bodies, and I assume that they did it for a reason. The House runs every two years with the theory that we will be closer to the will of the
people. So, under the assumption that the framers meant to give us two legislative bodies and a House of Representatives with 435 members,
we are going to work our will, like we have been doing for the past weeks. We have passed four separate bills out of House Judiciary and an
additional bill out of Homeland Security. We’re
making progress, and we will continue to do so. I’m more
interested in getting it right than doing it on Senator Schumer’s schedule. ROBERTS: Both Senator Schumer and
Senator McCain, and I’m sure you’ve heard them both say this. There’s a lot of pressure being brought to bear on the
House from a varied coalition of groups, some of whom have not traditionally sided with the democrats on much, let alone immigration.
You’re got the U.S. chamber of commerce, you’ve got the growers, you’ve got labor unions, law enforcement and you have many churches who
are saying to Republicans across the land, it's time to pass immigration reform. Will
you be able to resist the pressure that’s
No, I don't think it's a question of resisting. I think it's a question of
meeting with the groups. And I have met with every one of those groups multiple times. The issue is not
the broad principles of immigration reform and humanity and respect of the rule of law. Virtually everybody agrees
on the broad principles. Where we have a difference of opinion are the details. So, everyone agrees on border
coming from those groups? GOWDY:
security, for instance. But I cannot sell in South Carolina a border security plan where the security comes after the legalization. I can't sell a
border security plan where Janet Napolitano gets to tell us the border is secure. I can't tell sell a border security plan when the executive can
turn on and off triggers for politically expedient reasons, nor would I try to sell any of those plans.
You can agree in theory on
border security but disagree very strongly on how it is achieved. You can agree on a path to legalization or citizenship,
but whether border security is a condition precedent, which it would be in my case, is a very important distinction. I welcome the input of all
these constituents and particularly the faith community. That matters greatly to me, as does law enforcement. Take the law enforcement for a
second. The House plan allows state and local law enforcement to assist, if they want to, if they want to, to assist federal law enforcement in
enforcing our immigration laws. That is non-starter in the Senate. The Senate is fine with law enforcement enforcing every other category of
crime, from child pornography to murder to narcotics trafficking to bank robbery, but heaven forbid they get involved in immigration. The
reason we have two bodies, the reason you have debate so you can take these broad principles and actually write them into legislation. And
that is what we're trying to do right now.
Won’t Pass – Path to Citizenship
Won’t pass – House will kill path to citizenship
Elliot 7/1 Political reporter for The Associated Press and Washington bureau political database editor
(Philip, “Immigration Bill Faces Uncertain Future In House”, Huffington Post Publication, 7-1-13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/immigration-bill_n_3528051.html)//TQ
WASHINGTON -- The immigration debate is shifting to the Republican-led House, where lawmakers have shown little appetite for the largescale, comprehensive approach their Senate colleagues embraced last week. The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said
Sunday that any
attempt at comprehensive immigration legislation cannot offer a "special pathway to
citizenship" for those in the United States illegally. Democrats have called that position a deal-breaker. Meanwhile,
both parties eyed the politics that could yield electoral victories or irrelevance among the growing Hispanic voting bloc. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the
Virginia Republican who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said he does not foresee a proposal that could provide a simple mechanism for
immigrants here illegally to earn full standing as U.S. citizens. His committee members have been working on bills that address individual
concerns but have not written a comprehensive proposal to match the Senate's effort. A pathway to legal standing, similar to that of
immigrants who have green cards, could be an option, he said. Unacceptable, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "No
Democrat will vote
for any bill without a path to citizenship," said Schumer, who helped write the Senate immigration plan that passed that
chamber last week. The Senate bill would provide a long and difficult pathway to citizenship for those living in the country illegally, as well as
tough measures to secure the border. In the Democratic-controlled Senate, 14 Republicans joined all Democratic senators and independents in
the 68-32 vote. In the Republican-led House, conservatives have stood opposed to any pathway to citizenship for those workers. House
lawmakers have urged a piecemeal approach to the thorny issue instead of the Senate's sweeping effort. House Speaker John Boehner
has
ruled out taking up the Senate bill and said the Republican-controlled chamber would chart its own
version of the legislation with a focus on border security. Illustrating the strong opposition among
conservative lawmakers, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said flatly: "The Senate bill is not going to pass."
House won’t pass bipartisan bill- won’t include path to immigration
The Boston Globe 7/1- “For House GOP, citizenship plan a dealbreaker” July 1, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/06/30/house-leans-toward-immigration-bill-withcitizenship/0OpsTfqmCxnN5nnzI4hRVK/story.html
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that any attempt at
comprehensive immigration legislation cannot offer a "special pathway to citizenship" for those in the
United States illegally. That approach could block the GOP's hopes of ever winning the White House,
the top Democrat in the House predicted. With last week's Senate passage of a comprehensive
immigration bill, the emotionally heated and politically perilous debate is now heading toward the
Republican-led House, where conservative incumbents could face primary challenges if they appear
too lenient on the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Rep. Bob
Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said he does not foresee a
proposal that could provide a simple mechanism for immigrants here illegally to earn full standing as
U.S. citizens, as many Democrats have demanded. Goodlatte's committee members have been
working on bills that address individual concerns but have not written a comprehensive proposal to
match the Senate's effort. The House answer would not be "a special pathway to citizenship where
people who are here unlawfully get something that people who have worked for decades to
immigrate lawfully do not have," he said. A pathway to legal standing, similar to immigrants who have green cards,
could be an option, he said. That approach, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, would bring electoral doom for
Republicans looking to take back the White House after the 2016 elections. Republicans, she advised, should follow the Senate
lead "if they ever want to win a presidential race." In 2012, Obama won re-election with the backing of 71 percent of Hispanic
voters and 73 percent of Asian-American voters. A thwarted immigration overhaul could again send those voting blocs to
Democrats' side. "We wouldn't even be where we are right now had it not been that 70 percent of Hispanics voted for
President Obama, voted Democratic in the last election," Pelosi said. "That caused an epiphany in the Senate, that's for sure.
So, all of a sudden now, we have already passed comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate. That's a big victory." The
Senate bill would provide a long and difficult pathway to citizenship for those living in the country illegally, as well as tough
measures to secure the border. Conservatives have stood opposed to any pathway to full citizenship for
those workers, and House lawmakers have urged a piecemeal approach to the thorny issue instead of
the Senate's sweeping effort. Illustrating the strong opposition among conservative lawmakers in the
House, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said flatly: "The Senate bill is not going to pass." Bowing to those pressures,
House Republicans have said they would consider each piece of immigration separately as they tried to navigate the politically
dicey subject that could complicate not only their efforts to reclaim the White House but also thwart some incumbent GOP
lawmakers' attempt to win re-election. House Speaker John Boehner has ruled out taking up the Senate bill
and said the Republican-controlled chamber would chart its own version of the legislation with a
focus on border security. In the Democratic-controlled Senate, 14 Republicans joined all Democratic senators and
independents in the 68-32 vote. Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and an author of the current
Senate immigration bill, nodded to the politics. "Republicans realize the implications of the future of the Republican Party in
America if we don't get this issue behind us," he said. That now falls to Boehner's chamber, where conservatives
in his party have complicated his agenda on other subjects - few with such long-term implications as
immigration.
House won’t include path to citizenship
Fox News Latino 13 (“Immigration Bill Will Not Offer Pathway To Citizenship, GOP Leader Says”, Fox
News Publication, 6-30-13, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/06/30/immigration-bill-willnot-offer-pathway-to-citizenship-gop-leader-says/)//TQ
If the immigration bill stands a chance of passing the House of Representatives, it cannot offer a pathway to
citizenship, the House Judiciary chair said Sunday. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who leads the Judiciary
Committee, said any comprehensive immigration reform approved by the House would not offer a
pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi said if Republicans let the
bill die without passage it would doom the GOP’s chances of ever winning the White House. With last week's Senate passage of a
comprehensive immigration bill, the emotionally heated and politically perilous debate is now heading toward the Republican-led U.S. House,
where conservative incumbents could face primary challenges if they appear too lenient on the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the
United States illegally. Goodlatte
said he does not foresee a proposal that could provide a simple mechanism
for immigrants here illegally to earn full standing as U.S. citizens, as many Democrats have demanded. Goodlatte's
committee has been working on bills that address individual concerns but has not written a comprehensive proposal to match the Senate's
effort. The House answer would not be "a special pathway to citizenship where people who are here unlawfully get something that people who
have worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have," he said.
Path to citizenship is not negotiable
Hesson 13 Immigration editor for Univision News (Ted, “5 Things You Need to Know About
Immigration in the House”, “ABC News Publication, 7-1-13,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/taking-temperature-immigration-reformhouse/story?id=19544319#.UdHUy_lQGSp//TQ
4. Citizenship for undocumented immigrants is not negotiable. Democratic leaders have said that a
pathway to citizenship for the country's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants isn't negotiable. So whatever
the House produces, the final immigration bill will need to have a road to citizenship included, or else
Democrats will kill it. So far, House leadership hasn't taken a position on citizenship, but expect any
proposal with citizenship for the undocumented -- what opponents call "amnesty" -- to encounter resistance
among the majority of House Republicans.
Won’t Pass – No Comprehensive Bill
House will pass individual bills
Hesson 13 Immigration editor for Univision News (Ted, “5 Things You Need to Know About
Immigration in the House”, “ABC News Publication, 7-1-13,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/taking-temperature-immigration-reformhouse/story?id=19544319#.UdHUy_lQGSp//TQ
Here's why: 2. Smaller immigration bills are moving. The immigration reform bill in the Senate was nearly 1,200 pages long. But
some conservatives in the House are taking a piecemeal approach to reform, passing a series of individual bills instead
of one large package. Any immigration bill passed in the House could then be combined with the Senate immigration bill, through
what's known as a "conference committee." Boehner could hypothetically bring a combined bill to the floor of the House without the support
of most Republicans. That would give the legislation a chance. A move like that would go against what he said about having majority support for
the bill. But both supporters and opponents of reform have said that's a possibility, and the Speaker has reversed his position in the past. A
group of Democrats and Republicans are also working on a comprehensive bill in the House. But that effort hasn't yielded anything yet, and
legislators don't have a timetable for when they might produce something. In any case, it's
unlikely that the majority of House
Republicans would support an immigration reform bill similar to the one in the Senate, even if it was the
combined bill mentioned above.
Won’t Pass – Boehner
Boehner blocking immigration
Beutler 6/27- Brian, TPM senior Congressional reporter, “Boehner Significantly Narrows Path To
Comprehensive Immigration Reform” June 27, 2013
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/boehner-significantly-narrows-path-to-comprehensiveimmigration-reform.php
With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)
significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law . At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner
extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his
members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report. To be clear
that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of
difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform. To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass
legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for
measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants. If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the
Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by
extending the Hastert rule requirement to the
negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply
roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee. It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration
reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that
President Obama will sign. It’s possible that Boehner won’t be able to pass a House immigration bill of any
kind, and if that’s the case, Boehner would have to re-evaluate his long-standing commitment not to put the Senate bill on the floor. But he’s
been pretty clear that — at the very least — the House won’t take action on the Senate bill as its first option, and
that the House will attempt to act on its own measure first.
Boehner is key to CIR and he refuses to budge on any issues
Murthy Law Firm 6/27/13 US Immigration Law Firm“ NewsFlash! U.S. Senate Passes CIR Bill; Still Faces Major Obstacles in
House”
Today, the United States Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill that would usher in significant changes to U.S.
immigration law. S.744, entitled the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act," was passed by a 68 32 vote. All 52 Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill, along with 14 Republicans and the Senate's 2 independent members. Still,
Speaker
John Boehner
(R-OH), the
leader of the Republican-controlled
U.S.
House
of Representatives,
has
already publicly rejected the bill, calling it a "pipe dream" and saying that the House will instead
work on bringing forward piecemeal immigration reform legislation . The bill, if passed into law, would serve as
the biggest overhaul of U.S. immigration law in more than 25 years. The Murthy Law Firm will continue to closely track developments
related to the efforts to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
CIR will not pass the house under Boehner
BRIAN BEUTLER 6/27/13 TPM senior congressional reporter http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/boehnersignificantly-narrows-path-to-comprehensive-immigration-reform.php AJ
With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House
(R-OH)
Speaker
John
Boehner
significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law . At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday,
Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of
his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate , known as a conference report. To be
clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But
it
does
add a new layer
of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee,
the House
will have
to pass
legislation of its own . That will be a tall order for Boehner , who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic
support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants. If he can pass a narrow, conservative
House position,
the Senate and House
rule requirement to the negotiated agreement,
can try to merge their
dramatically different bills . But by extending the Hastert
Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators
won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill
in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an
immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept,
and that President Obama will sign. It’s possible that Boehner won’t be able to pass a House
immigration bill of any kind , and if that’s the case, Boehner
to put the Senate bill on the floor. But he’s been pretty
the Senate bill
clear that
would have to re-evaluate his long-standing commitment not
— at the very least —
the House won’t take action on
as its first option, and that the House will attempt to act on its own measure first.
Won’t Pass - AT: Momentum
Momentum from Senate doesn’t affect GOP
Fabian 13 Political editor for ABC News-Univision and writer at The Hill newspaper in Washington, DC
(Jordan, “House GOP Unmoved by Senate Immigration Vote”, ABC News Publication, 6-28-13,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/house-gop-unmoved-senate-immigrationvote/story?id=19522183#.UdHc4_lQGSr)//TQ
If you needed a reminder that comprehensive immigration reform faces an uphill climb in the House of Representatives,
look no further than the words of two members who have been working on the issue for years. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who's
helping craft an immigration bill in the House, said Friday that the Senate's passage of a sweeping immigration reform
bill won't spur the lower chamber to act. "The assumption that because there is a Senate bill, individual members of the
House will feel pressure to support that bill frankly just is not inaccurate," Diaz-Balart said at an event in Washington
sponsored by the National Restaurant Association and Bloomberg Government. The Florida lawmaker believes the House can pass a bipartisan,
comprehensive immigration reform bill. But it will have to be a bill that's generated in the GOP-controlled body. That's a tough task considering
that many House Republicans remain opposed to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a must for President Obama and
Democrats. "I think the real pressure is the pressure to fix an immigration system that's broken," he added. "That's the pressure that needs to
come to bear." President Obama spoke with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on Thursday
night following the Senate's passage of their bill and urged them to take up the reform. But it won't be that easy. Boehner has already said
he won't bring up a bill without the majority support of his fellow Republicans. And Diaz-Balart echoed many of
his GOP colleagues that the Senate's bill is going nowhere on the other side of the Capitol.
Link N/U
Cuban Travel N/U
Obama opening up migration talks with Cuba
Haven and Lee 13 Paul, Matthew, Associated Press Reporters
http://news.yahoo.com/us-cuba-agree-resume-migration-talks-211926132.html
Havana and Washington just wrapped up a round of separate negotiations aimed at restarting direct mail
service, which has been suspended since 1963. Both sets of talks have been on hold in recent years in a dispute over the fate of U.S.
government subcontractor Alan Gross, who is serving a 15-year jail sentence in Havana after he was caught bringing communications
equipment onto the island illegally. The
migration talks will be held in Washington on July 17. The State Department
official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publically, spoke on condition of anonymity. "Representatives from the
Department of State are scheduled to meet with representatives of the Cuban government to discuss
migration issues," the official said, adding that the talks were "consistent with our interest in promoting greater freedoms and
respect for human rights in Cuba." Word of the jump-started talks sparked an angry reaction from Cuban-American Republican
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, who blasted the Obama administration for what she saw as a policy of
appeasement. "First we get news that the Obama State Department is speaking with a top Castro regime
diplomat. Then comes the announcement that the administration is restarting talks with the
dictatorship regarding direct mail between both countries," Ros-Lehtinen said. "Now we hear that migration talks will
be restarted. It's concession after concession from the Obama administration." Since taking office, Obama has relaxed travel and
remittance rules for Cuban Americans and made it far easier for others to visit the island for cultural,
educational and religious reasons.
Mexico Policies N/U
Obama is perceived as pushing Mexico policy
Silberman 5/7 – policy associate (ZACH SILBERMAN; MAY 7, 2013; “ENGAGING PARTNERS IN OUR
OWN NEIGHBORHOOD”; US global leadership coalition; http://www.usglc.org/2013/05/07/engagingpartners-in-our-own-neighborhood/)//KDUB
In Mexico, President Obama signed a new agreement between USAID and the Mexican Foreign
Secretariat’s Agency for International Development Cooperation that demonstrates how previous aid recipients can
become donors and partners. This collaboration includes building economic growth, promoting environmental
change, disaster and relief management, as well as assisting with governance and rule of law projects.
Country partnerships like these continue to bring a positive element to our global development and are
another example of the power of partnerships to do good around the world. One does not have to look too far to see common areas of interest
for the U.S. and Mexico. President Obama
pointed out that the U.S.-Mexico relationship “must be defined — not
the prosperity and opportunity we can create together. And if we are serious
about being equal partners, then both our nations must recognize our mutual responsibilities.” Faced
by the threats we face — but by
with national security threats from the drug wars, both countries still work together through the State Department’s Merida Initiative, which
serves as a vehicle for assisting Mexican authorities with implementing justice sector reforms by using police training and promoting the rule of
law in prosecuting drug traffickers. The
president committed to continuing the Merida Initiative, as well as
pursuing other opportunities for greater economic engagement, utilizing agencies such as OPIC and the USTDA to
continue powerful economic development projects. Following the visit to Mexico, the president and leaders from eight Central American
countries met in Costa Rica where they reiterated their support for the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). Through CARSI,
the U.S. government assists Central American governments to improve their citizen security. Components of CARSI include the U.S. using
programs through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Feed the Future, and Pathways to Prosperity to support “economic
development, combat poverty, hunger, and malnutrition, and promote greater opportunity for all Central Americans.” Programs like these
utilize many tools of American diplomacy and development in order to improve the quality of life for Central American citizens. Our
engagement is already serving to help citizens of Latin America with economic growth and security.
President Obama indicated during the summit meeting with Latin American leaders that, “As
governments, our job is to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to provide security and
opportunity and ladders for success and prosperity for our people. Economic growth that creates jobs, security for
people so that they can be safe in their own neighborhoods and development that allows people to live in dignity. And so that’s why we’re
here.” This
trip served as a stepping stone to this commitment of engaging Latin America on these key
issues, which could be only a taste of things to come in the future.
Mexico Security Coop N/U
Congress already supports Mexico
Seelke, Clare ’10 Specialist in Latin American Affairs. “U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: the Mérida
Initiative and Beyond”. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a528272.pdf
In recent years, U.S.-Mexican security cooperation has increased significantly, largely as a result of the
development and implementation of the Mérida Initiative, a counterdrug and anticrime assistance package for Mexico and
Central America that was first proposed in October 2007. With the recent enactment of the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R.
4899/P.L. 111- 212), Congress has
provided almost $1.8 billion for the Mérida Initiative. Congress provided
$248 million of that funding to Central America and included an additional $42 million for Caribbean
countries. However, Congress has dedicated the vast majority of the funds—roughly $1.5 billion—to
support programs in Mexico, with an emphasis on training and equipping Mexican military and police forces engaged in counterdrug
efforts. Escalating drug traffickingrelated violence in Mexico and the increasing control that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) have
over the illicit drug market in the United States have focused congressional attention on the efficacy of U.S-Mexican efforts and related
domestic initiatives in both countries.
Mexico Natural Gas N/U
Natural gas trade with Mexico at record highs
Asia News Monitor 2013 (“United States/Mexico: U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico reach record
high in 2012” http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1316728935?accountid=14667)
U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico grew by 24 percent to 1.69 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/ d) in 2012,
the highest level since
the data collection began in
1973 , the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said
Wednesday. With imports now accounting for over 30 percent of its total supply, Mexico's natural gas use is also at its highest level
ever, the agency said in a news release.
Natural gas consumption is rising faster in Mexico than production,
and as a result, Mexico is relying more on natural gas imports from the United States , it said.
Between 2007 and 2011, natural gas consumption in Mexico rose 4 percent per year
average annual natural gas production climbed only 1.2 percent.
on average, while
Growing demand in the industrial sector drove the
increases in natural gas consumption in Mexico to a record-high level
in 2011, the EIA said.
Natural Gas Pipeline allows tripling amount of natural gas to Mexico
Iliff 2013. ( Laurence, WSJ author. Mexico Aims to Triple Natural Gas Imports from U.S. WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487104065985868.html)
The construction of a natural gas pipeline from southern Texas to central Mexico will allow for a
tripling of imports from the U.S. to meet increasing demand from industry , an official from Petroleos Mexicanos
has said. Alejandro Martinez Sibaja, the director of the state-owned company's gas division, said that
Mexican industry is currently
hampered by its reliance on more expensive fuels because of the lack of pipeline capacity for
natural gas to come across the border.
Mexico Renewables N/U
US and Mexico collaborate on renewable energy
Donnelly 2010. (Robert, program associate with the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
“U.S.-Mexico Cooperation on Renewable Energy: Building a Green Agenda” New Security Beat.
http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2010/06/u-s-mexico-cooperation-on-renewable-energy-building-agreen-agenda/#.Uc3p0BY-arc)
A U.S.-Mexico taskforce on renewables was recently formed —an announcement timed to coincide with President Felipe
Calderon’s April 2010 state visit to Washington—
and there has been high-level engagement on the issue by both
administrations. Collaboration between Mexico and U.S. government agencies
Energy Program
through the Mexico Renewable
has enabled richer development of Mexico’s renewable resources while promoting the
electrification and economic development of parts of rural Mexico.
Obama proposes closer renewable energy collaboration with Mexico.
Fredrick 2013 (James. “Obama proposes closer renewable energy ties with Mexico” BN Americas.
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/electricpower/obama-proposes-closer-renewable-energy-tiesbetween-us-mexico)
US President Barack Obama has proposed closer collaboration between the US and Mexico on
renewable energy development
and climate change initiatives.
"Let's keep building new energy
partnerships by harnessing all these new sources
[like solar and wind]
come with these new technologies," Obama said
Friday during a speech in Mexico.
security as one of the five pillars
neighboring nations.
on which
and creating the good jobs that
Obama cited energy
to expand the bilateral relationship between the
In addition to renewable energies, the US president also highlighted energy efficiency and green
buildings as opportunities for the two countries.
Winners Win
Political Capital Not Key and Winners Win
Michael Hirsh 2/7, Chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012 Decoded.
Hirsh previously served as the senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek,
based in its Washington bureau, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-aspolitical-capital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he
will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In
response, the
pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the
proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama
possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually
happens over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone
had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both
immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4
percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his
pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP
resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to
work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost
the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for
reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in
terms of a “mandate” or “political capital”— chances are fair that both will now happen . What changed? In
the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in
mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a
sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association
marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure
into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and
walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the
Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most
dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass
and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The
political tectonics
have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks
ago. Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a
new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer
declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has
very little to do with Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and
27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama
drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he
won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent
introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that
without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births
have fallen into the minority .
It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point
is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath
of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama
can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend
political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American
Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that
matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or
momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a
presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very
rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason,
political capital is a concept that
misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the everelusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests,
erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest , just as someone might have
real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment
in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive
coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great
victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going
into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the
abrupt
emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur
and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of
political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple : You just don’t
know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “ Winning wins. ” In theory, and in
practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time , he could still deliver on a
lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown.
Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some
political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best,
an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract
thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government
professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning
on one
issue often changes the calculation for the next issue ; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if
an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants,
and he gets it , then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors ” Ornstein says. “If
they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon
effect.” ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because he’s
aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon
Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for
that mandate (in addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power
leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his
limited political capital.
In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls
Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a longstalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the
president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to
expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson
replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson
didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights
Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of
Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the
right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill
and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least
until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama
who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then
Bush promptly demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confidentsounding Bush declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president
threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations
campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush
failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that
he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—
helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the
real mistake. The
problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly
reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most people’s
eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism.
Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake
that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-
followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of
public urgency on Social Security reform. It’s like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked
one. I don’t think Obama’s going to make that mistake.… Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the
hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at
Newtown.” Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, “but because Republicans are beginning
to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea,” as the party suffers in the polls. THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER Presidents
are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in
the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of
recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first
term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t
realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party
revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street
bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care
coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic
fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood. Unlike Bush,
Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the government’s
attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various
congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the
Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the
imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is
mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln.
Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery,
along with eloquent attempts to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning
of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all
the backroom horse-trading. “The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out
to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former political
consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was
ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a
largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a
landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his
infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the
Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and
conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had
seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital.
But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in
the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories. In
terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political
calculation mean is this: Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he
will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the country’s mood will support—such as,
perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than any
of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform
and deficit reduction . Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature
Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly . If he
can get some early wins —as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase— that will
create momentum , and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins.” Obama himself learned some
hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive
victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a “post-partisan”
president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term
restructuring plan that would “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.” The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just
another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had
sold the stimulus as what it mainly was—a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measure—he might
well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and following up quickly with his health care plan, he only
sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obama’s public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no
matter what he said. If
the president put his personal imprimatur on any plan—from deficit reduction, to health care, to
immigration reform—Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to
exploit the chastened GOP’s newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that
the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit. When he mounted
his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another new message as well: You Republicans don’t have to listen to what I say anymore. And don’t
worry about who’s got the political capital. Just take a hard look at where I’m saying this: in a state you were supposed to have won but lost
because of the rising Hispanic vote. Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it is already reaching on its own: If
you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. It’s your choice.
The future is wide open .
Forcing controversial fights key to Obama’s agenda- try or die for the link turn
Dickerson 13 (John, Slate, Go for the Throat!, 1/18
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_addre
ss_the_president_should_declare_war.single.html)
On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked
down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new
beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit,
sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the
same people are in power in all the branches of government and
they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon. Inaugural
speeches are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the
Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of
the day. But this might be too much for Obama’s second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to
common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been tried and it didn’t work. People
don’t believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works
is doing “serious harm” to the country. The
challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be
great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply
predictable stratagems . Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the
limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who
came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP . If
the clever application of
he wants to transform American politics,
he must go for the throat . President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the
achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after
two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest
overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a
president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate
change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack
Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and
then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a
good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too. That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will
work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on
opposing him . They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about
Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican
lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most
18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. Obama’s only remaining option is to
pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series
of clarifying fights over controversial issues , he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme
elements or cause
a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray .
Winners win – passing a difficult bill will GAIN political capital for Obama
Friedman 6/20/2010 – foreign affairs op-ed columnist for The New York Times, 3-time Pulitzer Prize winner
for commentary and international reporting (Thomas, “EVERYBODY LOVES A WINNER”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/opinion/21friedman.html?_r=0 //SRM)
I’ve been thinking about President Obama’s foreign policy lately, but first, a golf tip: I went to Dave Pelz’s famous short-game school this winter
to improve my putting and chipping, and a funny thing happened — my long game got better. It brings to mind something that happened to
Obama. The president got health care reform passed, and it may turn out to be his single most important foreign policy
achievement. In politics and diplomacy, success breeds authority and authority breeds more success. No one ever said it better than Osama bin
Laden: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” Have no illusions, the rest of the world
was watching our health care debate very closely, waiting to see who would be the strong horse — Obama or his Democratic and Republican
health care opponents? At every turn in the debate, America’s enemies and rivals were gauging what the outcome might mean for their own
ability to push around an untested U.S. president. It
remains to be seen whether, in the long run, America will be
made physically healthier by the bill’s passage. But, in the short run, Obama definitely was made
geopolitically healthier. “When others see the president as a winner or as somebody who has real
authority in his own house, it absolutely makes a difference,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said to me in an interview.
“All you have to do is look at how many minority or weak coalition governments there are around the
world who can’t deliver something big in their own country, but basically just teeter on the edge, because they can’t
put together the votes to do anything consequential, because of the divided electorate.” President Obama has had “a divided
electorate and was still able to muscle the thing through.” When President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia spoke by phone
with Obama the morning after the health care vote — to finalize the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty — he began by saying that before
discussing nukes, “I want to congratulate you, Mr. President, on the health care vote,” an administration official said. That was not just rank
flattery. According to an American negotiator, all throughout the arms talks, which paralleled the health care debate, the Russians kept asking:
“Can you actually get this ratified by the Senate” if an arms deal is cut? Winning passage of the health care bill demonstrated to the Russians
that Obama could get something hard passed. Our enemies surely noticed, too. You don’t have to be Machiavelli to believe that the leaders of
Iran and Venezuela shared the barely disguised Republican hope that health care would fail and, therefore, Obama’s whole political agenda
would be stalled and, therefore, his presidency enfeebled. He would then be a lame duck for the next three years and America would be a lame
power. Given the time and energy and political capital that was spent on health care, “failure would have been unilateral disarmament,” added
Gates. “Failure would have badly weakened the president in terms of dealing with others — his ability to do various kinds of national security
things. ... You know, people made fun of Madeleine [Albright] for saying it, but I think she was dead on: most of the rest of the world does see
us as the ‘indispensable nation.’ ” Indeed, our allies often complain about a world of too much American power, but they are not stupid. They
know that a world of too little American power is one they would enjoy even less. They know that a weak America is like a world with no health
insurance — and a lot of pre-existing conditions. Gen. James Jones, the president’s national security adviser, told me that he recently met with
a key NATO counterpart, who concluded a breakfast by congratulating him on the health care vote and pronouncing: “America is back.” But is
it? While Obama’s health care victory prevented a power outage for him, it does not guarantee a power surge. Ultimately, what makes a strong
president is a strong country — a country whose underlying economic prowess, balance sheet and innovative capacity enable it to generate and
project both military power and what the political scientist Joe Nye calls “soft power” — being an example that others want to emulate.
What matters most now is how Obama uses the political capital that health care’s passage has earned him. I
continue to believe that the most important foreign policy issue America faces today is its ability to successfully engage in nation building —
nation building at home. Obama’s success in passing health care and the bounce it has put in his step will be nothing but a sugar high if we can’t
get our deficit under control, inspire a new generation of start-ups, upgrade our railroads and Internet and continue to attract the world’s
smartest and most energetic immigrants. An effective, self-confident president with a weak country is nothing more than a bluffer. An
effective, self-confident president, though, at least increases the odds of us building a stronger country.
Internal Link Answers
Turn – PC Hurts CIR
Obama has no PC and can’t influence congress at all, he can’t keep his promises or
focus on any issue, and he DECREASES the chances of CIR passing
Barnes 6/2 [Fred Barnes June 2, 2013, writer for the Wall Street Journal “The Decline of the Obama Presidency His second term is coming
undone not because of scandal but because of decisions made in the previous four years.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873244126045785194823131 47400]
Mr. Obama's re-election stirred grand expectations. The vote heralded a new liberal era, or so it was claimed. His victory
was said to reflect ideological, cultural and demographic trends that could keep Democrats in the majority for years to come. His second four
years in the White House would be just the beginning. Now, six months later, the
Obama administration is in an unexpected
and sharp state of decline. Mr. Obama has little influence on Congress. His presidency has no theme.
He pivots nervously from issue to issue. What there is of an Obama agenda consists, at the moment,
of leftovers from his first term or proposals that he failed to emphasize in his re-election campaign
and thus have practically no chance of passage. Congressional Republicans neither trust nor fear the
president. And Democrats on Capitol Hill, to whom Mr. Obama has never been close, have grown
leery of him. In the Senate, Democrats complain privately about his interference with the biggest
domestic policy matter of 2013, immigration reform. His effect, the senators believe, can only be to
weaken the fragile bipartisan coalition for reform and make passage of major legislation more
perilous . The Obama breakdown was not caused by the trio of scandals—IRS, Justice Department, Benghazi—now confronting the
president. The decline preceded them. It's the result of what Mr. Obama did in his first term, during the campaign and in the two months
following his re-election. But the scandals have worsened his plight and made recovery next to impossible. To be clear, the two problems—the
decline and the scandals—are different matters. The scandals have not been linked directly to the president. They are vexing to the
administration, but they are not the source of its current impotence. Instead, Mr.
Obama's power and influence have been
sapped as a direct result of his own choices and decisions. He also suffers from shortcomings normal
to a second term, such as a new, less able team of advisers and cabinet members and the arrogance
fed by an impressive re-election. In his first term, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate, Mr. Obama ignored
Republicans—he didn't need their votes to pass the $800 billion stimulus, the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and Dodd-Frank, with its
fresh wave of Wall Street regulations. Then, after Republicans captured the House in the 2010 midterm election, his efforts to reach
agreements with them proved futile. Why did Mr. Obama fail at compromise? For one thing, he is rarely able to mask his contempt for
Republicans, especially those with conservative views. For another, he
began to question Republicans' motives, insisting
publicly that their paramount goal in Washington is to protect the rich from higher taxes. As a tactic
for encouraging compromise, his approach was counterproductive. Robert Merry, the editor of the National Interest
magazine and a longtime Washington journalist, recently pinpointed a bigger reason for the impasse after 2010: "It is a deadlock born largely of
the president's resolve to push an agenda for which he has no clear national consensus." In other words, Mr. Obama is too liberal to find
common ground with Republicans. The spending cuts he offers are illusory, the tax increases specific. Then, after
the November
election, Mr. Obama spurned conciliation. He upped the ante, calling for higher spending, a new
economic stimulus and an increase in the debt limit without congressional approval. Senate GOP
Leader Mitch McConnell laughed out loud when he heard the proposal. Mr. Obama used his last bit of
leverage to prevail over Republicans in the fiscal-cliff budget negotiations late last year. With the Bush-era
tax cuts due to expire Dec. 31, the president forced Republicans to accept a hefty tax hike on the top 2% of wage earners. His short-term victory
has had long-term political consequences. Republicans vowed to oppose new tax increases, which ruled out a "grand bargain" to reduce the
deficit and national debt. The exclusion of Republicans from a role in crafting ObamaCare has also backfired. By failing to ensure that the GOP
had some influence on the health-care law, the president gave them no reason to support its implementation. With ObamaCare more
unpopular than ever, House Republicans voted last month to repeal it. The vote was largely symbolic, but it was telling that two Democrats
joined the effort. Short of repeal, Republican elected officials across the country are committed to making the law's implementation, beginning
this year, as difficult as possible. Nor is tax reform likely to get anywhere this year or next despite Mr. Obama's support, at least rhetorically, for
the idea. He wants to eliminate tax preferences and loopholes so the government can collect more revenue. To win those changes, though, he
would need make a bargain with Republicans, offering to cut tax rates, including the top rate on individual income, to generate faster economic
growth. That clashes with Mr. Obama's zeal for higher taxes on the well-to-do. Faced with such obstacles, the president could focus instead on
his own domestic agenda—if he had one. He doesn't. He's paying the price for a re-election campaign that was based on attacking his
opponent, Mitt Romney, and not much else. In the president's State of the Union address in February, he endorsed a $9 minimum wage and
universal prekindergarten for 4-year-olds, but those proposals lack a popular mandate. If he had campaigned for them last year, they might
have better prospects now. More often than not, presidents focus on foreign policy in their second terms. But Mr. Obama's practice is to
downgrade foreign policy in favor of domestic concerns. Where he has sought to restrain foreign governments—Russia, Iran, North Korea—he
has been unsuccessful. His speech in May on national security and the terrorist threat revived an issue from his 2008 campaign, the closing of
the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay. The chance that will happen is slim. He is
also pushing two leftovers from his first
year in office, immigration reform and gun control. What's striking about Mr. Obama's handling of
both is his complete absence of influence. On gun control, his speeches had zero impact. On
immigration, his influence is entirely negative. He can impede a bill. He cannot aid its passage. All
this has left Mr. Obama in a state of weakness. And Democrats are increasingly blaming him. Doug
Sosnik, a former senior adviser in the Clinton White House, wrote in a memo last month that Mr. Obama's re-election "was a great political
achievement, but the fact that he didn't set out a clear policy agenda for a second term left him without a clear mandate to govern over a
politically divided Congress." Mr. Sosnik, who is now a consultant to the National Basketball Association, added:
"There's not a single
member of either party [in Congress] who fears paying a political price for not falling in line with the
President, making it even more difficult to get members to cast difficult votes." Mr. Obama's top priority now
is winning the House in 2014 while retaining control of the Senate. "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that
we've got Nancy Pelosi back in the speakership," he said last week at a Democratic fundraiser in
Chicago. In Mr. Obama's case, "everything" is unlikely to be enough
Obama holds back Immigration reform
Johnson 6-11 [Luke, “Ted Cruz: Obama Is The Biggest Obstacle To Immigration Reform”,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/ted-cruz-obama-immigration_n_3414794.html>]
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called President Barack Obama the biggest obstacle to immigration reform
and refused to rule out filibustering the reform bill drafted by the Senate's bipartisan "gang of eight"
when asked twice about his intentions on Monday. "The biggest obstacle to passing common sense immigration
reform is President Barack Obama," Cruz said in an interview with ABC News published Monday. "A
path to citizenship is the most divisive aspect of this bill and the White House is insisting on it." He said
the White House had crafted the Senate immigration bill to fail so the president could campaign on it. "It is designed for it to sail
through the Senate and then crash in the House to let the president go and campaign in 2014 on this issue," he said. Cruz's
comments come as groups on the right are divided over immigration reform. Heritage Action, the
advocacy arm of The Heritage Foundation, urged a "no" vote on the bill and said that it would include it in its
legislative scorecard. The Foundation came under intense criticism -- including from conservatives -- over its analysis stating that
the bill would cost over $6 trillion. The co-author of the analysis, Jason Richwine, resigned after his Harvard dissertation came to
light. In it he argued that Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. have substantially lower IQs than whites. Crossroads GPS, a group cofounded by Karl Rove, announced $100,000 in print and online advertising on Monday that will promote immigration reform.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a cloture vote on the immigration bill for Tuesday. Reid said that the full
legislation should come to a vote before July 4.
No PC
Obama has lost all momentum since his reelection and he doesn’t use his Political
Capital
Harris et al 6/25 [John F. Harris, Jake Sherman, Elizabeth Titus, June 24, 2013 writers for Politico “President Obama in the Doldrums”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-second-term-doldrums-93295.html]
Not yet six months into his second term, Barack Obama’s presidency is in a dead zone. A combination
of familiar Washington intransigence and a more recent run of bad news and political setbacks have
left him with less influence over his circumstances — and more buffeted by factors beyond his control
— than at any time in his five years in office. But in a damning appraisal, a wide variety of
congressional Democrats and presidential scholars said in interviews that there is another decisive
factor behind Obama’s current paralysis: his own failure to use the traditional tools of the presidency
to exert his will. Obama does not instill fear — one of the customary instruments of presidential
power. Five years of experience, say lawmakers of both parties, have demonstrated that there is not a
huge political or personal cost to be paid for crossing the president. Obama cannot count on
friendship. There are plenty of politicians who would love the political and psychic benefits of favored
status from the president. But Obama’s distant style and his insular West Wing operation have left
congressional Democrats resigned, many said in interviews, to the reality that they will never be
insiders and, therefore, have no special incentives to stay on Obama’s good side. Obama is not buoyed by the
power of ideas. When President Ronald Reagan hit a similar second-term dead zone, during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986, he was still
regarded by conservatives as the godfather of a historic movement. Obama, while retaining wide support among progressives, remains known
for a personal brand rather than an ideological one — a status that has not helped much when he is looking for friends in a storm, such as the
recent uproars over alleged politicization at the Internal Revenue Service and National Security Agency surveillance. Finally,
Obama is
standing in a presidential pulpit that recently has proved to be the opposite of bully. So far in 2013, he
has tried to harness public opinion to bring Congress to heel on both the budget sequestration and
gun control debates. In both cases, Republicans — and in key instances, moderate Democrats —
shrugged it off with apparent impunity.
Obama’s PC low due to scandal
Morrissey 6-26 [Ed, “Obama, Clinton favorability fall in latest WaPo/ABC poll”,
<http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/26/obama-clinton-favorability-fall-in-latest-wapoabc-poll/>]
That’s the lead from both the Washington Post and ABC News on their latest polling, but don’t get your hopes too high. This isn’t an epic
It is, perhaps, the first sign that
the scandals that have rocked the Obama administration over the last two months may seriously
erode Obama’s political capital and make it more difficult to push through an agenda without
significant help from Republicans on Capitol Hill: A majority of Americans regard President Obama favorably, but his
numbers have softened considerably among his fellow Democrats, according to new polling
conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News. Obama’s favorability stands at 53 percent,
compared to 44 percent of Americans who view him unfavorably. While 85 percent of Democrats
regard Obama favorably, the number of those who are strongly supportive of him has dropped since
the start of the year. Just 58 percent of Democrats describe themselves as having a “strongly favorable” view of Obama, down from 72
percent who said the same in January. Obama’s numbers among liberal as well as moderate/conservative
Democrats are also at their lowest levels in Post-ABC polling since prior to the Democratic National Convention in the
collapse, or even a shocking hit to the relative standing of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
summer of 2012. ABC’s report notes the relative slide: Six in 10 Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll see Clinton favorably,
down 6 percentage points from her career high in January. Obama’s seen favorably by 53 percent, down 7 points from January and back to his
pre-re-election level across most of 2012. … The single-digit comedowns for Obama and Clinton are unsurprising. Since his re-election, the
president’s waded into contentious policy areas such as gun control and immigration, while dealing with the Internal Revenue Service and
National Security Administration controversies. Obama’s job approval likewise is off from his post-election high in ABC/Post polls.
Obama’s PC declining
Feldmann 6-17 [Linda, “Obama job approval drops 17 points among young Americans”,
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0617/Obama-job-approval-drops-17-pointsamong-young-Americans>]
The latest wave of polls shows President Obama’s job approval rating drifting steadily downward, into
the mid-40s, and that’s hardly surprising. Controversies around US government surveillance of telephones
and the Internet, the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tea party groups, Justice Department
snooping into journalists’ phone records, and the US response to last September’s terror attack in
Benghazi, Libya, have put the Obama administration on the defensive. Public views of Mr. Obama’s
personal qualities have also taken a hit: The latest CNN/ORC International survey, released Monday, shows that, for the
first time in his presidency, half the public does not believe Obama is honest and trustworthy. All of the above cuts into
Obama’s “political capital,” that elusive commodity that fuels a president's second-term mojo. But
perhaps most concerning for the president are the numbers among young adults. “The drop in
Obama's support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month among people under
30, who, along with black Americans, had been the most loyal part of the Obama coalition," CNN polling
director Keating Holland said in the cable network’s report. That’s just one poll, and the margin of error for any one age group is
high – plus or minus 7.5 percent. Among Americans age 18 to 34, Obama’s now at 48 percent, not too far from 50. But it’s
a
cohort Obama can ill afford to lose. And there have been other recent worrying signs for the president among the young.
An April survey of 3,100 voters under age 30, the so-called “millennials,” by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University shows that
only 39 percent trust the president to do the right thing, compared with 44 percent in 2010. The news, in fact, is bad for Washington
and politicians in general, as young voters show increasing negativity and cynicism with the political process. Almost three-fifths of
young Americans (59 percent) said they agree that elected officials seem motivated by “selfish reasons” – an increase of 5 points
since 2010. Some 56 percent agree that “elected officials don’t have the same priorities I have,” also up 5 points from 2010. And 28
percent agree that “political involvement rarely has any tangible results,” an increase of 5 points since 2010. “If you are 24 years old,
all you know is petty partisan politics while big issues aren’t getting addressed, while the economy is still struggling,” IOP director
Trey Grayson told The New York Times.
Obama PC low now
Birnbaum 6-12 [Jeffrey H., “Sensational season for scandal”,
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/12/sensational-season-for-scandal/>]
The year started with great expectations, but has turned out to be a dud. Only the most routine
matters have made — or seem likely to make — progress in 2013. President Obama began his second term with
promises and much promise. Gun control, deficit reduction and immigration reform were high on his list of legislative goals. Few
insiders would have bet against them. The first two have fallen away, and the third is iffy at best. Gun control went down with barely
a shot fired in the Senate, despite the impetus provided by the massacre in Newtown, Conn. Reduction of the budget deficit was put
on autopilot when the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration took effect. Now additional deficit-cutting has been shelved
thanks to larger-than-expected tax collections and a slowdown in federal spending. What’s left
among major initiatives is
immigration reform. However, that faces a tough slog in the Senate and a possibly impossible
trajectory in the House of Representatives. Its leading Republican sponsor, Sen. Marco Rubio of
Florida, has already signaled that he might bail on the plan he helped craft if changes — including
guaranteed bolstering of border security — aren’t added as the bill moves through the Senate. In other
words, official Washington will devote lots of time to little more than housekeeping matters. Congress could pass a few
appropriations bills, reauthorize farm programs and raise the federal borrowing limit to avoid the disaster that would come with
That’s a big problem for
Mr. Obama. The more time that passes, the less political capital he’ll have to muscle through his
priorities. Unless he acts quickly, he could lose his chance to make his presidency truly historic. He
needs more accomplishments to distinguish himself.
default. What that means is that not much more than the basics are on track to succeed this year.
Second term presidents never have political capital, empirics and gun control prove
Welch 6/10 [Matt Welch, writer for Reason.com “Obama’s Last Gasp at a Legacy
As his potency dwindles, the president should ease up on pot prohibition” http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/10/obamas-last-gasp-at-alegacy]
All hope and audacity aside, the
math of second-term presidential power is pitiless. After winning re-election
by 3.5 million votes in 2004, George W. Bush declared that “I earned capital in this campaign, political
capital, and now I intend to spend it.” Within months, the 43rd president’s signature post-election
initiative, creating private accounts for Social Security, was declared dead on arrival by the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives. In the last Bush midterm election of 2006, energized
Democrats re-took control of Congress. So much for second-term capital. Bill Clinton was impeached
halfway through his second term. Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace. Ronald Reagan’s Republicans
lost control of the Senate in 1986, and the Gipper spent the rest of his presidency backpedaling on a
botched arms-for-hostages swap. The five second-term presidents prior to Reagan —Lyndon Johnson,
Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson—had it even worse during
their midterms, averaging losses of 39 House and seven Senate seats. If President Barack Obama met
the same fate in 2014, the Senate would turn Republican and the House would feature its largest GOP
majority since 1929. Though that outcome may seem unlikely now, it is a statistical near-certainty that
the pendulum of two-party politics swings decisively away from presidents in years five through eight
of their tenure. Americans tire of the bully at the pulpit, same-party congressmen lose their fear of
breaking ranks, and the media turns its attention to the next presidential contest. So it should come
as no surprise that, even after winning the popular vote by 5 million and talking up his “mandate,”
Obama has been so rudely introduced to his own impotence. The first big blow was the March 1
sequester spending trim, carried out over his howls of protests and predictions of catastrophe. As
possibilities for compromise with Republicans floated away, so, too, did dim hopes of a “grand
bargain” on long-term entitlement spending. Thus, the president who came into office in January
2009 vowing that the “hard decisions” on long-term entitlement promises would be “made under my
watch, not someone else’s,” because “we are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to
kick [the can] any further,” will instead hand off a ticking entitlement bomb to his successor. Not a
happy legacy, that. Obama also spent the first few months of his second-term political capital on a
series of gun control measures that became less popular the more he stumped for them. After even a
comparatively mild and popular background check expansion failed in the Senate, the chief executive looked more petulant than presidential,
calling it “a pretty shameful day for Washington,” and claiming, falsely, that “there were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do
this.” (For several coherent arguments on precisely that topic, consult in particular Senior Editor Jacob Sullum’s work at reason.com.) At a press
conference not long after the gun defeat, Obama was asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl, “Do you still have the juice to get the rest of
your agenda through this Congress?” The president looked down, laughed awkwardly, and said, “If you put it that way, Jonathan, maybe I
should just pack up and go home. Golly!” It doesn’t have to be this painful. Second-term
presidents have basically two
options: Look creatively for domestic reforms that appeal to the opposition party, or use the
executive branch’s considerable discretion to make significant directional changes in U.S. policy. Since
Obama lacks Bill Clinton’s ideological slipperiness, at a time that Democrats have entrenched themselves considerably to the left of Clinton on
economic issues and Republicans have hardened in opposition, the reaching-out strategy is probably a non-starter. The
last real
possible exception to that rule is comprehensive immigration reform, where electorally motivated
Republicans were still negotiating with Senate Democrats at press time, while Obama stayed away
from the fray. While progress on a reform bill has gone further than I expected, it still faces an uphill
climb, and at any rate marks the last big bipartisan legislative package on the horizon.
As Obama’s Ratings go down, so does his political capital
Logiurato, Brett 5/1/13 “political reporter for Business Insider. He graduated from Syracuse University
in 2011 with degrees in newspaper and online journalism and political science.”
President Barack Obama's approval rating on three key issues is distinctly underwater, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac
University released Wednesday. The poll found that at least 10 percent more respondents disapproved than approved of
Obama's handling of the economy, gun policy, and immigration issues: On the economy, 53 percent disapprove of
Obama's job performance, while only 41 percent approve. Two weeks after the Senate failed to pass a measure that would have expanded background checks,
Obama's approval rating on "gun policy" is also 41 percent. Meanwhile, 52 percent disapprove. And as
the immigration debate continues to
flare on Capitol Hill, only 40 percent approve of Obama's handling of the issue. Fifty percent disapprove. Together, the three issues are perhaps
the ones that will dominate Washington on a domestic scale for the foreseeable future. The poll also found that on two of the issues — the economy and guns —
respondents said they trusted Congressional Republicans to handle the issue more than Congressional Democrats. On immigration, Democrats narrowly hold a 3938 edge. In a press conference Tuesday, Obama
tried to downplay any notion that he had lost any "juice" in getting
his legislative agenda through Congress. "If you put it that way — maybe I should just pack up and go
home! Golly," he told a reporter. "As Mark Twain said, rumors of my demise might be a bit exaggerated at this point."
PC Not Key (CIR Specific)
Obama not key, Senators and Representatives will decide passing of immigration
reform
Altman 6-26 [Alex, “Immigration Bill Faces Tough Odds in the House”,
<http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/26/immigration-bill-faces-tough-odds-in-the-house/>]
Barring a surprise, the bipartisan immigration bill on the floor of the Senate will be approved by the end of the week. Two-thirds of the
chamber, including 15 Republicans, voted to break a filibuster in a key procedural vote Monday night, clearing a path for a similar number to
support final passage before members scatter for the July 4 recess. Perhaps the bill’s architects will win the splashy 70-vote majority they have
sought. Perhaps they fall a few votes shy of that target. Either way, success
in the Senate is a significant milestone in the
push to overhaul U.S. immigration laws for the first time since 1986. It may also be its apogee.
Because when the immigration debate resumes after the holiday, the action shifts to the House of
Representatives, Washington’s legislative killing field. As things stand now, it will take a change of
heart from rank-and-file Republicans or a hairpin turn from their embattled leader John Boehner to
thread legislation through the House. Here is the grim reality for the bill’s supporters: the past three years have proven that a
big portion of the House Republican conference are willing to defy both popular opinion and political pressure in service of ideology and selfpreservation. To this group, which numbers perhaps 100 members or more, the Senate bill is unacceptable. It is too big and too expensive. It
rewards law-breakers with health-care benefits, and kicks off the citizenship process before the border is secure. Instead of stemming the tide
of illegal immigration, the party’s opinion-makers warn, it will open the floodgates for millions of new “undocumented Democrats,” as Rush
Limbaugh puts it. The House Republican conference both dislikes and distrusts the Senate, which is why the suggestion that a formidable
margin in the upper chamber will impact the House strikes many conservatives as laughable. “Ooh, I’m scared,” scoffed House Republican Raul
Labrador of Idaho, an influential Tea Partyer and former immigration lawyer. The
Democratic-controlled Senate is so toxic in
conservative circles that those who deign to cut deals there are regarded as heretics. Witness the
excommunication of Marco Rubio, who until recently was ordained as one of the high priests and potential saviors of conservatism. Now he’s
getting booed at Tea Party rallies and panned as Chuck Schumer’s dupe by the very people who touted him as presidential timber. Proponents
of immigration reform, as well as some political handicappers, argue that the clout of the GOP’s anti-immigration wing has waned in the wake
of Mitt Romney‘s drubbing last November. Comprehensive reform could boost the party’s paltry standing with Latinos, GOP Beltway grandees
argue. While the House bristles at taking direction from the Democratic Senate, they argue, it might listen to business lobbies like the Chamber
of Commerce, anti-tax icons like Grover Norquist, evangelical churches, and a high-tech community it sees as an emerging donor base.
Immigration reform has a powerful advocate within the House in former vice presidential nominee
Paul Ryan, plus a cadre of conservatives who support the concept if not the Senate bill. Few people dispute
the U.S. immigration system is broken, and an overwhelming majority support efforts to fix it. These are logical arguments, but logic has
had little or no effect on many House Republicans in the recent past. They have a strong record of
bucking pressure and making unpopular choices on issues ranging from the debt ceiling to disaster
relief. The conference will meet on July 10 to map out a battle plan on immigration. The House has three
paths at its disposal. One is to try to move its own comprehensive measure. The odds of that appear long, since the working group tasked with
assembling a bipartisan plan has so far come up empty. Many conservatives prefer a piecemeal approach, passing one or more bills that beef
up border security and enforcement standards without the citizenship path Democrats seek. There is also a faction in the House that doesn’t
want to pass anything at all, because of fears that sending immigration measures to a conference with the Senate could backfire. And if the
obstacles on the right are many, hurdles await on the left as well. Republicans on the Hill — and even some liberals — suspect that Democratic
leader Nancy Pelosi could opt to keep immigration as a cudgel for the 2014 midterms rather than rally her members behind a diluted measure.
Adherents of this theory can point to the recent failed vote on what had been a bipartisan farm bill, when Pelosi quietly yanked Democratic
support after the late addition of a controversial amendment, then denounced the GOP leadership as “amateur hour.” All
these factors
must be swirling through Boehner’s mind as he wrestles with how to approach immigration.
Sometime in the coming months, the House Speaker may face a choice between the preference of his
members and the future of his party. Boehner says he will observe the will of the House. Unless he changes
his mind, the bill looks destined to die.
Capital isn’t key to immigration reform
Hirsh ’13 (Michael Hirsh is chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012
Decoded. Hirsh previously served as the senior editor and national economics correspondent for
Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also Newsweek’s Washington web editor and
authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com. (“There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital”, National
Journal, 2/7/2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-politicalcapital-20130207)
Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new
spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer
declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this
turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence —his political mandate, as it were.
It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27
percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama
drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he
won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the
movement on immigration has mainly come out of the
Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing
demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s
got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all.
PC Not Key (Generic)
Obama doesn’t use his political capital to broker deals on policy issues
Alter 6/27 [Jonathan Alter “The Schmoozing Gene” June 27, 2013,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/barack_obama_won_t_play_politics_in_an_excerpt_from_jonathan_alter_
s_the.html]
For years, Barack
Obama was able to keep his poll numbers high because the American public saw him as
above the fray. But now that his poll numbers are dipping, he lacks the personal relationships to fall
back on when the worm turns—in part because he's stayed so above the fray. Here's how it happened, in an
excerpt from Jonathan Alter's The Center Holds: Obama and his Enemies, out now from Simon & Schuster. By contrast, the Obamas, with the
help of Valerie Jarrett, adopted an informal code in the White House. Obama
would bring members of Congress into the
White House for large meetings and maybe even give them a ride on Air Force One when he went to
their state, but the socializing they craved, the invitations to dinner or a movie, were not often part of
the package. His excuse for not having the GOP leadership over more often was that he had repeatedly invited them and they usually said
no. And he had unpleasant memories of intensely courting Republican senators in 2009 to no avail. After passage of the Recovery Act, which
won the support of three moderate Republican senators, he
received no Republican support at all on his other major
legislative victories of 2009 and 2010. He spent many hours with Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, whose objections to
Obamacare (including some from the left) he was sure he addressed. But under pressure from her leader, Mitch McConnell, she too voted no.
Obama believed that the days of politicians in Washington settling everything over bourbon and branch water (or, in the case of Reagan and
O’Neill, a couple of beers) were over. It
used to be that if a president leaned on a member to change his vote,
most of his constituents wouldn’t find out. But in the age of instant access to voting records and 24hour cable, the threat of being “primaried” trumped any influence that might come from a ride on Air
Force One or a trip to Camp David. Besides, Obama liked to think of himself as nontransactional, above
the petty deals, “donor maintenance,” and phony friendships of Washington. Here his self-awareness
again failed him. In truth, he was all transactional in his work life. He reserved real relationships for family, friends
from before he was president, and a few staff. Everything else was business. The senators and billionaires who longed to brag about their
private advice to the president were consistently disappointed. Defensive on this point, Obama didn’t believe that listening to powerful
blowhards was generally worth his time. But that is the thing about relationships: They’re investments that don’t necessarily pay off right away.
His failure to use the trappings of the presidency more often left him with one less tool in his toolbox, one less way to leverage his authority. It
was a sign of his talent that he was quite good at a part of the job that he didn’t much enjoy. At fundraisers he was lithe and charming and,
most of the time, seemed fully present in the moment. Flashing that thousand-watt smile and exchanging pleasantries were enough for some,
but others yearned for at least the impression of friendship, or what passes for it in Washington. Obama
wasn’t a loner, just a
relatively normal person—warm with his friends—who preferred not to hang out too much with
people he barely knew. This was a fine quality in an individual but problematic for a president. Part of
the explanation lay in his upbringing. He hadn’t spent his early life planning how to become important, as Johnson and Clinton had. Nor was he
a legacy, soaked in politics from an early age. No one had to instruct the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes (and Romneys) on how to build lists and
get credit for their gratitude. Bargaining was in the background of most of Obama’s predecessors. Eisenhower learned to negotiate with balky
allies during the World War II, and Reagan gained bargaining experience as president of the Screen Actors Guild. Unlike Reagan, Clinton, and
Bush, Obama
had never been a governor herding state legislators, and his experience closing deals with
Republicans in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate was minimal. (It was no coincidence that the last two
presidents before Obama who went directly from the Senate to the White House were John F. Kennedy in 1961 and Warren G. Harding in 1921,
and neither got much done with Congress.) In Democratic Chicago he rarely had to talk to people who fundamentally disagreed with him. His
self-image was that of a bridge-builder, but he came up so fast that he’d never built a big one. The
president didn’t have the
schmooze gene. Politics self-selects for certain traits, the most common of which is an essential neediness, an emotional hole many
politicians are trying to fill that makes them crave attention, thrive on the artificial calories provided by superficial relationships, and make the
personal sacrifices necessary for public life. Obama’s childhood in Hawaii was marked by a peculiar combination of abandonment and
unconditional love. It bred self-reliance and security. By the time he left Chicago for Harvard in 1988, he had the ambition and willingness to
sacrifice that is standard equipment in politicians, but he lacked the neediness that is usually part of the package. As he ascended, this made
the inherent neediness of other politicians, CEOs, and other high achievers an abstraction for him, not a shared condition. The backslapping,
stroking, gripping, and grinning that were second nature to politicians like Clinton and Biden were often chores for Obama. During a scene in By
the People, a documentary about the 2008 campaign, Obama complains loudly to his staff about having to work rope lines. Where Clinton
usually found such contact energizing, Obama frequently found it enervating. There were exceptions; at the end of a campaign, when the
competitive juices were flowing, he liked pressing the flesh just fine, but he rarely stuck around to soak up the love longer than the schedule
demanded. He didn’t need to. Obama wasn’t as self-pitying as many politicians, but he often complained about how hard the job was. Early on,
one of his first big financial supporters, a Chicagoan, brought him up short in the Oval Office by saying, “You wanted this. We all worked like hell
to put you here. Stop complaining.” Obama smiled and said he was right and not enough people talked to him that way. This supporter always
knew Obama had a huge ego—anyone challenging Hillary Clinton with so little experience had to have one—but he thought Obama had been
humbled by the opposition’s intransigence. He had never failed to bring anyone around before, and it changed him. You could see it at public
events in 2011, before he put on his friendly game face for the campaign. For those who knew him, and for many who didn’t, his vibe was
unmistakable in the East Room: I’ll flash a smile, then, please, someone get me the hell out of here. It wasn’t that he had to be back in the Oval
Office for something urgent. He just didn’t want to hang out for an instant longer than he had to, even with long-lost Chicago friends. The
quality that his girlfriend from the 1980s, Genevieve cook, described as “a bit of a wall—the veil,” was back. The encounters when Obama
would stand very close and use his height and star power to leave admirers swooning were rarer, except at fundraisers, when he knew he had
to turn it on. He sometimes exuded an unspoken exasperation: I saved Detroit, the DOW is up, we avoided a depression—I have to explain this
to all of you again? When the president got away from elites and spent time with those he called “ordinary folks,” he relaxed. Even
if they
disagreed with him on certain things, most Americans still liked and trusted him. The fact that he
wasn’t a typical politician and stayed above the fray was a huge asset in their minds. The same traits
that hurt him in Washington helped keep his poll numbers afloat. As time went on, he began to enjoy his trips out of
town—not the fundraisers (as many as six in one day at the height of the campaign) but the other interactions. In his second term, he told
friends, he would spend much more time outside Washington. The comparisons between Obama and Clinton and Obama and Johnson weren’t
fair. Clinton was the most natural politician in memory, yet even his Olympic-caliber schmoozing skills did nothing to protect him from
impeachment. Johnson, a former Senate majority leader known for his persuasiveness with former colleagues, had earmarks to hand out and a
filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate on every issue except civil rights. But Obama
didn’t do himself any favors by
undervaluing the importance of personal relationships in getting anything done in Washington. His not
especially creative staff hardly helped. On the domestic side, the policymaking process was simultaneously ad hoc and super controlled, a
combination that led to risk-averse decisions when decisions were made at all. In 2008 Obama accused McCain of not being able to multitask;
now his White House staff sometimes seemed to have the same problem, focusing on only one issue at a time. And the reverence for the boss
within the White House was a little unhealthy. The
close-knit group surrounding Obama had his back but also his
front, obstructing his ability to draw close to people outside the inner circle who might help make him
a better president.
Presidential leadership’s irrelevant
Jacobs and King 10
Lawrence Jacobs and Desmond King 10, University of Minnesota, Nuffield College, 8-2010 “Varieties of
Obamaism: Structure, Agency, and the Obama Presidency,” Perspectives on Politics, 793-802
But personality is not a solid foundation for a persuasive explanation of presidential impact and the shortfalls or accomplishments of Obama's
presidency. Modern presidents have brought divergent individual traits to their jobs and yet they have routinely
failed to enact
much of their agendas. Preeminent policy goals of Bill Clinton (health reform) and George W. Bush (Social Security
privatization) met the same fate, though these presidents' personalities vary widely. And presidents like Jimmy Carter—whose
personality traits have been criticized as ill-suited for effective leadership—enjoyed comparable or stronger success in Congress
than presidents lauded for their personal knack for leadership—from Lyndon Johnson to Ronald Reagan.7 Indeed, a personalistic account
provides little leverage for explaining the disparities in Obama's record—for example why he succeeded legislatively in restructuring health care
and higher education, failed in other areas, and often accommodated stakeholders. Decades of rigorous research find that
impersonal,
structural forces offer the most compelling explanations for presidential impact .8 Quantitative research
that compares legislative success and presidential personality finds no overall relationship.9 In his magisterial qualitative and historical study,
Stephen Skowronek reveals that institutional
dynamics and ideological commitments structure presidential
choice and success in ways that trump the personal predilections of individual presidents.10 Findings
point to the predominant influence on presidential legislative success of the ideological and partisan composition of Congress, entrenched
interests, identities, and institutional design, and a constitutional order that invites multiple and competing lines of authority. The widespread
presumption, then, that Obama's personal traits or leadership style account for the obstacles to his policy proposals is
called into question by a generation of scholarship on the presidency. Indeed, the presumption is not simply problematic analytically,
but practically as well. For the misdiagnosis of the source of presidential weakness may, paradoxically, induce failure by distracting the White
House from strategies and tactics where presidents can make a difference. Following a meeting with Obama shortly after Brown's win, one
Democratic senator lamented the White House's delusion that a presidential sales pitch will pass health reform—“Just
declaring that
he's still for it doesn't mean that it comes off life support.”11 Although Obama's re-engagement after the
Brown victory did contribute to restarting reform, the senator's comment points to the importance of
ideological and partisan coalitions in Congress, organizational combat, institutional roadblocks, and
anticipated voter reactions. Presidential sales pitches go only so far .
Low PC inevitable and not key
Schier 11 Steven E. Schier is the Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon professor of political science at
Carleton College, The contemporary presidency: the presidential authority problem and the political
power trap. Presidential Studies Quarterly December 1, 2011 lexis
Implications of the Evidence¶ The evidence presented here depicts a decline in presidential political capital
after 1965 . Since that time, presidents have had lower job approval , fewer fellow partisans and less
voting support
mood
in Congress, less approval of their party,
and have usually encountered an increasingly adverse public policy
as they governed.¶ Specifically, average job approval dropped. Net job approval plummeted, reflecting greater polarization about presidential performance.The proportion
of fellow partisans in the public dropped and became less volatile. Congressional voting support became lower and varied more. The number of fellow partisans in the House and Senate
fell and became less volatile. Public issue mood usually moved against presidents as they governed. All of these measures, with the exception of public mood, correlate positively with
each other, suggesting they are part of a broader phenomenon.¶ That "phenomenon" is political authority. The decline in politicalcapital has produced great difficulties for presidential
political authority in recent decades. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval, congressional support, and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a
president than in times past.¶ Because of the uncertainties of political authority, recent presidents have adopted a governing style that is personalized, preemptive,and, at times,
isolated. Given the entrenched autonomy of other elite actors and the impermanence of public opinion, presidents have had to "sell themselves" in order to sell their governance.
Samuel Kernell (1997) first highlighted the presidential proclivity to "go public"in the 1980s as a response to these conditions. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times
been able to overcome institutional resistance to their policy agendas. Brandice Canes-Wrone (2001) discovered that presidents tend to help themselves with public opinion by
Despite shrinking
political capital , presidents at times have effectively pursued such strategies , particularly since 1995.
Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure
important policy changes --in Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Bush's tax cuts
and education reform--that at the time received popular approval. This may explain the slight recovery in some presidential political capital measures since 1993.
highlighting issues the public supports and that boosts their congressional success--an effective strategy when political capital is questionable.¶
Clinton accomplished much with a GOPCongress, and Bush's first term included strong support from a Congress ruled by friendly Republican majorities. David Mayhew finds that from
1995 to 2004, both highly important and important policy changeswere passed by Congress into law at higher rates than during the 1947-1994 period. (2)
declining political capital
A trend of
does not preclude significant policy change , but a record of major policy accomplishment has
not reversed the decline in presidential political capital in recent years, either. Short-term legislative strategies can win policy success
for a president but do not serve as an antidote to declining political capital over time, as the final years of both
thus
the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate.
PC Not Key – Ideology
PC not key
Dickinson 9 (Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at
Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt,
5/26, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor, Obama and
Presidential Power,” http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obamaand-presidential-power/)
What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters,
have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to
discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the
executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress
These measures, however, are a misleading
gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how
members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president
does . Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge
presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with
actual evidence of presidential influence . Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and
vote with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes?
partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually
predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I
am ignoring the importance of a president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame,
the primary means by which
presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives
from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in agendasetting – not arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama
then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack influence. Instead,
spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide
to vote on Sotomayor will have almost nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof).
occurred, in the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee.
His real influence has already
Thumpers
Voting Rights Act Thumper
Voting Rights Act thumps pol cap for immigration
Sullivan 6/26 (Sean Sullivan, Published: June 26, 2013; “Why the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act
decision puts Obama in a tough spot”; Washington Post; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/thefix/wp/2013/06/26/why-the-supreme-courts-voting-rights-act-decision-puts-obama-in-a-toughspot/)//KDUB
There are actions Obama can take, but like most things, sweeping changes require Congress signing off. While it’s
too early to write off Congress’ chances of getting a deal done on a new formula, nothing in the way the body has conducted business in recent
years suggests that it’s in the immediate offing. And the expected Republican resistance to Democratic proposals means the odds are even
longer. That means Obama could be expected to ramp up pressure through speeches, appearances across the country and other levers his
power affords him. But Obama
can’t be everywhere at once. He has to pick and choose the issues he will put
substantial political capital behind. With no other major asks of Congress, applying pressure on
lawmakers would be a tall task. A CNN/ORC poll shows the public is split on the necessity of the Voting
Rights Act. It’s an even taller one considering the president is also hoping to get a sweeping
immigration bill done. And he hasn’t given up hopes of striking a long-term deficit reduction deal. Gun control is another issue
advocates of tighter restrictions on firearms are hopeful the president will revisit.
IRS Thumper
Public hates Obama - IRS
Klein 6/27 (June 27, 2013 By Joseph Klein ; “Smoking Gun: The IRS’s Abuse of Obama’s Pro-Israel
Enemies”; Front Page Mag; http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/smoking-gun-the-irss-abuseof-obamas-pro-israel-enemies/)//KDUB
On its face, there is simply no legal justification for why the IRS would use “disputed territories,” a
foreign policy issue, to evaluate a group’s domestic political activity for purposes of determining eligibility for taxexempt status. Therefore, without some other compelling content-neutral reason to justify its actions, the
IRS’s limitation of the issuance of tax-exempt status to a nonprofit educational organization on the basis of the substantive views
held by the persons who operate the organization — views that differ from the Obama
administration’s foreign policies — constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of
speech of such persons.
Nukes Thumper
Obama investing PC in disarmament
Rogin 6/18 senior correspondent for national security and politics for Newsweek (Josh
Rogin; Jun 18, 2013; “No Word From Russia as Obama Will Announce U.S. Nuclear Reductions”; The
Daily Beast; http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/josh-rogin.html)//KDUB
Four years after the speech, Obama’s record on nuclear disarmament has been mixed. His administration spent huge
amounts of time and political capital to pass the New START nuclear-reductions treaty with Russia in
2010, which required both countries to reduce their stockpiles of deployed nuclear weapons to about 1,550
each by 2018. The White House has been trying to start negotiations on a follow-up pact, but the Russians have
not yet agreed to discuss further reductions. Obama now wants to move forward with further American reductions
regardless, and will outline his desire to do so at the East side of the Brandenberg Gate in Berlin on Wednesday, two administration officials
told The Daily Beast. Administration officials made calls to leaders on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to inform them that Obama will announce
a desire to have a one-third reduction in deployed nuclear weapons beyond current commitments, to
about 1,000 total deployed nukes, two senior Senate aides told The Daily Beast. The New York Times reported in February that plans for new
cuts to the nuclear arsenal would be announced in this year’s State of the Union address, but when the speech was delivered, Obama only said,
“We’ll engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals.”
Climate Thumper
Obama spent his PC on climate change
King 6/27 Editor (Ed King; 6/27; “Comment: Obama raised expectations, now he must meet them”;
Responding to Climate Change (RTCC); http://www.rtcc.org/comment-obama-raised-expectations-nowhe-must-meet-them/)//KDUB
Setting the plan to one side. If this speech achieved anything, it was changing the narrative of climate change
from struggle and disaster to hope and opportunity. “A low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to
come. And I want America to build that engine. I want America to build that future – right here in the United States of America,” he added to
applause. This is the signal many business leaders want – a clear sign from one of the world’s most powerful men that the low carbon economy
is the way forward. If anyone doubts the effectiveness of that message today, check the share price of some of the biggest coal producers.
Peabody’s price has slumped by 17% since June 15, although it revived by 1.2% last night. Expect
the war on coal rhetoric from
Congress to double, and attacks on a President avoiding the heart of democracy to get louder. And it’s not just the
leading coal companies or Republicans who are angry. Many greens believe this is simply not enough to
avert a climate catastrophe. Nafeez Ahmed sums it up succinctly in the Guardian, describing it as ‘fatally compromised’
given Obama’s strong support for fracking. He also picks up on a popular theme – that the USA’s 2009 pledge to cut emissions 17%
on 2005 levels by 2020 is far too small for the world’s second largest emitter. One veteran environment correspondent emailed
me yesterday with the line: ‘ If this is leadership, then I’m a banana ’, a fruity burst of cynicism amid all the praise for
Obama. But given the background to this speech – and the political capital the President has now staked on getting
the ball rolling – perhaps he deserves to be given a brief break.
Climate change depletes all of Obama’s PC
Schiffman 6/25 (Richard Schiffman; June 25, 2013; “President Obama is talking big on climate
change, but will he act?”; Guardian (UK); lexis)//KDUB
"If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations," President Obama vowed during the state of the union speech in February, "I will."
This afternoon at Georgetown University, the president made good on that threat. Sort of. Obama
gave what might turn out to
be his most substantive, not to mention controversial, address on climate changesince he took office over four years ago. I
say might turn out to be, because the devil, as they say, is in the details, and the details are not yet in. It's not clear, for example, how
much of his diminishing stock of "political capital" Obama will be willing to spend on aggressively
pushing for the climate relief package that he outlined today. It is also not clear whether the three years
plus that remain in his soon-to-be lame duck presidency will be enough time to accomplish his ambitious
goals, still less insure that they won't be reversed by the next resident of the White House. But the broad strokes of Obama's
new plan are impressive: tough regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, new energy efficiency
standards for appliances, renewable energy development on public lands, billions of additional federal dollars
to support the launch of green technologies, and coordinated action with state and local governments
to help mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. He also pledged that the federal government would increase the
electricity it uses from renewables to 20% in the next seven years. This time, the president is not waiting for the Republicans
to come on board. He's mandating federal agencies to make the changes unilaterally without having
to go to Congress for approval. In what will likely be the most controversial move of all, Obama
directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority of the Clean Air Act to issue
new regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from America's power plants, which are responsible for 40% of US carbon
output.
Climate change thumps the DA
Revkin 6/26 (ANDREW C. REVKIN; June 26, 2013; “Seeking More Presidential Action, Less Rhetoric, on
Warming”; The New York Times Blogs; lexis)//KDUB
At this point, five years in, Obama
should also be judged by his actions (tightened car emission standards; delayed power plant
than his words on climate change. This is not necessarily to criticize him, only to recognize that words
are cheap and the president has limited political capital to spend on a variety of important priorities. Sixty
rules) rather
percent of U.S. emissions come from two sectors - transportation and the power sector. I'll focus on these.
Obama’s spending his polcap on climate policy
Krusier 6/24 a professional comedian has had the great honor of traveling around the
world entertaining U.S. troops (STEPHEN KRUISER; June 24, 2013; “The Climate Speech Will Have
The Economy Seeing The Wrong Kind Of Green”; http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/24/the-climatespeech-will-have-the-economy-seeing-the-wrong-kind-of-green/)//KDUB
Obama signaled that he would prioritize his beliefs about the climate in his second inaugural speech, so no one
should be surprised by his decision to gamble his dwindling supply of political capital on an issue that
is liable to hurt rather than help the economy. The president will, of course, argue that his green plan is good for the economy in the
long run and tout his belief that more regulations will help transform the country and create jobs in industries that provide alternatives to the
burning of fossil fuels. But the country has already been down this road in the first term as Obama’s
stimulus boondoggle
provided cash for Solyndra and other “green” corporations that proved to be cash cows for the
president’s major contributors but a disaster to the taxpayers that were fleeced to bolster companies
that couldn’t stand on their own.
Congress is opposing Obama’s climate change legislation – depletes pc
Tribune Review 6/27 (Tribune-Review; June 27, 2013; “Obama’s climate monstrosity: Fight back,
Congress”; Trib Live; http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/4262964-74/obama-climatecongress#axzz2XdlKqYhy)//KDUB
All this, though even halting all U.S. CO2 emissions immediately would have only negligible climate effects.
That speaks volumes about his plan's cost-benefit failings. Thankfully, Obama can't circumvent congressional control of
the federal purse strings. “Congress should move immediately to defund as much of this as possible,”
says Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment.
That's the last, best hope for stopping this monstrous plan.
Obama investing his Political Capital into cutting emissions, not Immigration
The Guardian 6/25/13 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/25/obama-climate-change
Barack Obama's plans for cutting US greenhouse gas emissions represent an important first.
Piecemeal
attempts have been made to address the issue, but this is the first time a comprehensive strategy to combat climate change has
been unveiled. For the first time, limits will be imposed on the carbon dioxide output of existing power plants,
which, as the biggest single source, account for 40% of America's carbon emissions. Shares in coal have plunged but, in climate
change terms, that is a good a thing. It is a sign that Mr Obama is not tinkering around the edges, but attacking the source of the
Obama is proceeding in the teeth of opposition from the
Republican-dominated Congress, whose reaction to the very idea of new climate rules, let alone their
detail, was summed up by John Boehner, the house speaker, dismissing the very idea as "absolutely
crazy". Mr Obama's chosen route around a deadlocked Congress is to use his executive authority to direct the Environmental
problem. It should also be acknowledged that Mr
Protection Agency to draw up new regulations. These in turn will be subject to legal challenge by business groups which will argue
that the EPA is exceeding its authority under the Clean Air Act. Challenges have already been set in motion over plans the EPA
announced last year to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. Regulating existing plants presents more problems.
Viewed from Europe, the plans are less than bold. Mr Obama's commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005
levels contrasts with the EU target of a 20% cut from 1990 levels, the key being the difference in the baselines. His speech on
Tuesday is not the only decision he has to make. He has yet to approve the Keystone XL pipeline to transport tar-sands oil from
Canada to the US Gulf coast refineries and ports. Without that pipeline, Canada cannot develop a market for the third-biggest oil
reserves in the world – reserves that could generate three to four times more carbon emissions per barrel than conventional oil,
because of the energy-intensive process of separating the oil from the rock. Lobbying for and against has intensified on both sides
of the Atlantic, with the EU proposing to penalise Alberta's tar sands. Let us hope that Mr Obama does not tarnish his image by
He is also
investing his political capital into the cause of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This and immigration
will be the defining domestic reforms of his second term. No cause could better merit this effort. With the US and
letting that one through. There is no doubting that, for today, Mr Obama is not only leveraging the power of his office.
China, the world's biggest emitters, making tangible efforts, no bigger signal could now be sent to the rest of the world
.
Snowden Thumper
Snowden scandal depletes Obama’s PC
AP 6/27 (AFP; Jun 27; “Obama won’t ‘scramble jets’ to get Snowden”; Capital News;
http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2013/06/obama-wont-scramble-jets-to-get-snowden/)//KDUB
DAKAR, Jun 27 – US President Barack Obama said on Thursday he would not “scramble jets” to intercept any
flights carrying fugitive leaker Edward Snowden and scoffed at spending political capital to win him
back from Russia. Obama, questioned in Africa on the latest twists of the international spy drama
involving Snowden and his exposure of US phone and Internet surveillance programs, did however admit he was worried
about what other secrets might leak. His comments came as Snowden remained in Russia, where he
fled from Hong Kong, stuck in the transit zone of a Moscow airport, apparently unable to travel on to
possible asylum in Ecuador after Washington cancelled his passport. Obama, who has been
embarrassed by the refusal of first China and then Russia to expel Snowden, insisted the real damage to the
United States lay not in international humiliation, but in the exposure of key spying programs. But he ruled out military action should Snowden
eventually manage to get on a flight out of Russia. “No, I
am not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old
hacker,” Obama said, at a media conference in Senegal. The US leader also said that he had not called the Chinese or
Russian presidents to plead with them to hand Snowden over, because his government was using
regular legal channels for an extradition case. “I have not called President Xi (Jinping) personally or President (Vladimir) Putin
personally. The reason is, number one, I shouldn’t have to. This is something that routinely is dealt between law enforcement officials in various
countries.” Obama
said that the US and China relationships were broad and ranged over many issues and
that he would not get down to “wheeling and dealing” with Russia and China over one extradition case.
Washington had warned earlier in the week that its relations with China would “undoubtedly” be impacted
by the failure to honour its extradition request for Snowden, and it did not believe the decision to let him leave Hong Kong was simply the
action of a local immigration official. China
however dismissed the idea that an individual case could disrupt
relations, which both sides are trying to improve as witnessed at an informal summit between Xi and Obama
in California this month. While they have lashed out at China, they have adopted a softer tone towards Russia, as behind the scenes
negotiations apparently take place between governments and judicial authorities in the two countries. “We certainly understand the fact that
Mr. Snowden chose to travel to Moscow, chose to travel to Russia, creates issues that the Russian government has to consider,” White House
spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday. “We also believe that when it comes to Mr. Snowden, well, we agree with President Putin that we
don’t want the situation to harm our relations.” Washington
believes there is a “clear, legal basis” for Russia to
expel Snowden, despite the lack of an extradition treaty between Washington and Moscow.
Obama’s perception is ruined – he has no character
Mondoweiss 6/18 (Mondoweiss is a news website devoted to covering American foreign policy in
the Middle East; June 18, 2013; “Challenging Obama on core principles, Snowden shows greater
leadership than the president”; lexis)//KDUB
This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He
still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped
back, rather than leaping forward into it. Questioning the character of the president he'd once
believed in, Snowden said that Obama has not been willing to spend the "political capital" necessary
to end human rights violations. shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic
violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end
the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.... Everyone on
the left understands this now about Obama: He does not know how to commit personal capital to a
principle. While Snowden spends every ounce in his possession. Snowden is like Obama in that he thrust himself on to the national scene as
an idealist and change agent. This New York Times profile of him[2] emphasizes his ambition and sense of grandeur despite the fact that he
didn't graduate from high school-- a fact Snowden made a joke about yesterday: "If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick
Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school." And let's be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with ambition and grandeur:
they are the necessary motors for independent people of achievement. Because I believe in Snowden's leadership, I am most afraid that he will
be silenced in months and years to come. I think we actually need his voice and wisdom, that despite his poetical claim that the current climate
is breeding whistle-blowers- Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they'll be destroyed for it: the
conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistleblowers- --Snowden is special, he is a person of mental
scope and civic commitment, who is not unsocialized, as some media reports would have it, no, he is sophisticated, witness the methods he
chose of going forward. And it is vital to have someone of such large intellectual and personal dimensions engaged to help us sort these
complex issues out. What a shame that the mainstream media is completely on the fence about Snowden. They know that Snowden has struck
a chord in the American public. But they are afraid to come out against him or for him, because they don't want to go against the government.
You'd think that NPR's Brooke Gladstone [3]would embrace the principle of human knowledge as a corrective to unlimited national power in
the computerized age of surveillance-- no, like everyone else with a mainstream seat, her comments on Snowden waffled meaninglessly. As
Snowden himself observed, "Initially I was very encouraged [by the media]. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now
seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say,
the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history ." A couple of other Snowden comments I
especially liked yesterday. Here's another challenge to Obama's leadership: If the Obama administration responds with an
even harsher hand against me, they can be assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an equally
harsh public response.
Obama is preoccupied with Snowden
Reuters 6/27 (Jeff Mason and Mark Felsenthal; DAKAR | Thu Jun 27, 2013; “Obama jabs Russia, China
on failure to extradite Snowden”; Reuters; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/us-usa-securitysnowden-idUSBRE95Q0SW20130627)//KDUB
CHARGES OF U.S. HYPOCRISY Snowden's case has raised tensions between the United States and both China
and Russia. On Thursday, Beijing accused Washington of hypocrisy over cyber security. Obama's remarks in
Senegal seemed calibrated to exert pressure without leading to lasting damage in ties with either country. "The more the
administration can play it down, the more latitude they'll have in the diplomatic arena to work out a deal for
him (Snowden)," said Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Obama indicated that damage to
U.S. interests was largely limited to revelations from Snowden's initial leak. "I continue to be concerned about the
other documents that he may have," Obama said. "That's part of the reason why we'd like to have Mr. Snowden in custody." Still,
Snowden's disclosures of widespread eavesdropping by the U.S. National Security Agency in China and
Hong Kong have given Beijing considerable ammunition in an area that has been a major irritant between
the countries. China's defense ministry called the U.S. government surveillance program, known as Prism,
"hypocritical behavior." "This 'double standard' approach is not conducive to peace and security in cyber
space," the state news agency Xinhua reported, quoting ministry spokesman Yang Yujun. In Washington, the top U.S. military officer
dismissed comparisons of Chinese and American snooping in cyber space. "All nations on the face of the planet
always conduct intelligence operations in all domains," Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an
audience at the Brookings Institution. "China's particular niche in cyber has been theft and intellectual property." Dempsey said. "Their view is
that there are no rules of the road in cyber, there's nothing, there's no laws they are breaking, there's no standards of behavior." In Ecuador,
the leftist government of President Rafael Correa said it was waiving preferential rights under a U.S. trade agreement to demonstrate what it
saw as its principled stand on Snowden's asylum request. Correa told reporters Snowden's situation was "complicated" because he has not
been able to reach Ecuadorean territory to begin processing the asylum request. "In order to do so, he must have permission of another
country, which has not yet happened," Correa said. In
a deliberately provocative touch, Correa's government also
offered a multimillion dollar donation for human rights training in the United States. The U.S. State
Department warned of "grave difficulties" for U.S.-Ecuador relations if the Andean country were to grant
Snowden asylum, but gave no specifics.
Snowden eliminated any political support Obama had
Weisbrot 6/28 - co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (Mark Weisbrot; 28 Jun
2013; “Obama retreats on Snowden”;
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/20136289750269657.html)//KDUB
In his videotaped interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden said that “the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies” (like
the CIA) were so formidable that “[n]o one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they'll get you in time.” That remains to be
seen. On
Wednesday President Obama beat a hasty retreat from his global public relations and diplomatic,
and political campaign against Snowden. It was quite an amazing, if implicit, admission of defeat. Here was the
president of the world’s most powerful nation, with the world’s most influential media outlets having rallied to his cause, now quietly trying to
lower the profile of an issue that his own government had elevated to one of the biggest stories in the world. He
didn’t talk to the
presidents of China or Russia, he said, because “I shouldn't have to. This is something that routinely is dealt with between law
enforcement officials in various countries.” Except that it has been dealt with by these other governments in the same
way that Americans deal with annoying telemarketing phone calls. Hong Kong casually hung up on the
Obama Administration’s extradition request. President Putin provided a jovial “buzz off” response on
Wednesday, saying that Snowden was a “free man,” and with an analogy to shearing a piglet, made it
clear that he had more important things to think about than helping an unfriendly arrogant power get
its hands on a pesky whistleblower. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s threats that a failure to follow Washington’s directives
would “have consequences” turned out to be nothing more than bluff and bluster. “I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old
hacker,” said Obama in response to a question as to whether he would try to force down a plane carrying Snowden away from Russia. That was
the best news of the week for Snowden, because that scenario was quite possibly one of his biggest obstacles to his freedom. He could
conceivably get to Latin America without flying through US air space or stopping in countries that take
orders from the United States, but what would stop the US government from forcing his plane down
almost anywhere along the way? International law, you might say, but I can already hear the snickering from the White House and the
Pentagon. It was a humbling episode for the POTUS and his State Department. Little Ecuador, dismissed by right-wing pundits as a “banana
republic,” stood
defiant and one-upped Washington’s threat to cut off its preferential access to US
markets if it offered asylum to Snowden. “We don’t need no stinking trade preferences,” was the non-literal English
translation. "In the face of threats, insolence and arrogance of certain US sectors, which have pressured to remove the preferential tariffs
because of the Snowden case, Ecuador tells the world we unilaterally and irrevocably renounce the preferential tariffs," said President Rafael
Correa yesterday. "It is outrageous to try to delegitimise a state for receiving a petition of asylum," he added. Just to drive the point home, the
Ecuadorian government also offered the United States $23m for “human rights training,” to help the
US government avoid “torture, extra-judicial killings, and other acts that denigrate humanity.” But the
real surprise is that it took the White House so long to realise that they were much better off if they
could edge this story out of the news cycle. First, of course, there were the revelations themselves,that the US government
had been spying on tens of millions of Americans, in secret and apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment to the constitution. Not to
mention the spying on the rest of the world’s citizens. Second, the pursuit of Snowden revealed some things that Washington doesn’t like to
advertise: not least that its influence in the world has been sinking like a stone over the past decade or so. No
wonder Obama
decided to retreat. His team could see where this debate might lead if it kept going. The “war on terror” is
getting stale, and the Cold War framework in which they tried to recast Snowden’s civil disobedience is really old. I mean, why exactly should
Americans be scared of Russia in the 21st century – or China, which doesn’t have a military base outside its own country (as compared to the
Pentagon’s hundreds of bases throughout the globe?) And is Snowden a traitor or a spy just because he fled to Hong Kong and the Russian
airport in order to avoid political persecution? Even if he had no contact with any government and didn’t sell or give them any classified
information? Even if he only gave information to reporters, and worked with them not to publish anything that might harm the security of
Americans? The
Obama administration thought that by charging Snowden under the Espionage Act, it
could re-define him as a traitor, but that too may have backfired. Since he clearly didn’t commit any
such crime, the charge gave any government or judicial system good legal grounds for granting him
asylum. And why do they need all this information they are gathering anyway? Sociologist Todd Gitlin has provided a nice overview of how
our government has traditionally used domestic surveillance to oppose, infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit (sometimes through violent
provocations) opposition political movements. In 2011, the Boston police, federally-funded Boston Regional Intelligence Center, and FBI appear
to have been so fixated on peaceful activists like the Occupy movement, Code Pink, and Veterans for Peace that they seem to have missed the
real terrorists that bombed the Boston marathon, despite having the intelligence on one of them dumped in the FBI’s lap. There are tens of
millions of Americans who already understand very well that the “war on terror” has been used as a pretext to erode our civil liberties at home
and commit terrible crimes abroad. Snowden’s courageous whistle-blowing and Glenn Greenwald’s relentless efforts to inform the public have
brought more people into the realm of questioning the whole rotten framework that justifies these abuses and atrocities. Who is our
government protecting anyway, when they invade other countries and create new enemies every week by dropping drone-bombing civilians in
places like Pakistan or Yemen? Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. Dissenting
voices have
grown as the story continues. Some petitions: at the White House web site, for a presidential pardon, signed by 123,000; Roots
Action, hands off Snowden (31,000); Avaaz, for respecting Snowden’s rights and terminating the PRISM program (1.3 mn). Yesterday a number
of celebrities (including Oliver Stone, Danny Glover, John Cusack) prominent whistle-blowers (Daniel Ellsberg, Joe Wilson, Thomas Drake,
Colleen Rowley), and experts (Noam Chomsky, Juan Cole, and many others) launched a petition to President Rafael Correa to grant political
asylum to Snowden. Yes, the
Obama team has every reason to want this whole story to go away. But he may
not find it so easy to get rid of it.
Syria Thumper
Congress opposes Obama – Syria
AP 6/27 (Associated Press, Published: June 27; “Bipartisan group pushes measure barring Obama from
arming Syrian rebels without Congress”; Washington Post;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/bipartisan-group-pushes-measure-barring-obamafrom-arming-syrian-rebels-without-congress/2013/06/27/49c51c70-df46-11e2-8cf335c1113cfcc5_story.html)//KDUB
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing a resolution that would prevent President Barack
Obama from arming the Syrian rebels without congressional approval. Countering the loud Senate voices clamoring
for action, the libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats told a Capitol Hill news conference that they
fear the United States being dragged into the deadly civil war that has killed more than 100,000 based on
the latest estimates. “If we intervene militarily, we will exacerbate the situation,” said Rep. Chris Gibson, R-N.Y.,
who served more than two decades in the Army with multiple tours to Iraq and deployments to Kosovo and Haiti. He said he
was concerned about the U.S. getting “sucked into a very difficult situation” when budget cuts have hit the military hard. Democratic Rep. Peter
Welch of Vermont said everyone recognizes that Syria is a humanitarian crisis as rebels have fought the regime of President Bashar Assad for
more than two years. He warned, however, about “Americanizing a civil war.” The Obama administration
announced earlier this month that it would start sending weapons to Syrian opposition groups, after it
found conclusive evidence that Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons against opposition forces. The White
House said multiple chemical attacks last year with substances including the nerve agent sarin killed up to 150 people. Britain and the United
States notified the United Nations of 10 different incidents of alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, a U.N. diplomat said
Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity because the incidents have not been publicly divulged.
Gun Control Thumper
Obama is spending pc on gun control ignoring other issues
Glater 6/28 (Irving W. Glater; June 28, 2013; “Obama's gun control efforts were misleading”; Sea
Coast Online; http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20130628-OPINION-306280339)//KDUB
A week after the S.649 defeat a poll was jointly conducted by the Washington Post and the Pew Research
Center, both very respectable organizations. The poll found that only 13 percent of the public was "angry" that the bill was
defeated, while 39 percent were "relieved" or "happy." What does that tell you when compared with Obama's 90 percent claim? Incidentally,
that wouldn't be the first time that Obama has used false or misleading information to promote the
passage of one of his pet ideas (e.g. Obamacare). Regardless, while he must be aware of the huge national and
international problems facing America (e.g. lousy economy, national debt, Syria, nuclear Iran), Obama has chosen to
continue to spend his political capital on trying to force his agenda of anti-gun bills through Congress.
He has lost his compass!
XO Solves
Failure doesn’t matter – Obama can solve the impacts through XOs
The Hill 2-16 (“Dems: Obama can act unilaterally on immigration reform”
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583-dems-recognize-that-obama-can-actunilaterally-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2LEvg4R5R)
President Obama can – and will – take steps on immigration reform in the event Congress doesn't reach
a comprehensive deal this year, according to several House Democratic leaders. While the Democrats are hoping
Congress will preclude any executive action by enacting reforms legislatively, they say the
administration has the tools to move unilaterally if the bipartisan talks on Capitol Hill break down.
Furthermore, they say, Obama stands poised to use them. "I don't think the president will be hands off on
immigration for any moment in time," Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the head of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters
this week. "He's ready to move forward if we're not." Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus,
echoed that message, saying Obama is "not just beating the drum," for immigration reform, "he's actually the
drum major." "There are limitations as to what he can do with executive order," Crowley said Wednesday, "but he did say that if
Congress continued to fail to act that he would take steps and measures to enact common-sense
executive orders to move this country forward." Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who heads the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, said there are "plenty" of executive steps Obama could take if Congress fails to pass a reform
package. "The huge one," Grijalva said, is "the waiving of deportation" in order to keep families together. "Four million of the
undocumented [immigrants] are people who overstayed their visas to stay with family," he said Friday. "So that would be, I think, an area in
which … there's a great deal of executive authority that he could deal with." The administration could also waive visa caps ,
Grijalva said, to ensure that industries like agriculture have ample access to low-skilled labor. "Everybody's for getting the smart and the
talented in, but there's also a labor flow issue," he said. To be sure, Obama and congressional Democrats would prefer the reforms to come
through Congress – both because that route would solidify the changes into law and because it would require bipartisan buy-in. Still, House
Republicans have been loath to accept one of the central elements of Obama's strategy: A pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11-12
million undocumented people currently living in the country – a move which many conservatives deem "amnesty." Indeed, when
the
House Judiciary Committee met earlier this month on immigration reform, much of the discussion
focused on whether there is some middle ground between citizenship and mass deportation. “If we can
find a solution that is … short of a pathway to citizenship, but better than just kicking 12 million people out, why is that not a good solution?”
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) asked during the hearing. Obama on Tuesday spent a good portion of his State of the Union address urging
Congress to send him a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year. Central to that package, he said, should be provisions for "strong
border security," for "establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship" and for "fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting
periods and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy." "We know what needs to
be done," Obama said. "So let’s get this done." Becerra said he and other immigration reformers have had two meetings with the White House
on immigration this month, one with the executive team working on the issue and, more recently, with Obama himself. Becerra said
administration officials "essentially" know what reforms they want – "and they have communicated that to both House and Senate members,
bipartisanly" – but they also want Congress to take the lead. "They're giving
Congress a chance to work its will to move
this," Becerra said. "But … I don't think he's going to wait too long. "If you were to ask him would he be prepared to submit
a bill if Congress isn't ready … he would tell you, I have no doubt, 'I can do it in a heartbeat,'" Becerra added. "The president will move
forward where he can if Congress doesn't act."
AT: Specific Impacts
AT: Economy Impact
Immigration reform’s not key to the economy
Castelletti et al 10 [Bárbara, economist at the OECD Development Centre, , Jeff Dayton-Johnson,
head of the OECD development Centre, and Ángel Melguizo, economist at the OECD Development
Centre, “Migration in Latin America: Answering old questions with new data,” 3/19/10,
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4764]
Most research on migration assumes that workers are employed in activities that correspond to their
skill level. In practice workers may be employed in sectors characterised by skill requirements
different from their educational or training background. In particular, migrants may be overqualified for
the work they do. As Mattoo et al. (2005) show, this is the case for Mexicans, Central Americans and Andean
university-educated migrants working in the US. Despite their tertiary degrees, these groups rarely
hold highly skilled jobs. Worse, they may even be at the lower rungs of the skill ladder; 44% of
tertiary-educated Mexicans migrants in the US are working in unskilled jobs. This equilibrium
represents a lose-lose-lose situation. The home country loses human capital (brain drain), the host country
and the migrant him/herself are not fully employed (brain waste), and the low skilled workers in host
countries (both earlier migrants and natives) can be pushed out of the market (given that they compete with these highereducated workers for jobs). To illustrate this phenomenon for South-South flows, we follow OECD (2007) and compare the education level
(primary, secondary and tertiary) of migrants in Argentina, Costa Rica and Venezuela with their category of job qualification (low, intermediate
and high skilled). Figure 3 shows the share of over-qualified migrants and native workers, residing in different countries, and the comparison
between foreign-born and natives. Over-qualification rates vary sharply among countries, ranging from 5% in Costa Rica and Venezuela to 14%
in Argentina. While lower than in the US, Canada and Spain where the over-qualification rates are above 15%, these results point to a high
degree of over-qualification among immigrants compared to the native-born in Latin American countries. While
there are possible
omitted variables, it is likely that some part of the brain waste observed is because of the nonrecognition of foreign qualifications or excessive requalification requirements for foreigners.
Economic decline doesn’t cause war
Tir 10 Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate Professor
in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia [Jaroslav Tir, “Territorial
Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict”, The Journal of Politics, 2010, Volume 72:
413-425)]
Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The finding that poor economic
performance is associated with a higher likelihood of territorial conflict initiation is significant only in
Models 3–4.14 The weak results are not altogether surprising given the findings from prior literature.
In accordance with the insignificant relationships of Models 1–2 and 5–6, Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood
that a U.S. President will use force is uncertain, as the bad economy might create incentives both to
divert the public’s attention with a foreign adventure and to focus on solving the economic problem,
thus reducing the inclination to act abroad. Similarly, Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998)
find no relation between a poor economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude
that the conflict-initiating behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is unrelated to economic
conditions as do Pickering and Kisangani (2005) and Russett and Oneal (2001) in global studies. In contrast and more
in line with my findings of a significant relationship (in Models 3–4), Hess and Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions
are linked with forceful action by an incumbent U.S. president. Furthermore, Fordham’s (2002) revision of Gowa’s (1998) analysis shows some
effect of a bad economy and DeRouen and Peake (2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts the public’s attention from a poor economy.
Among cross-national studies, Oneal and Russett (1997) report that slow growth increases the incidence of militarized disputes, as does Russett
(1990)—but only for the United States; slow growth does not affect the behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some
significant associations, but they are sensitive to model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between economic
underperformance and increased attacks on domestic ethnic minorities. While none of these works has focused on territorial diversions, my
own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit well with the mixed results reported in the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong
support via the unpopularity variable but only weak support via the economic growth variable. These
results suggest that
embattled leaders are much more likely to respond with territorial diversions to direct signs of their
unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general background conditions such as economic
malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing the economy would take a more concerted and
prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal territorial confrontations. This implies that
leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when they are the most desperate, that is when their power is
threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule and by more systemic problems plaguing the country (i.e., an underperforming
economy).
Impossible to predict the economic benefits
Khimm, 13 (Suzy, “How much will immigration reform cost?,” February 1st, 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/01/how-much-will-immigrationreform-cost/)
There’s a lot of evidence pointing to the economic benefits of adding more legal immigrants to the economy. What’s less clear is how
much a comprehensive immigration overhaul would affect the federal budget.¶ While more legal immigrants could cost
taxpayers more in health care, education, and other social services, they would also contribute more tax revenues. Ultimately, there will be a
lot of political pressure to produce a reform that costs as little as possible, possibly even reducing the deficit in the long term.¶ In 2007, the
Congressional Budget Office concluded that the Senate’s proposed bipartisan immigration reform would increase
the deficit by about $18 billion over 10 years, but would have “a relatively small net effect” on the deficit over 20 years.¶ Here’s how that
number breaks down: Direct federal spending on immigrants would cost $23 billion over 10 years, mostly because of Medicaid and refundable
tax credits. At the same time, the overhaul would generate $48 billion in new revenue, mostly through increased Social Security taxes.¶ So
under the 2007 overhaul, newly legal immigrants would have generated far more revenue than they take in from the government. It’s partly
because most undocumented immigrants are working age and wouldn’t immediately incur major Social Security and Medicare costs. It’s also
because the 2007 bill required immigrants to pay back taxes and forced them to wait for years before receiving federal benefits.¶ However,
the process of implementing reform itself — setting up a legalization process, new enforcement measures, and so forth —
carries its own price tag, of $43 billion over 10 years. So ultimately, CBO estimated that the total cost of the 2007
immigration overhaul was $18 billion.¶ How would the math work out now? Since neither Congress nor the White House has
actually put out a bill, it’s not clear . But there are a few things that we do know: Obamacare expanded federal health insurance,
and an estimated 7 million undocumented immigrants might theoretically qualify for coverage under its provisions, as my colleague Sarah Kliff
explains.¶ That could add to the cost of immigration reform, depending on how many ultimately became legal citizens and how long they would
have to wait to receive benefits. (Both the White House and the Senate gang agree that undocumented immigrants with provisional legal status
wouldn’t qualify for benefits.) At the same time, it could also introduce a large number of younger, healthier people into insurance pools, which
could potentially reduce overall insurance costs, says Michael Fix, senior vice-president of the Migration Policy Institute. ”The jury is still really
out.”¶ It’s also unclear what the cost of implementation will be: As I’ve reported earlier, we’ve already hit most of the 2007 targets for border
security, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And the Senate Gang of Eight’s plan is vague about what “securing our border” will really
mean this time around. Most of the security reforms involve more use of technology, rather than personnel, but the government already has a
track record of investing into tech-driven boondoggles in the name of border security.¶ So the
price tag of immigration reform will really
depend on legislative debate that Congress has begun to wade into. There will be a lot of pressure on Congress
to produce a bill that’s either revenue-neutral or will actually reduce the deficit, both by restricting any federal spending on immigrants and
limiting the upfront appropriations on implementation.
AT: Competitiveness Impact
The US already has an overwhelming technological lead
RAND, 08 (June 12th, 2008, RAND Corporation for policy analysis, US still leads the world in science
and technology, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/rc-usl061008.php)
The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total world's spending on scientific research and
development, employs 70 percent of the world's Nobel Prize winners and is home to three-quarters of the world's top 40
universities. An inflow of foreign students in the sciences -- as well as scientists and engineers from overseas -- has helped
the United States build and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other nations increase their
spending on research and development. Continuing this flow of foreign-born talent is critical to helping the United States
maintain its lead, according to the study. "Much of the concern about the United States losing its edge as the
world's leader in science and technology appears to be unfounded," said Titus Galama, co-author of the report and
a management scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "But the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to
U.S. investments in research and development have not
lagged in recent years, but instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the world -- growing even faster
than what has been seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research and development, it does not yet
make sure the nation maintains or even extends its standing."
account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe and Japan,
according to RAND researchers. However, other nations are rapidly educating their populations in science and technology. For instance, the
European Union and China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and engineers every year than the United States.
Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should be balanced by more complete and
critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James Hosek, a RAND senior economist. The absence of a balanced
assessment can feed a public misperception that U.S.
science and technology is failing when in fact it remains
strong, even preeminent.
It’s not zero-sum – the US can free-ride off other countries’ tech
RAND, 08 (July 2008, RAND Corporation for policy analysis, U.S. Competitiveness in Science and
Technology, Report Prepared for the Secretary of Defense,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.pdf)
As with other countries, U.S. economic growth, increase in standard of living, and S&T progress depend on
the United States’ ability to absorb (make economic use of) recent innovations made at home or abroad. The
rise of R&D and innovation activity in other nations suggests that the pool of technology created
outside the United States may be growing and that the United States is likely to benefit from
increased productivity from technology invented abroad. There is no reason to believe that the
globalization of S&T and the rise of other nations impacts the United States’ capability to absorb new
technology directly, as this capability is to a large extent determined by private sector know-how, business incentives, consumers’
willingness to try new technologies, and the legal and regulatory framework. Some technology applications do not require much S&T capacity,
or much knowledge of S&T within the user community or the general public. For example, solar collectors or filters for water purification can
significantly enhance the productivity of workers in a developing country without the need for them to understand how these devices work. But
S&T capacity of advanced
countries, including an educated and technically astute workforce and public, is the reason why they
are highly capable of implementing new technology, and why developing nations such as China and
India have partial capability, but are well ahead of Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa in this
regard.
many technology applications do require S&T capacity (see Silberglitt et al., 2006a, 2006b). The
AT: High Tech Visas Impacts
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
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
interesting is the technology sector numbers. Were
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 .
We have more high tech works than jobs for them
Salzman et al 4-24 (Hal Salzman is Professor at the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce
Development and the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University.
Daniel Kuehn is a doctoral candidate in American University’s Department of Economics. B. Lindsay
Lowell is Director of Policy Studies at the Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown
University. “GUESTWORKERS IN THE HIGH-SKILL U.S. LABOR MARKET An analysis of supply,
employment, and wage trends” Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #359
http://www.epi.org/files/2013/bp359-guestworkers-high-skill-labor-market-analysis.pdf)
Our examination of the IT labor market, guestworker flows, and the STEM education pipeline finds consistent and clear trends suggesting that
the United States has more than a sufficient supply of workers available to work in STEM occupations:
The flow of U.S. students (citizens and permanent residents) into STEM fields has been strong over the past
decade, and the number of U.S. graduates with STEM majors appears to be responsive to changes in
employment and wages. For every two students that U.S. colleges graduate with STEM degrees, only one is hired into a STEM job. In
computer and information science and in engineering, U.S. colleges graduate 50 percent more students than are hired into those fields each
year; of the computer science graduates not entering the IT workforce, 32 percent say it is because IT jobs are unavailable, and 53 percent say
they found better job opportunities outside of IT occupations. These responses suggest that the
substantially larger than the demand for them in industry.
supply of graduates is
No STEM shortage.
Benderly, January/February 2012 (Beryl Lieff – writer for Science Magazine and Prism, What Scientist
Shortage, Columbia Journalism Review, p.
http://www.cjr.org/reports/what_scientist_shortage.php?page=all&print=true)
The senators’ comments echo the conventional wisdom about America’s scientific labor force, repeated
in countless media articles and broadcasts, and by business and political leaders all the way up to and including President Obama: we are
failing to produce a sufficient quantity of scientists and engineers and therefore must import large
numbers of foreigners to remain innovative and competitive. Just a pair of recent examples: a Washington Post op-ed on August 4,
2011, that explained how to “curb our engineering shortage” and a New York Times story on November 4, 2011, headlined “Why Science
Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just so Darn Hard),” that highlighted a call by “the president and industry groups” for “colleges to graduate
10,000 more engineers a year.” But what
“we all know,” as Senator Cornyn put it, turns out not to be true —and the
perpetuation of this myth is discouraging Americans from pursuing scientific careers. Leading experts on the STEM workforce,
including Richard Freeman of Harvard, Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Paula Stephan of
Georgia State University, Hal Salzman of Rutgers, Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown, and Norman Matloff of the
U niversity of C alifornia-Davis, have said for years that the US produces ample numbers of excellent
science students . In fact, according to the N ational S cience B oard’s authoritative publication Science
and Engineering Indicators 2008, the country turns out three times as many STEM degrees as the
economy can absorb into jobs related to their majors.
AT: Aerospace Impact
Alt cause – question of demand not workforce
Blakey 12 [Marion, Aerospace Industries Association president, “Saving The Defense Industrial Base,”
Breaking Defense, 12/27/12, http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/27/saving-the-defense-industrialbase/]
If 9/11 brought to an abrupt end Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis that the spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism
might lead to an era of peace, recent
events have provided the United States an even more ominous warning
that we must be prepared to address current and emerging long-term threats to our military
superiority.¶ Certainly, countering Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power and its ongoing efforts to destabilize
the Middle East is a real concern. And we must also take seriously the idea that our strategic “Pacific Pivot” may need to be
implemented quicker than our military planners initially envisioned. This fall’s saber rattling between China and Japan over a
set of contested tiny islands in the South China Sea and East China Sea serve as a sobering reminder that America could well find
itself involved in a war between two great Asian powers in the near future.¶ Unfortunately, these
challenges are occurring at a time when the U.S. defense budget is being significantly squeezed by
tremendous fiscal pressures. And we know from past eras of defense budget retrenchment that
investments in new equipment and research and development of the new systems and capabilities
needed to maintain America’s vital technological edge are often first on the chopping block .¶ There
is a corollary concern for national defense involving the scientists, engineers and technicians whose
innovation we count on to ensure our nation remains second to none. AIA has documented how mandatory
sequestration budget cuts will put at risk 2.14 million jobs across the economy. We have a real concern that
once pink slips come to valuable defense workers, we may lose their talents and skills for good.
Visas fail – security clearance issues
Blakey 12 [Marion, Aerospace Industries Association president, “Saving The Defense Industrial Base,”
Breaking Defense, 12/27/12, http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/27/saving-the-defense-industrialbase/]
A number of factors are leading students away from considering defense-oriented careers. A report released this October by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) laid it on the line. While “a workforce with robust STEM capabilities is critical to sustaining U.S. preeminence,”
wrote the authors, “Today,
the STEM activities of the DOD are a small and diminishing part of the nation’s
overall science and engineering enterprise.” The report focused not only on the lack of DOD STEM
programs, but on the difficulty of hiring foreign nationals for defense work because they cannot
obtain security clearances . Yet they constitute more than 50 percent of America’s new graduates in
STEM disciplines.
AT: Air Power Impact
New weapon systems level the playing field
Goon and Kopp, 10 -- *Graduate of the US Naval Test Pilot School and **First Class Honours from
the University of Western Australia, Ph.D., M.A. from Monash University, Senior Member of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Member of the Institution of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (*Peter and **Carlo, "A Perspective on the Quadrennial Defense Review", Air
Power Australia, February 10th 2010, June 1st 2010, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-1002101.html)
In the air combat domain, anti-access and area-denial weapons technologies comprise rapidly
deployable, highly mobile advanced radars and Surface to Air Missile systems, counter-stealth radars,
passive geolocation sensors, and advanced digital air defence C4 networks, all of which were developed to work
in concert with advanced fighter aircraft such as the Su-35S Flanker and the stealthy, “F-22-like” Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA, unveiled last week. In the
maritime combat domain, anti-access and area-denial weapons technologies comprise advanced air, sea, sub and coastal battery launched
supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), terminally guided anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM), quiet submarines armed with digital
torpedoes, including supercavitating designs. In
the basing domain, proliferating cruise missiles and terminally
guided ballistic missiles render many existing US foreign bases effectively unusable for deployment of
aircraft, warships and ground forces, and the logistical elements needed to sustain these. These
weapons are now seriously challenging the ability of the United States and its close allies to conduct
military interventions in many parts of the world. A nation which is equipped with much less than the full gamut of antiaccess and area-denial weapons will be in the position to hold key US and allied in theatre assets at serious risk. Over the coming decade, this
trend will drive the United States toward disproportionate responses if a contingency demands
intervention, as many elements of the existing and currently planned US force structure will simply be
unusable.
Air power not key -to overall power or deterrence – their evidence is biased
Axe ‘9 (David, military correspondent, regular contributor to The Washington Times, C-SPAN, and
Wired, 3/30/9, http://www.warisboring.com/2009/03/30/f-22s-versus-russias-rusting-ramshackle-airforce/)
Analyst Gregory Martin, a retired Air Force general, said the erosion of world influence is largely the result of weak public support for the F-22
and F-35 stealth fighters, which are built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. “If you can’t afford that [mix], then your national
objectives have to be scaled back,” Martin said. In
other words, stealth fighters equal national power. And the absence of
stealth fighters equals weakness.
Hogwash . The economic crisis is having an effect on every country, unevenly. Arguably, the U.S. is faring
better than most as investors flee to the comparative safety of the dollar. Power in the world is a relative thing: if everyone else gets
much weaker, and we stay the same or only grow a little weak, then we are, in fact, more powerful than we were before. Get it? The global
recession, alone, does not mean we are losing influence. In fact, the recession might even boost our influence, by underscoring just how much
the world depends on America as a consumer market. But more importantly, American national power
does not hinge on fighter
jets. We could retire every single fighter in the U.S. Air Force, tomorrow, and still remain the most powerful
nation in the world, by far. National power is a complex and shifting thing, comprising military force, financial and cultural influence,
leadership in international coalitions and organizations and even language. Every country in the world teaches American English to its business
students, aviators and sea captains. Does that have anything to do with the F-22? Do some of our biggest exports — music, movies and
television — depend on a squadron of F-35s flying orbits over North Dakota? Ignore the noise coming out of Washington’s punditocracy as the
Obama Administration shapes its first defense budget. And when that budget is published, and it (inevitably) includes cuts to Air Force fighter
programs, take a deep breath before panicking and consider: Nearly
everyone telling you we must buy a given quantity of
fighters, or lose global influence, has a financial stake in advocating such purchases. Of the speakers at the
Wednesday confab: * Loren Thompson, from the Lexington Institute, runs a private consultancy for the defense industry, with
clients including Lockheed Martin * Thompson’s colleague, Rebecca Grant, also runs her own consultancy for the defense
industry * Gregory Martin has been a Northrop Grumman consultant The U.S. Air Force is in deep trouble, but it’s trouble of its
stealth
own making. And it’s
testimony to just how overwhelming, and sustainable, is America’s military, cultural,
linguistic and financial dominance in the world that our primary military air service can commit slow,
institutional suicide without alarming too many people, aside from a few hardware nerds like me and the consultants
who get rich gabbing about certain pointy airplanes on behalf of wealthy corporate clients.
AT: Bioweapons Impact
No risk of weaponization – risk is exaggerated
Johnson, at the Wall Street Journal, 8/11/2K10 (Keith, "Gaisn in Bioscience Cause Terror Fears",
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703722804575369394068436132.html//arnavkejriwal)
Fears of bioterror have been on the rise since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, stoking tens of billions of dollars of government spending on
defenses, and the White House and Congress continue to push for new measures. But the fear
of a mass-casualty terrorist
attack using bioweapons has always been tempered by a single fact: Of the scores of plots uncovered
during the past decade, none have featured biological weapons. Indeed, many experts doubt terrorists even
have the technical capability to acquire and weaponize deadly bugs. The new fear, though, is that scientific advances
that enable amateur scientists to carry out once-exotic experiments, such as DNA cloning, could be put to criminal use. Many well-known
figures are sounding the alarm over the revolution in biological science, which amounts to a proliferation of know-how—if not the actual
pathogens. "Certain areas of biotechnology are getting more accessible to people with malign intent," said Jonathan Tucker, an expert on
biological and chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Geneticist Craig Venter said last month at the first
meeting of a presidential commission on bioethics, "If students can order any [genetic sequences] online, somebody could try to make the
Ebola virus." Mr. Venter is a pioneer in the field whose creation of a synthetic organism this spring helped push the debate about the risks and
rewards of bioscience from scientific journals to the corridors of power in Washington. "We are limited more by our imagination now than any
technological limitations," Mr. Venter said. Scientists have the ability to manipulate genetic material more quickly and more cheaply all the
time. Just as "Moore's Law" describes the accelerating pace of advances in computer science, advances in biology are becoming more potent
and accessible every year, experts note. As recently as a decade ago, the tools and techniques for such fiddling were confined to a handful of
laboratories like those at leading research universities. Today, do-it-yourself biology clubs have sprung up where part-timers share tips on how
to build high-speed centrifuges, isolate genetic material, and the like. The movement
has been aided by gear that can turn a
backyard shed into a microbiology lab. That has prompted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
reach out to amateur biologists, teaching them proper security measures and asking them to be
vigilant of unscrupulous scientists. "The risk we're seeing now is that these procedures are becoming easier to do," said Edward
You, who heads the outreach program at the FBI's Directorate for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Biological weapons date back
millennia. Rotting and plague-stricken corpses once were catapulted over besieged city walls. Wells were routinely poisoned. More
recently, fears that terrorist groups such as al Qaeda might deploy weapons of mass destruction have
kindled fears of bioterrorism. Those fears reached fever pitch in the months after the World Trade
Center was downed, when anthrax-filled mail killed five people and prompted panic. That's when Washington
started boosting spending on biodefense, improving security at laboratories that work with dangerous pathogens and stockpiling antidotes.
Last fall, President Barack Obama ordered the creation of a bioethics commission, and the group spent much of its first meeting parsing the
threat of biological terrorism. He also issued
an executive order earlier this month to beef up security for the
most dangerous pathogens, which include anthrax, ebola, tularensis, smallpox and the reconstructed 1918 Spanish flu bug. Both
houses of Congress have legislation in the works to strengthen the country's ability to detect , prevent
and, if necessary, recover from large-scale attacks using bioweapons. All the government attention comes
despite the absence of known terrorist plots involving biological weapons. According to U.S. counterterrorism
officials, al Qaeda last actively tried to work with bioweapons —specifically anthrax—before the 2001 invasion
of that uprooted its leadership from Afghanistan. While terrorists have on occasion used chemical weapons—such as
chlorine and sarin gas—none have yet employed a biological agent, counterterrorism officials and bioweapons
researchers say. The U.S. anthrax attacks were ultimately blamed on a U.S. scientist with access to
military bioweapons programs. That's why many experts caution that, despite scientific advances, it is
still exceedingly tough for terrorists to isolate or create, mass produce and deploy deadly bugs. Tens of
thousands of Soviet scientists spent decades trying to weaponize pathogens, with mixed results. Though
science has advanced greatly since the Cold War, many of the same challenges remain. "I don't think the threat is growing, but
quite the opposite," said Milton Leitenberg, a biological-weapons expert at the Center for International and
Security Studies at the University of Maryland. Advances in biological science and the proliferation of knowledge are a given,
he said, but there has been no indication they are being used by terrorists. "The idea that four guys in
a cave are going to create bioweapons from scratch—that will be never, ever, ever," he said.
Technical barriers make bio-terror impossible – our ev cites 5 specific obstacles.
National Journal ’05 (April 23rd – lexis)
Technical Challenges On the other hand, critics argue that some
experts have oversimplified the significant technical
challenges to building catastrophic biological weapons and have overestimated the abilities of
terrorist groups to overcome them. "How do you kill a lot of people? There, you've got to get involved with airborne, deadly
pathogens such as Bacillus anthracis spores, and that's fairly technically demanding to do," Zilinskas said. Potential difficulties, experts
say, include obtaining proper equipment and an appropriate strain of pathogen; storing and handling the
pathogen properly; growing it to produce a greater quantity; processing it to develop the desirable characteristics; testing it; and
dispersing it. A terrorist group would need to have suitably educated and knowledgeable people, and sufficient time and freedom from
government scrutiny, to do the work, they say. Potentially the toughest challenge, experts say, is "weaponization" -processing an agent to the point that it can resist environmental stresses, survive dissemination, and increase its
ability to infect (pathogenicity) and to harm (toxicity). This is particularly true if the terrorists want to spray the agent, which is a more effective
approach for a mass attack than spreading an agent through human-to-human contact. "While collection and purification knowledge is
widespread among ordinary scientists, weaponization is obviously a military subject, and much of the knowledge that surrounds it is classified,"
wrote Danzig, who believes that terrorists nevertheless might be able to develop catastrophic biological weapons. The key difficulty for
producing an aerosolized weapon, Danzig said, "would be to produce a pathogen formulation in sizes that would be within the human
respiratory range and that could be reliably stored, handled, and spread as a stable aerosol rather than clump and fall to the ground. Mastering
these somewhat contradictory requirements is tricky... The challenge becomes greater as attackers seek higher concentrations of agent and
higher efficiency in dissemination." Stanford's
Chyba agrees on the difficulties of weaponization. "Aerosolization is clearly
[a] serious hurdle. I just find it hard, currently, to imagine a Qaeda offshoot -- or, for that matter, any of the current
non-state groups that I have read about -- being technically proficient in that." (Note: Danzig is a former Navy
secretary who is now a Pentagon bioterrorism consultant and the Sam Nunn Prize fellow in international security at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington)
AT: Clean Tech Impact
Clean tech can’t compete with fossil fuels – still too expensive
Rotman 11 (David Rotman, editor for Technology Review, Praying for an Energy Miracle, Technology
Review, 4, http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32383/)
In its conference room is a large chart showing the declining cost of electricity produced by solar panels over the last three decades. The slightly
bumpy downward--sloping line is approaching a wide horizontal swath labeled "grid
parity"—the stage at which electricity
made using solar power will be as cheap as power generated from fossil fuels. It is the promised land for
renewable power, and the company, 1366 Technologies, believes its improvements in manufacturing techniques can help make it possible for
even though silicon-based photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight
have been coming down in price for years, they are still too expensive to compete
with fossil fuels. As a result, solar power accounts for far less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity production. And 1366 founder Emanuel
solar power to finally get there. It's an ambitious target:
directly to electricity,
Sachs, who is the company's chief technology officer and an MIT professor of mechanical engineering, says thateven though solar might be
"within striking distance" of natural gas, existing solar technology won't be able to compete with coal. "To displace coal will take another level
of cost reduction," says Sachs. That's where 1366's breakthrough comes in. The company is developing a way to make thin sheets of silicon
without slicing them from solid chunks of the element, a costly chore. "The only way for photovoltaics to compete with coal is with
technologies like ours," he says.The
problem, however, is that we are probably not just a few breakthroughs
away from deploying cheaper, cleaner energy sources on a massive scale. Though few question the value of
developing new energy technologies, scaling them up will be so difficult and expensive that many policy experts say such advances alone,
Regardless of
technological advances, these experts are skeptical that renewables are close to achieving grid parity,
or that batteries are close to allowing an electric vehicle to compete with gas-powered cars on price
and range. In the case of renewables, it depends on how you define grid parity and whether you account for the costs of the storage and
backup power systems that become necessary with intermittent power sources like solar and wind. If you define grid parity as
"delivering electricity whenever you want, in whatever volumes you want," says David Victor, the
director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego, then
today's new renewables aren't even close. And if new energy technologies are going to scale up enough to make a dent in
without the help of continuing government subsidies and other incentives, will make little impact on our energy mix.
carbon dioxide emissions, he adds, "that's the definition that matters." Not surprisingly, Gross's solution is based on software. Large solar
thermal plants cost more than a billion dollars to build, and one reason for the high cost is that tens of thousands of specially fabricated mirrors
have to be precisely arranged so that they focus the sunlight correctly. But what if you used plain mirrors on a simple metal rack and then used
software to calibrate them, adjusting each one to optimize its position relative to the sun and the central tower? It would take huge amounts of
computing power to manipulate all the mirrors in a utility-scale power plant, but computing power is cheap—far cheaper than paying engineers
and technicians to laboriously position the mirrors by hand. The potential savings are impressive, according to Gross; he says that eSolar can
install a field of mirrors for half what it costs in other solar thermal facilities. As a result, he expects
to produce electricity for
approximately 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, enticingly close to the price of power from a fossil-fuel plant.Still, it's not good
enough—at least in the United States, where natural-gas plants can produce power for around 6 cents
per kilowatt--hour.
Clean tech collapse coming—reduced governmental subsidization, can’t compete with
fossil fuels, investment decreasing now
Victor and Yanosek 11 (DAVID G. VICTOR is a Professor at the School of International Relations and
Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Director of the school's Laboratory on
International Law and Regulation, KASSIA YANOSEK, Founding Principal of Tana Energy Capital LLC, has
worked in private equity and at Bechtel and BP. “The Crisis in Clean Energy”, Foreign Affairs, July/August
2011, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67903/david-g-victor-and-kassia-yanosek/the-crisis-inclean-energy)
After years of staggering growth, the clean-energy industry is headed for a crisis. In most of the Western countries leading
the industry, the public subsidies that have propelled it to 25 percent annual growth rates in recent years
have now become politically unsustainable. Temporary government stimulus programs -- which in 2010 supplied one-fifth of
the record investment in clean energy worldwide -- have merely delayed the bad news. Last year, after 20 years of growth, the
number of new wind turbine installations dropped for the first time; in the United States, the figure
fell by as much as half. The market value of leading clean-energy equipment manufacturing
companies has plummeted and is poised to decline further as government support for the industry
erodes.The coming crisis could make some of the toughest foreign policy challenges facing the United
States -- from energy insecurity to the trade deficit to global warming -- even more difficult to resolve.
The revolution in clean energy was supposed to help fix these problems while also creating green jobs
that would power the economic recovery. Some niches in clean energy will still be profitable, such as residential rooftop solar
installations and biofuel made from Brazilian sugar cane, which is already competitive with oil. But overall, the picture is grim. This is true
not only for the United States but also for the rest of the world, because the market for clean-energy
technologies is global.Whether this shakeout will strengthen or weaken the clean-energy industry will depend on how policymakers,
notably in the United States, prepare for it. The root cause of today's troubles is a boom-and-bust cycle of policies
that have encouraged investors to flock to clean-energy projects that are quick and easy to build
rather than invest in more innovative technologies that could stand a better chance of competing with
conventional energy sources over the long haul. Indeed, nearly seven-eighths of all clean-energy
investment worldwide now goes to deploying existing technologies, most of which are not
competitive without the help of government subsidies. Only a tiny share of the investment focuses on innovation.
AT: Warming Impact
No impact to warming
Idso and Idso 11 (Craig D., Founder and Chairman of the Board – Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, and Sherwood B., President – Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, “Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path,” February,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/ prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf)
As presently constituted, earth’s atmosphere contains just slightly less than 400 ppm of the colorless and odorless gas
we call carbon dioxide or CO2. That’s only four-hundredths of one percent . Consequently, even if the air's
CO2 concentration was tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little over one tenth of one
percent of the air we breathe, which is far less than what wafted through earth’s atmosphere eons
ago, when the planet was a virtual garden place. Nevertheless, a small increase in this minuscule amount of CO2 is
frequently predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental consequences, including dangerous global
warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output, and the destruction of many natural ecosystems, as well as dramatic increases
in extreme weather phenomena, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes. As strange as it may seem, these
frightening future
scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the ever-evolving computer-driven climate
models that presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological processes that
combine to determine the state of earth’s climate into a set of mathematical equations out of which
their forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all of those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did -which we don't -- could we correctly reduce them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the
future? Some people answer these questions in the affirmative. However, as may be seen in the body of this report, real-world
observations fail to confirm essentially all of the alarming predictions of significant increases in the frequency and
severity of droughts, floods and hurricanes that climate models suggest should occur in response to a global warming of the magnitude that
was experienced by the earth over the past two centuries as it gradually recovered from the much-lower-than-present temperatures
characteristic of the depths of the Little Ice Age. And other observations have shown that the rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated
with the development of the Industrial Revolution have actually been good for the planet, as they have significantly enhanced the plant
productivity and vegetative water use efficiency of earth's natural and agro-ecosystems, leading to a significant "greening of the earth." In
the pages that follow, we present this oft-neglected evidence via a review of the pertinent scientific literature. In the case of the biospheric
benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, we find that with more CO2 in the air, plants grow bigger and better in almost every conceivable way,
and that they do it more efficiently, with respect to their utilization of valuable natural resources, and more effectively, in the face of
environmental constraints. And when plants benefit, so do all of the animals and people that depend upon them for their sustenance. Likewise,
in the case of climate model inadequacies , we reveal their many shortcomings via a comparison of
their "doom and gloom" predictions with real-world observations. And this exercise reveals that even
though the world has warmed substantially over the past century or more -- at a rate that is claimed by many to
have been unprecedented over the past one to two millennia -- this report demonstrates that none of the
environmental catastrophes that are predicted by climate alarmists to be produced by such a warming
has ever come to pass. And this fact -- that there have been no significant increases in either the frequency
or severity of droughts, floods or hurricanes over the past two centuries or more of global warming -poses an important question. What should be easier to predict: the effects of global warming on extreme weather events or the effects of
elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on global temperature? The first part of this question should, in principle, be answerable; for it is
well defined in terms of the small number of known factors likely to play a role in linking the independent variable (global warming) with the
specified weather phenomena (droughts, floods and hurricanes). The latter part of the question, on the other hand, is ill-defined and possibly
even unanswerable; for there are many factors -- physical, chemical and biological -- that could well be involved in linking CO2 (or causing it not
to be linked) to global temperature. If, then, today's climate models cannot correctly predict what should be relatively easy for them to
correctly predict (the effect of global warming on extreme weather events), why should we believe what they say about something infinitely
more complex (the effect of a rise in the air’s CO2 content on mean global air temperature)? Clearly, we
should pay the models no
heed in the matter of future climate -- especially in terms of predictions based on the behavior of a
non-meteorological parameter (CO2) -- until they can reproduce the climate of the past, based on the behavior of one of the most
basic of all true meteorological parameters (temperature). And even if the models eventually solve this part of the problem, we should
still reserve judgment on their forecasts of global warming; for there will yet be a vast gulf between
where they will be at that time and where they will have to go to be able to meet the much greater
challenge to which they aspire
Warming is irreversible
ANI 10 (“IPCC has underestimated climate-change impacts, say scientists”, 3-20, One India,
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/20/ipcchas-underestimated-climate-change-impacts-sayscientis.html)
According to Charles H. Greene, Cornell professor of Earth and atmospheric science, " Even if all manmade greenhouse gas emissions were stopped tomorrow and carbon-dioxide levels stabilized at today's concentration,
by the end of this century, the global average temperature would increase by about 4.3 degrees
Fahrenheit, or about 2.4 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, which is significantly above the level which
scientists and policy makers agree is a threshold for dangerous climate change." "Of course,
greenhouse gas emissions will not stop tomorrow, so the actual temperature increase will likely be
significantly larger, resulting in potentially catastrophic impacts to society unless other steps are taken to reduce the Earth's
temperature," he added. "Furthermore, while the oceans have slowed the amount of warming we would otherwise have seen for the level of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the ocean's thermal inertia will also slow the cooling we experience once we finally reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions," he said. This means
that the temperature rise we see this century will be largely
irreversible for the next thousand years. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone is unlikely to
mitigate the risks of dangerous climate change," said Green.
Sulfate aerosols chec
Hausfather 8 – Zeke, Regular Contributor to the Yale Forum on Climate Change, June 24th,
[“COMMON CLIMATE MISCONCEPTIONS Why Reducing Sulfate Aerosol Emissions Complicates Efforts to
Moderate Climate Change” The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media,
http://yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/0608_sulphate_aerosol_emissions.htm]
With all the attention surrounding carbon dioxide these days, it is easy to forget that there are a number of other important natural
and human-driven factors ("forcings" in climate circles) that influence Earth's climate. Among the most
important of these are sulfate aerosols, microscopic particles smaller than a millionth of a meter suspended in the air. Sulfate
aerosols are produced primarily from sulphur dioxide (SO2) emitted during the combustion of fossil
fuels. Along with ozone precursors, they are primary causes of acid rain and of lung irritation and ground-level haze or smog in polluted
areas. Sulfate aerosols also have a strong cooling effect on Earth, both through their ability to scatter
incoming light and because of their propensity to increase cloud formation and reflectivity. Among the
most significant changes in climate change modeling between the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) and the Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4) in 2007 was a revision of the expected trajectory of human-induced sulfate aerosol emissions. In the earlier report, scientists assumed
that aerosols would increase in rough proportional to economic growth. The authors of the 2007 report realized that emissions of aerosols,
which have direct and immediate negative health effects to those in the area surrounding their emission, will likely be targeted for reductions
as countries like China and India become wealthier. This emissions reduction would mirror a similar process that occurred in Europe and the
Sulfate aerosols are the most significant substance in a category of aerosols tending to help
cool the climate. Aerosols decrease radiative forcing in two ways: through direct aerosol effects as a
result of an increased scattering and absorption of incoming solar radiation, and through indirect
effects resulting from their ability to serve as cloud condensation nuclei. An increased number of
cloud condensation nuclei have a number of different effects: they increase the reflectivity of clouds
by making them denser and giving them higher liquid water content, they increase the height of
clouds, and they increase cloud lifetime. Figure One, below, shows the major climate forcings over the past 120 years. The
United States.
major positive forcings include CO2 at 1.66 watts per meter squared (W m-2), methane (CH4) at 0.46 W m-2, nitrous oxide (N2O) at 0.16 W m2, and various halocarbons (CFCs, HCFCs, etc.) at 0.34 W m-2. Aerosol direct effects account for -0.5 ± 0.4 W m-2 negative forcing, with SO2
comprising -0.4 W m-2. Indirect effects are around -0.7 W m-2, with a large uncertainty range of -1.8 to -0.3 W m-2. Aerosols are the primary
reason why Earth is still at around 380 parts per million CO2-equivilent (CO2e), rather than the 460 ppm CO2e projected if all the positive
forcings were added together. Conveniently enough, aerosols pretty much cancel out the warming from all the non-CO2
greenhouse gases. 0608_ccm_Fig1.jpg - 31186 Bytes Figure One. Radiative forcing of major climate factors over the past 123 years. Figure from
Hansen et al 2005. There are a number of different projections for sulfate aerosol emissions over the next century based on assumptions
regarding the rate of economic growth, population growth, and technological development. Figure Two, below, shows an aggregation of all
models of anthropogenic sulfate emissions used in the most recent IPCC report. Specific scenarios vary widely, but the median value across all
models results by the year 2100 in sulfate aerosol emissions of 35 million metric tons, roughly one half of current emissions. 0608_ccm_Fig2.jpg
- 55341 Bytes Figure Two. Projections of future aerosol emissions for SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) and post-SRES scenarios.
Figure from the third working group of the latest IPCC report. A reduction of anthropogenic SO2 of around 50 percent worldwide over the next
century, as projected in the most recent IPCC report, would result in a significant warming effect on the global climate. Sulfates are extremely
short-lived particles, and emission reductions would have immediate effects on radiative forcing. A 50 percent reduction in sulfate aerosol
emissions would reduce by half their current radiative forcing of -0.83 W m-2. This change in forcings would increase global temperatures by
roughly 0.36 degrees C (.64 F) relative to a scenario where aerosol emissions remain constant. Figure three below shows the practical
implications of a reduction in aerosols in the next century. If current greenhouse gas concentrations remain constant at current levels, scientists
project about 1.34 degrees C (2.41 F) warming relative to pre-industrial temperatures by the end of the century (the world has already warmed
0.74 degrees C (1.33 F) in the past century, and 0.60 degrees C (1.08F) additional warming is in the pipeline as a result of Earth's thermal
inertia). A reduction of anthropogenic atmospheric sulfate aerosols by 50 percent means that 1.34 degrees C (2.41 F) warming suddenly
becomes 1.70 degrees C (3.06 F). Constant 2005 GHG Concentrations Constant SO2 1.34 degrees C (2.41 F) Reduced SO2 1.70 degrees C (3.06 F)
Figure Three. Based
on a simple calculation of radiative forcings of the current atmospheric concentration
of greenhouse gases at equilibrium, assuming a climate sensitivity of roughly 0.87 degrees K. Also
assuming that anthropogenic SO2 represent only 72 percent of total atmospheric SO2 flux and that
the indirect aerosol effects of SO2 account for around 62 percent of total indirect aerosol forcing , or 0.43 W m-2
AT: Cyberwar Impact
No risk of cyber war
Clark ’12 (MA candidate – Intelligence Studies @ American Military University, senior analyst – Chenega Federal Systems, 4/28/’12 (Paul,
“The Risk of Disruption or Destruction of Critical U.S. Infrastructure by an Offensive Cyber Attack,” American Military University)
The Department of Homeland
Security worries that our critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR) may be
exposed, both directly and indirectly, to multiple threats because of CIKR reliance on the global cyber infrastructure, an
infrastructure that is under routine cyberattack by a “spectrum of malicious actors” (National Infrastructure Protection
Plan 2009). CIKR in the extremely large and complex U.S. economy spans multiple sectors including agricultural, finance and
banking, dams and water resources, public health and emergency services, military and defense, transportation and shipping, and
energy (National Infrastructure Protection Plan 2009). The disruption and destruction of public and private infrastructure is part of warfare,
without this infrastructure conflict cannot be sustained (Geers 2011). Cyber-attacks are desirable because they are considered to be a relatively
“low cost and long range” weapon (Lewis 2010), but prior
to the creation of Stuxnet, the first cyber-weapon, the ability to disrupt
and destroy critical infrastructure through cyber-attack was theoretical. The movement of an
offensive cyber-weapon from conceptual to actual has forced the United States to question whether
offensive cyber-attacks are a significant threat that are able to disrupt or destroy CIKR to the level that national security is
seriously degraded. It is important to understand the risk posed to national security by cyber-attacks to ensure that government responses are
appropriate to the threat and balance security with privacy and civil liberty concerns. The
risk posed to CIKR from cyber-attack
can be evaluated by measuring the threat from cyber-attack against the vulnerability of a CIKR target
and the consequences of CIKR disruption. As the only known cyber-weapon, Stuxnet has been thoroughly
analyzed and used as a model for predicting future cyber-weapons. The U.S. electrical grid, a key
component in the CIKR energy sector, is a target that has been analyzed for vulnerabilities and the consequences of disruption
predicted – the electrical grid has been used in multiple attack scenarios including a classified scenario provided to the
U.S. Congress in 2012 (Rohde 2012). Stuxnet will serve as the weapon and the U.S. electrical grid will serve as the target in this risk
analysis
concludes that there is a low risk of disruption or destruction of critical infrastructure
from a an offensive cyber-weapon because of the complexity of the attack path, the limited capability of nonstate adversaries to develop cyber-weapons, and the existence of multiple methods of mitigating the
cyber-attacks. To evaluate the threat posed by a Stuxnet-like cyber-weapon, the complexity of the weapon, the available attack vectors for
that
the weapon, and the resilience of the weapon must be understood. The complexity – how difficult and expensive it was to create the weapon –
identifies the relative cost and availability of the weapon; inexpensive and simple to build will be more prevalent than expensive and difficult to
build. Attack vectors are the available methods of attack; the larger the number, the more severe the threat. For example, attack vectors for a
cyberweapon may be email attachments, peer-to-peer applications, websites, and infected USB devices or compact discs. Finally, the resilience
of the weapon determines its availability and affects its usefulness. A useful weapon is one that is resistant to disruption (resilient) and is
therefore available and reliable. These concepts are seen in the AK-47 assault rifle – a simple, inexpensive, reliable and effective weapon – and
carry over to information technology structures (Weitz 2012). The evaluation of Stuxnet identified malware that is “ unusually
complex and large ” and required code written in multiple languages (Chen 2010) in order to complete a
variety of specific functions contained in a “vast array” of components – it is one of the most complex
threats ever analyzed by Symantec (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011). To be successful, Stuxnet required a high
level of technical knowledge across multiple disciplines, a laboratory with the target equipment
configured for testing, and a foreign intelligence capability to collect information on the target
network and attack vectors (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010). The malware also needed careful monitoring and
maintenance because it could be easily disrupted; as a result Stuxnet was developed with a high degree of configurability and was
upgraded multiple times in less than one year (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011). Once introduced into the
network, the cyber-weapon then had to utilize four known vulnerabilities and four unknown
vulnerabilities, known as zero-day exploits, in order to install itself and propagate across the target network (Falliere,
Murchu and Chien 2011). Zero-day exploits are incredibly difficult to find and fewer than twelve out of the
12,000,000 pieces of malware
discovered each year
utilize zero-day exploits
and this rarity makes them valuable,
zero-days can fetch $50,000 to $500,000 each on the black market (Zetter 2011). The use of four rare exploits
in a single piece of malware is “unprecedented” (Chen 2010). Along with the use of four unpublished exploits, Stuxnet
also used the “first ever” programmable logic controller rootkit, a Windows rootkit, antivirus evasion techniques,
intricate process injection routines, and other complex interfaces (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011) all wrapped
up in “layers of encryption like Russian nesting dolls” (Zetter 2011) – including custom encryption algorithms (Karnouskos 2011). As
the malware spread across the now-infected network it had to utilize additional vulnerabilities in proprietary Siemens industrial
control software (ICS) and hardware used to control the equipment it was designed to sabotage. Some of these ICS
vulnerabilities were published but some were unknown and required such a high degree of inside knowledge
that there was speculation that a Siemens employee had been involved in the malware design (Kerr,
Rollins and Theohary 2010). The unprecedented technical complexity of the Stuxnet cyber-weapon, along with the
extensive technical and financial resources and foreign intelligence capabilities required for its development and deployment, indicates that
the malware was likely developed by a nation-state (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010). Stuxnet had very limited attack
vectors. When a computer system is connected to the public Internet a host of attack vectors are available to the cyber-attacker (Institute for
Security Technology Studies 2002). Web browser and browser plug-in vulnerabilities, cross-site scripting attacks, compromised email
attachments, peer-to-peer applications, operating system and other application vulnerabilities are all vectors for the introduction of malware
into an Internetconnected computer system. Networks
that are not connected to the public internet are “air
gapped,” a technical colloquialism to identify a physical separation between networks. Physical separation from the public
Internet is a common safeguard for sensitive networks including classified U.S. government networks. If
the target network is air gapped, infection can only occur through physical means – an infected disk or
USB device that must be physically introduced into a possibly access controlled environment and connected to the air gapped
network. The first step of the Stuxnet cyber-attack was to initially infect the target networks, a difficult task given the probable disconnected
and well secured nature of the Iranian nuclear facilities. Stuxnet
was introduced via a USB device to the target network, a
method that suggests that the attackers were familiar with the configuration of the network and knew it was not connected
to the public Internet (Chen 2010). This assessment is supported by two rare features in Stuxnet – having all necessary functionality for
industrial sabotage fully embedded in the malware executable along with the ability to self-propagate and upgrade through a peer-to-peer
method (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011). Developing an understanding of the target network configuration was a significant and daunting
task based on Symantec’s assessment that Stuxnet repeatedly targeted a total of five different organizations over nearly one year (Falliere,
Murchu and Chien 2011) with physical introduction via USB drive being the only available attack vector. The final factor in assessing the threat
of a cyber-weapon is the resilience of the weapon. There are two primary factors that make Stuxnet non-resilient: the complexity of the
weapon and the complexity of the target. Stuxnet was highly customized for sabotaging specific industrial systems (Karnouskos 2011) and
needed a large number of very complex components and routines in order to increase its chance of success (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011).
The malware required eight vulnerabilities in the Windows operating system to succeed and therefore would have failed if those vulnerabilities
had been properly patched; four of the eight vulnerabilities were known to Microsoft and subject to elimination (Falliere, Murchu and Chien
2011). Stuxnet also required that two drivers be installed and required two stolen security certificates for installation (Falliere, Murchu and
Chien 2011); driver installation would have failed if the stolen certificates had been revoked and marked as invalid. Finally, the configuration of
systems is ever-changing as components are upgraded or replaced. There is no guarantee that the network that was mapped for vulnerabilities
had not changed in the months, or years, it took to craft Stuxnet and successfully infect the target network. Had specific components of the
target hardware changed – the targeted Siemens software or programmable logic controller – the attack would have failed. Threats are less of a
threat when identified; this is why zero-day exploits are so valuable. Stuxnet went to great lengths to hide its existence from the target and
utilized multiple rootkits, data manipulation routines, and virus avoidance techniques to stay undetected. The malware’s actions occurred only
in memory to avoid leaving traces on disk, it masked its activities by running under legal programs, employed layers of encryption and code
obfuscation, and uninstalled itself after a set period of time, all efforts to avoid detection because its authors knew that detection meant
failure. As a result of the complexity of the malware, the changeable nature of the target network, and the chance of discovery,
Stuxnet is
not a resilient system. It is a fragile weapon that required an investment of time and money to constantly
the course of a year. There is concern, with Stuxnet developed and available
publicly, that the world is on the brink of a storm of highly sophisticated Stuxnet-derived cyber-weapons which
can be used by hackers, organized criminals and terrorists (Chen 2010). As former counterterrorism advisor Richard
monitor, reconfigure, test and deploy over
Clarke describes it, there is concern that the technical brilliance of the United States “has created millions of potential monsters all over the
world” (Rosenbaum 2012). Hyperbole aside, technical knowledge spreads. The
techniques behind cyber-attacks are
“constantly evolving and making use of lessons learned over time” (Institute for Security Technology Studies 2002)
and the publication of the Stuxnet code may make it easier to copy the weapon (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010).
However, this is something of a zero-sum game because knowledge works both ways and cyber-security
techniques are also evolving , and “understanding attack techniques more clearly is the first step toward increasing security”
(Institute for Security Technology Studies 2002). Vulnerabilities are discovered and patched, intrusion detection and
malware signatures are expanded and updated, and monitoring and analysis processes and methodologies are
expanded and honed. Once the element of surprise is lost, weapons and tactics are less useful , this is the
core of the argument that “uniquely surprising” stratagems like Stuxnet are single-use, like Pearl Harbor and the
Trojan Horse, the “very success [of these attacks] precludes their repetition” (Mueller 2012). This paradigm has already
been seen in the “son of Stuxnet” malware – named Duqu by its discoverers – that is based on the same modular code platform that
created Stuxnet (Ragan 2011). With the techniques used by Stuxnet now known, other variants such as Duqu are
being discovered and countered by security researchers (Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security 2011). It is
obvious that the effort required to create, deploy, and maintain Stuxnet and its variants is massive and it
is not clear that the rewards are worth the risk and effort.
Given the location of initial infection and the number of
infected systems in Iran (Falliere, Murchu and Chien 2011) it is believed that Iranian nuclear facilities were the target of the Stuxnet weapon. A
significant amount of money and effort was invested in creating Stuxnet but yet the expected result –
assuming that this was an attack that expected to damage production – was minimal at best. Iran claimed that Stuxnet caused
only minor damage, probably at the Natanz enrichment facility, the Russian contractor Atomstroyeksport reported that no damage had
occurred at the Bushehr facility, and an unidentified “senior diplomat” suggested that Iran was forced to shut down its centrifuge facility “for a
few days” (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010). Even
the most optimistic estimates believe that Iran’s nuclear
enrichment program was only delayed by months, or perhaps years (Rosenbaum 2012). The actual damage done by
Stuxnet is not clear (Kerr, Rollins and Theohary 2010) and the primary damage appears to be to a higher number than average replacement of
centrifuges at the Iran enrichment facility (Zetter 2011). Different targets may produce different results. The Iranian nuclear facility was a
difficult target with limited attack vectors because of its isolation from the public Internet and restricted access to its facilities. What
is the
probability of a successful attack against the U.S. electrical grid and what are the potential consequences should this
critical infrastructure be disrupted or destroyed? An attack against the electrical grid is a reasonable threat scenario since power systems
are “a high priority target for military and insurgents” and there has been a trend towards utilizing commercial software
and integrating utilities into the public Internet that has “increased vulnerability across the board” (Lewis 2010). Yet the increased
vulnerabilities are mitigated by an increased detection and deterrent capability that has been “honed
over many years of practical application” now that power systems are using standard, rather than
proprietary and specialized, applications and components (Leita and Dacier 2012). The security of the electrical
grid is also enhanced by increased awareness after a smart-grid hacking demonstration in 2009 and
the identification of the Stuxnet malware in 2010; as a result the public and private sector are working
together in an “unprecedented effort” to establish robust security guidelines and cyber security measures
(Gohn and Wheelock 2010).
No risk of cyberattack and no impact if it does happen
Birch, 12 – former foreign correspondent for the Associated Press and the Baltimore Sun who has written extensively on technology and
public policy (Douglas, “Forget Revolution.” Foreign Policy. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/01/forget_revolution?page=full)
"That's a good example of what some kind of attacks would be like," he said. "You don't want to overestimate the risks. You don't want
somebody to be able to do this whenever they felt like it, which is the situation now. But this is not the end of the world." The question of how
seriously to take the threat of a cyber attack on critical infrastructure surfaced recently, after Congress rejected a White House measure to
require businesses to adopt stringent- new regulations to protect their computer networks from intrusions. The bill would have required
industries to report cyber security breaches, toughen criminal penalties against hacking and granted legal immunity to companies cooperating
with government investigations. Critics worried about regulatory overreach. But the potential cost to industry also seems to be a major factor in
the bill's rejection. A January study by Bloomberg reported that banks, utilities, and phone carriers would have to increase their spending on
cyber security by a factor of nine, to $45.3 billion a year, in order to protect themselves against 95 percent of cyber intrusions. Likewise, some
of the bill's advocates suspect that in the aftermath of a truly successful cyber attack, the government would have to bail the utilities out
anyway. Joe Weiss, a cyber security professional and an authority on industrial control systems like those used in the electric grid, argued that a
well-prepared, sophisticated cyber attack could have far more serious consequences than this summer's blackouts. "The reason we are so
concerned is that cyber could take out the grid for nine to 18 months," he said. "This isn't a one to five day outage. We're prepared for that. We
can handle that." But pulling
off a cyber assault on that scale is no easy feat. Weiss agreed that hackers intent on
inflicting this kind of long-term interruption of power would need to use a tool capable of inflicting
physical damage. And so far, the world has seen only one such weapon: Stuxnet, which is believed to have been a
joint military project of Israel and the United States. Ralph Langner, a German expert on industrial-control system security,
was among the first to discover that Stuxnet was specifically designed to attack the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system (SCADA) at
a single site: Iran's Natanz uranium-enrichment plant. The computer worm's sophisticated programs, which infected the plant in 2009, caused
about 1,000 of Natanz's 5,000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges to self-destruct by accelerating their precision rotors beyond the speeds at
which they were designed to operate. Professionals like Weiss and others warned
that Stuxnet was opening a Pandora's
Box: Once it was unleashed on the world, they feared, it would become available to hostile states, criminals, and
terrorists who could adapt the code for their own nefarious purposes. But two years after the discovery
of Stuxnet, there are no reports of similar attacks against the United States. What has prevented the emergence of
such copycat viruses? A 2009 paper published by the University of California, Berkeley, may offer the answer. The report, which
was released a year before Stuxnet surfaced, found that in order to create a cyber weapon capable of crippling a
specific control system ---- like the ones operating the U.S. electric grid -- six coders might have to work
for up to six months to reverse engineer the targeted center's SCADA system. Even then, the report says,
hackers likely would need the help of someone with inside knowledge of how the network's machines
were wired together to plan an effective attack. "Every SCADA control center is configured differently,
with different devices, running different software/protocols," wrote Rose Tsang, the report's author. Professional
hackers are in it for the money -- and it's a lot more cost-efficient to search out vulnerabilities in widelyused computer programs like the Windows operating system, used by banks and other affluent targets, than in one-of-a-kind SCADA
systems linked to generators and switches. According to Pollard, only the world's industrial nations have the means to use
the Internet to attack utilities and major industries. But given the integrated global economy, there is
little incentive, short of armed conflict, for them to do so. "If you're a state that has a number of U.S. Tbills in your treasury, you have an economic interest in the United States," he said. "You're not going to
have an interest in mucking about with our infrastructure." There is also the threat of retaliation. Last year,
the U.S. government reportedly issued a classified report on cyber strategy that said it could respond to a
devastating digital assault with traditional military force. The idea was that if a cyber attack caused death and destruction
on the scale of a military assault, the United States would reserve the right to respond with what the Pentagon likes to call
"kinetic" weapons: missiles, bombs, and bullets. An unnamed Pentagon official, speaking to the Wall Street Journal, summed up the
policy in less diplomatic terms: "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your
smokestacks." Deterrence is sometimes dismissed as a toothless strategy against cyber attacks because hackers have such an easy time
hiding in the anonymity of the Web. But investigators typically come up with key suspects, if not smoking guns, following
cyber intrusions and assaults -- the way suspicions quickly focused on the United States and Israel after Stuxnet was discovered. And
with the U.S. military's global reach, even terror groups have to factor in potential retaliation when
planning their operations.
Zero risk of cyber attack- new studies
Leyden ’11 (The ill-informed leading the ill-informed... By John Leyden • Get more from this author Posted in Government, 17th January
2011 11:23 GMT)
Cyberwar hype is inhibiting government attempts to develop an appropriate response to
cybersecurity threats, say computer scientists. A heavyweight study by UK computer scientists for the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that it is "highly unlikely" there will ever
be a "pure cyber war”, comparable with recent conflicts in Afghanistan or the Balkans. Suggestions to the contrary are
down to "heavy lobbying" by suppliers, the report's authors – Professor Peter Sommer of the London School of Economics and
Dr Ian Brown of the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford – conclude. It is unlikely that there will ever be a true cyberwar. The
reasons are: many critical computer systems are protected against known exploits and malware so
that designers of new cyberweapons have to identify new weaknesses and exploits; the effects of
cyberattacks are difficult to predict – on the one hand they may be less powerful than hoped but may
also have more extensive outcomes arising from the interconnectedness of systems, resulting in
unwanted damage to perpetrators and their allies. More importantly, there is no strategic reason why any aggressor would
limit themselves to only one class of weaponry.
AT: US-India Impact
Relations won’t collapse over Visa policy
Daily News and Analysis 10 [“U.S. politicians are trying to save their jobs”]
New York’s Democrat senator Charles Schumer calls Infosys a ‘chop shop’. The US government hikes visa fees for Indian
companies which employ more than 50% of H1B and L1 visa holders. President Barack Obama asserts that his policies
will ensure American jobs do not any more go to China, India or Germany. Do these smoke signals add up to a serious crisis
point for Indo-US relations? Probably not. These straws should be seen as nothing more than a political game which has
marginal economic significance for the two countries. Indo-US business relations are nowhere near the brink, and
they do not spell doom for either side immediately or in the future. It has been customary in India to read a little
too much into every American posture in the business arena, but the time has come to treat American politicians in the same way that we do
our ours — with amusement, if not disdain. It is not surprising that American politicians make the usual loud and ineffective noises about saving
American jobs. They are actually trying to save their own jobs.
AT: US-China Impact
Export and visa controls deter potential talent now
National Academies, 1-8-09, “National Security Controls on Science and Technology Are Broken and
Should Be Restructured,”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12567
WASHINGTON -- Many
U.S. export and visa controls, developed during the Cold War era to prevent the
transfer of technological and scientific advances to our enemies, now harm U.S. national security and economic
prosperity, says a new report from the National Research Council. The current regulations were designed for a world that no longer exists and
are unsuitable for today's adversaries. Immediate executive action is needed to restructure this system to prevent further declines in U.S.
scientific and technological competitiveness.
"In the modern globalized world of science and technology, restrictions on
the flow of information, technology, and scientists can negatively impact both U.S. competitiveness and security," said John Hennessy,
The current system of export controls
and visa regulations uses a series of lists to inform the licensing decisions of the departments of State
and Commerce, including the United States Munitions List and the Commerce Control List. Items are regularly added to the
lists but rarely taken off. According to the report, this list-based system has become a "technological Maginot
Line." Due to restrictions on the transfer of military technology, current export controls slow maintenance of military equipment,
president of Stanford University and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report.
discourage foreign defense contractors from purchasing U.S. equipment, and hamper international trade that could provide valuable
information on the technical capabilities of foreign militaries. In business, U.S. restrictions provide a road map for foreign competitors,
Visa controls and
"deemed export controls," the transfer of dual-use technology or source code to foreign nationals
within the U.S., have made U.S. laboratories and universities less attractive to foreign researchers and
have helped drive knowledge-intensive jobs overseas. Significant changes are needed to create a system that is
highlighting the specific technologies and products in which other countries should invest research dollars.
protective of both national security and economic prosperity.
"[The United States] needs to change to a philosophy that everything is open
and restricted only when it is demonstrated that it needs to be," said committee co-chair Brent Scowcroft, president of the Scowcroft Group
To ensure that the U.S. has access to the most talented scientists, the
visa application process should incorporate skills-based preferential processing and should be
streamlined so that legitimate foreign researchers and students have an easier time entering the United
States. Student visas should be extended so that recent graduates have time to find work with U.S.-based employers, and qualified U.S.
scientists should be allowed to vouch for the technical credibility and legitimacy of visa applicants in
their field as a means of aiding consular officials and expediting the application process.
and former U.S. national security adviser.
AT: Ag Impacts
Labor shortage is inevitable – reform is irrelevant
Plumer 1-29 (Brad, “We’re Running out of Farm Workers. Immigration Reform Won’t Help” Wonkblog
@ The Washington Post)
But looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S.
farms could well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on
immigration . That’s because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers to the United States. And it
won’t be nearly as easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere. For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on
low-wage foreign workers — mainly from Mexico — to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States
were foreign-born. (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food
prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables. But that labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, we’ve seen a spate of
headlines like this from CNBC: “California Farm Labor Shortage ‘Worst It’s Been, Ever’.” Typically, these stories blame drug-related violence on
the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker programs. But a new paper from U.C.
Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico
is getting richer. And, when a country gets richer, its
pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting into other sectors like construction, but Mexico’s
own farms are increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will have to pay higher and higher wages to attract a
dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers.
Immigrants won’t come – low wages
Taylor and Charlton 3-8 (J. Edward and Diane, Taylor is a Prof of Ag and Resource Economics and
Director of the Center on Rural Economies of the Americans and Pacific Rim @ the U of California Davis,
and Charlton is a PhD Student in Ag and Resource Economics @ UC Davis, Oxford University Press, “Why
Are Mexicans Leaving Farm Work, And What Does This Mean for US Farmers”)
http://blog.oup.com/2013/03/mexicans-farm-work-united-states/
Agriculture in North America traditionally has had its comparative advantage in having access to abundant low-skilled labor from Mexico.
Around 70% of the United States hired farm workforce is Mexico-born, according to the National Agricultural
Worker Survey (NAWS). Fruit, vegetable, and horticultural farms in the US have enjoyed an extended period of farm labor abundance with
stable or decreasing real wages. However ,
new panel data reveal a declining long- term trend in the farm labor
supply in rural Mexico. In coming years, US farmers will need to offer higher wages to induce new workers
to migrate northward to US farm jobs.
Squo solves
Resurreccion ’13 [Lyn. Science Editor for Business Mirror. “Crop Biotechnology: A Continuing Success
Globally” The Business Mirror, 2/23/13 ]
CROP biotechnology has been achieving “continuing success” globally as the number of farmers who
use it and the farms planted to biotech crops are increasing, recording 17.3 million farmers who planted the crops in 170.3
hectares in 28 countries in 2012, Dr. Clive James, chairman of the board of directors of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA), said on Thursday. James said the
trend in crop biotechnology is in favor of developing countries, which
compose 20 of the 28 countries that adopt the technology. Another significant development, he said, was
that for the first time developing countries planted more biotech crops in 2012, with 52 percent,
against the developing countries’ 48 percent. They registered equal production in 2011. This, James said, “was
contrary to the perception of critics that biotech crops are only for the developed countries and would not be adopted by developing countries.” The
increase in biotech farms in 2012 recorded a growth rate of 6 percent, or 10.3 million hectares more
from 160 million hectares in 2011, James told a select group of journalists at a hotel in Makati City when he announced the results of the ISAAA
report “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops for 2012.” James said this development was “remarkable” because it recorded a 100-fold increase in
biotech crop hectarage in the 17th year of its adoption—from 1.7 million hectares in 1996, when it was first commercialized. “It
also reflects the
confidence of farmers in the technology. They make their decision on the second year [on the
technology they use] based on the performance of the first year,” he said. He noted that of the 17.3 million farmers, 15.5
million, or 90 percent, are resource-poor, thereby helping farmers increase their income. He said biotech
contributed to economic gains of $100 billion from 1996 to 2011, half of this was from reduced
production cost, such as less pesticide sprays, less plowing and fewer labor, and the other half was
from increased production per hectare. Increased production, James said, resulted in increase in farmers’
income and “more money in their pockets.”
Ag labor shortages are exaggerated
Martin 7 (Philip Martin, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California,
Davis, 07, Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response?
http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back907.html)
News reports and editorials suggest widespread farm labor shortages.
The Los Angeles Times described �a
nationwide farm worker shortage threatening to leave fruits and vegetables rotting in fields.�1 The Wall Street Journal in a July 20, 2007, editorial claimed that �farmers
nationwide are facing their most serious labor shortage in years.� The editorial asserted that �20 percent of American agricultural products were stranded at the farm gate�
in 2006, including a third of North Carolina cucumbers, and predicted that crop losses in California would hit 30 percent in 2007. The W all Street Journal editorial continued that,
since �growers can only afford to pay so much and stay competitive,� some U.S. growers are moving fruit and vegetable production abroad. The New York Times profiled a
southern California vegetable grower who rented land in Mexico to produce lettuce and broccoli because, the grower asserted: �I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I did
These reports of farm labor shortages are not
accompanied by data that would buttress the anecdotes, like lower production of fruits and
vegetables or a rise in farm wages as growers scrambled for the fewer workers available. There is
a simple reason. Fruit and vegetable production is rising, the average earnings of farm workers
are not going up extraordinarily fast, and consumers are not feeling a pinch � the cost of fresh fruits and
that [raise U.S. wages] I would raise my costs and I would not have a legal work force.�2
vegetables has averaged about $1 a day for most households over the past decade.
Failing agriculture infrastructure causes high food prices
UN Committee on Transport 8 United Nations Economic and Social Council, “ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,” TRANSPORT AND POVERTY: FROM FARM TO MARKET—
EXTENDING THE REACH OF LOGISTICS, http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/ct2008/ctr_2e.pdf
SUMMARY Recent increases in the price of food and concerns over its availability and access to it have
focused attention on overcoming problems related to the transport of agricultural food products. Rising
transport costs can account for up to two thirds of food prices. In addition, spoilage between farm and market as a
result of inadequate transport, storage and processing render a large share of perishable food unusable, which is having a major impact on the
poorer segment of communities in the region. While food trades are increasingly complex and some countries have put in place advanced
logistics solutions, the majority of the countries in Asia and the Pacific have yet to establish the infrastructure and institutional frameworks
needed to ensure the efficient, seamless transport of foods from farm to market. This document contains a preliminary investigation of the way
transport and logistics impact the sustainable development of the food industry and identifies issues that need to be further addressed at the
national and regional levels. Delegations may wish to share their experiences and progress and discuss challenges concerning food transport
and logistics. The Committee may also wish to propose further research that could be presented to the Forum of Asian Ministers of Transport in
2009 as the basis of a regional exchange of experiences to enhance the availability of and access to food through improved transport and
logistics. INTRODUCTION 1. Recent soaring
food prices have brought the agricultural food industry into the
international spotlight. Table 1 shows the dramatic increase in the cereal export prices of the main suppliers to the Asian region. While
prices in major grain trades increased by some 50-70 per cent between mid-2007 and mid-2008, those for rice, the main staple food in Asia,
nearly tripled over the same period of time. Although the food market situation differs from country to country and future development
remains highly uncertain, a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations suggests that food prices are likely to remain
high in the years to come.
2. Transport and logistics account for a large part of final food prices and
increasing oil and energy costs have made this topic even more relevant. Despite the high share of
transport costs and the increased incidence of food spoilage in the process of transport and storage,
questions of food transport and logistics have not been addressed in a comprehensive and coherent
manner at the international level. A report by the United States Government Accountability Office in
April 2007 showed that transport and other overhead costs consumed 65 per cent of United States food
aid dollars, mainly due to rising fuel prices. 2 3. Inadequate logistics systems not only increase costs but
also impact the availability of food to consumers. According to a report by the Pacific Economic
Cooperation Council, China’s cold storage capacity is estimated to cover only 20-30 per cent of demand. A lack of controlled
atmosphere and refrigeration equipment leads to spoilage losses of up to 33 per cent of perishable food. 3 In India, various research studies by
the Economic Times Intelligence Group and the Investment Information and Credit Rating Agency reveal that large quantities of grain are
logistics, inadequate storage and a lack of transport
infrastructure. 4 4. Furthermore, adequate infrastructure and access to transport services are
prerequisites for the development of sustainable food trade, and requirements are becoming
increasingly complex in importing countries and regions as more countries move into sophisticated
trading in fresh fruit and vegetables, meat or fish at the domestic or international levels.
wasted due to improper handling and storage, pest infestation, poor
AT: Food Shortages Impact
Multiple alternate causes to food prices
Teslik 08 – Assistant Editor at Council on Foreign Relations (Lee Hudson, “Food Prices”, 6/30/2008,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16662/food_prices.html)
Before considering factors like supply and demand within food markets, it is important to understand the umbrella factors influencing costs of
production and, even more broadly, the currencies with which and economies within which food is traded. Energy Prices. Rising
energy
prices have direct causal implications for the food market. Fuel is used in several aspects of the
agricultural production process, including fertilization, processing, and transportation. The percentage of total
agricultural input expenditures directed toward energy costs has risen significantly in recent years. A briefing from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture notes that the U.S. agricultural industry’s total expenditures on fuel and oil are forecast to rise 12.6 percent in 2008, following a rise
of 11.5 percent in 2007. These
costs are typically passed along to customers and are reflected in global spot
prices (i.e. the current price a commodity trades for at market). The input costs of electricity have also risen, furthering the burden. Though it
isn’t itself an energy product, fertilizer is an energy-intensive expense, particularly when substantial transport costs are borne by local
farmers—so that expense, too, is reflected in the final price of foodstuffs. (Beyond direct causation, energy prices are also correlated to food
prices, in the sense that many of the same factors pushing up energy prices—population trends, for instance, or market speculation—also
affect food prices.) Currencies/Inflation. When food is traded internationally—particularly on commodities exchanges or futures markets—it is
often denominated in U.S. dollars. In recent years, the
valuation of the dollar has fallen with respect to many other
major world currencies. This means that even if food prices stayed steady with respect to a basket of currencies, their price in
dollars would have risen. Of course, food prices have not stayed steady—they have risen across the board—but if you examine
international food prices in dollar terms, it is worth noting that the decline of the dollar accentuates any apparent price increase. Demand
Demand for most kinds of food has risen in the past decade. This trend can be attributed to several factors: Population trends. The world’s
population has grown a little more than 12 percent in the past decade. Virtually nobody argues that this trend alone accounts for rising food
prices—agricultural production has, in many cases, become more efficient, offsetting the needs of a larger population—and some analysts say
population growth hasn’t had any impact whatsoever on food prices. The shortcomings of a Malthusian food-price argument are most obvious
in the very recent past. Richard Posner, a professor of law and economics at the University of Chicago, argues this point on his blog. He notes
that in 2007 the food price index used by the FAO rose 40 percent, as compared to 9 percent in 2006—clearly a much faster rate than global
population growth for that year, which measured a little over 1 percent. Nonetheless, experts
say population trends, distinct
from sheer growth rates, have had a major impact on food prices. For instance, the past decade has seen
the rapid growth of a global middle class. This, Posner says, has led to changing tastes, and increasing demand for
food that is less efficient to produce. Specifically, he cites an increased demand for meats. Livestock require farmland for grazing
(land that could be used to grow other food), and also compete directly with humans for food resources like maize. The
production of one serving of meat, economists say, is vastly less efficient than the production of one serving of corn or rice. Biofuels. Experts
say government policies
that provide incentives for farmers to use crops to produce energy, rather than food,
have exacerbated food shortages. Specifically, many economists fault U.S. policies diverting maize crops to the production of
ethanol and other biofuels. The effects of ramped-up U.S. ethanol production—which President Bush called for as part of an
initiative to make the United States “energy independent”—was highlighted in a 2007 Foreign Affairs article by C. Ford Runge and Benjamin
Senauer. Runge and Senauer write that the push to increase ethanol production has
spawned ethanol subsidies in many
countries, not just the United States. Brazil, they note, produced 45.2 percent of the world’s ethanol in 2005 (from sugar cane), and the
United States 44.5 percent (from corn). Europe also produces biodiesel, mostly from oilseeds. In all cases, the result is the diversion of food
products from global food markets, accentuating demand, pinching supply, and pushing up prices. Joachim von Braun, the director general of
IFPRI, writes in an April 2008 briefing (PDF) that 30 percent of all maize produced in the United States (by far the largest maize producer in the
world) will be diverted to biofuel production in 2008. This raises prices not only for people buying maize directly, but also for those buying
maize products (cornflakes) or meat from livestock that feed on maize (cattle). Speculation. Many analysts point to speculative
trading
practices as a factor influencing rising food prices. In May 2008 testimony (PDF) before the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security,
Michael W. Masters, the managing partner of the hedge fund Masters Capital Management, explained the dynamic. Masters says institutional
investors like hedge funds and pension funds started pouring money into commodities futures markets in the early 2000s, pushing up
futures contracts and, in turn, spot prices. Spot traders often use futures markets as a benchmark for what price they are willing to pay, so
even if futures contracts are inflated by an external factor like a flood of interest from pension funds, this still tends to result in a bump for spot
prices. Still, much debate remains about the extent to which speculation in futures markets in fact pushes up food prices. “In general we
[economists] think futures markets are a good reflection of what’s likely to happen in the real future,” says IFPRI’s Orden. Orden acknowledges
that more capital has flowed into agricultural commodities markets in recent years, but says that he “tends to think these markets are pretty
efficient and that you shouldn’t look for a scapegoat in speculators.” Supply Even
as demand for agricultural products has
risen, several factors have pinched global supply. These include: Development/urbanization. During the past half decade,
global economic growth has featured expansion throughout emerging markets, even as developed economies in the
United States, Europe, and Japan have cooled. The economies of China, India, Russia, numerous countries in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and
Eastern Europe, and a handful of achievers in the Middle East and Africa have experienced strong economic growth rates. This is particularly
true in Asian cities, where industrial
and service sector development has clustered. The result has often been a
boost for per capita earnings but a drag on domestic agriculture, as discussed in this backgrounder on African
agriculture. Farmland has in many cases been repurposed for urban or industrial development projects.
Governments have not, typically, been as eager to invest in modernizing farm equipment or irrigation techniques as they have been to sink
money into urban development. All
this has put an increased burden on developing-world farmers, precisely as
they dwindle in number and supply capacity. Production capacity in other parts of the world has increased by leaps and bounds
as efficiency has increased, and, as previously noted, total global production exceeds global demand. But urbanization opens markets
up to other factors—transportation costs and risks, for instance, which are particularly high in less accessible parts of the
developing world—and prevent the smooth functioning of trade, even where there are willing buyers and sellers. Weather.
Some of the factors leading to recent price increases have been weather-related factors that tightened supply in specific markets.
In 2008, for instance, two major weather events worked in concert to squeeze Asian rice production—Cyclone Nargis, which led to massive
flooding and the destruction of rice harvests in Myanmar; and a major drought in parts of Australia. Estimates indicate Myanmar’s flooding
instantly destroyed a substantial portion of Myanmar’s harvest, limiting the country’s ability to export rice. Meanwhile, Australia’s drought
wiped out 98 percent of the country’s rice harvest in 2008, forcing Canberra to turn to imports and further straining Asia’s rice market. Trade
policy. Agricultural trade barriers have long been faulted for gumming up trade negotiations, including the Doha
round of World Trade Organization talks. But in the midst of the recent food pinch, a different kind of trade barrier has emerged as a problem—
export bans. As discussed before (in the instance of the Philippines meeting difficulty in its efforts to import rice), several exporters have
tightened the reins in light of domestic supply concerns. According to the UN’s World Food Program, over forty countries have imposed some
form of export ban in an effort to increase domestic food security. India, for instance, imposed bans on exporting some forms of rice and oil in
June 2008—a move that took food off the market, led to stockpiling, and brought a spike in prices. China,
Kazakhstan, and Indonesia, among other countries, have introduced similar bans. The distorting effects of these barriers are particularly
troubling in the developing world, where a much larger percentage of average household income is spent on food. The African Development
Bank warned in May 2008 that similar moves among African countries could rapidly exacerbate food concerns on the African continent. A group
of West African countries, meanwhile, sought to mitigate the negative effects of export bans by exempting one another. Food aid policy and
other policies. Experts say flaws
in food aid policies have limited its effectiveness and in some cases exacerbated
price pressures on food. CFR Senior Fellow Laurie Garrett discusses some of these factors in a recent working paper. Garrett cites
illogical aid policies such as grants for irrigation and mechanization of crop production that the Asian Development Bank plans to give to
Bangladesh, a densely populated country without “a spare millimeter of arable land.” Garrett also criticizes food aid policies (U.S. aid policies
are one example) that mandate food aid to be doled out in the form of crops grown by U.S. farmers, rather than cash. The rub, she says, is that
food grown in the United States is far more expensive, both to produce and to transport, than food
grown in recipient countries. Such a policy guarantees that the dollar value of donations goes much less
far than it would if aid were directed to funds that could be spent in local markets. Other experts note additional
policies that limit supply. In a recent interview with CFR.org, Paul Collier, an economics professor at Oxford University, cites European bans on
genetically modified crops as a prime example.
Alt cause – honeybees
AP 08 (“Honey Bee Crisis could lead to higher food prices”,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-sick-bees,0,622176.story)
WASHINGTON — Food prices could rise even more unless the mysterious decline in honey bees is solved,
farmers and businessmen told lawmakers Thursday. "No bees, no crops," North Carolina grower Robert D. Edwards told a House
Agriculture subcommittee. Edwards said he had to cut his cucumber acreage in half because of the lack of bees available to rent. About
three-quarters of flowering plants rely on birds, bees and other pollinators to help them reproduce. Bee
pollination is responsible for $15 billion annually in crop value. In 2006, beekeepers began reporting losing 30 percent
to 90 percent of their hives. This phenomenon has become known as Colony Collapse Disorder. Scientists do not know how many bees have
died; beekeepers have lost 36 percent of their managed colonies this year. It was 31 percent for 2007, said Edward B. Knipling, administrator of
the Agriculture Department's Agricultural Research Service. "If
there are no bees, there is no way for our nation's
farmers to continue to grow the high quality, nutritious foods our country relies on," said Democratic Rep.
Dennis Cardoza of California, chairman of the horticulture and organic agriculture panel. "This is a crisis we cannot afford to ignore."
Alt cause – Population growth
Von Braun, 08 – Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute (Joachim, April
2008
“High Food Prices: What should be done?”, http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/bp/bp001.asp)
At the same time, the growing world population is demanding more and different kinds of food. Rapid
economic growth in many developing countries has pushed up consumers' purchasing power,
generated rising demand for food, and shifted food demand away from traditional staples and toward
higher-value foods like meat and milk. This dietary shift is leading to increased demand for grains
used to feed livestock.
AT: Protectionism Impact
The U.S. will never abandon free trade--institutions and self-interest check
Ikenson, 09 – director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies (Daniel, Center for Trade Policy
Studies, Free Trade Bulletin 37, “A protectionism fling”,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10651)
A Growing Constituency for Freer Trade The WTO/GATT system was created in the first place to deter a protectionist
pandemic triggered by global economic contraction. It was created to deal with the very situation that is at hand. But in today's integrated
global economy, those rules are not the only incentives to keep trade barriers in check. With the advent and
proliferation of transnational supply chains, cross-border direct investment, multinational joint ventures, and equity tie-ups,
the "Us versus Them" characterization of world commerce no longer applies. Most WTO members are
happy to lower tariffs because imports provide consumers with lower prices and greater variety, which
incentivizes local business to improve quality and productivity, which is crucial to increasing living standards. Moreover, many local economies
now rely upon access to imported raw materials, components, and capital equipment for their own value-added activities. To
improve
chances to attract investment and talent in a world where capital (physical, financial, and human) is increasingly mobile,
countries must maintain policies that create a stable business climate with limited administrative, logistical, and
physical obstacles. The experience of India is instructive. Prior to reforms beginning in the 1990s, India's economy was virtually closed. The
average tariff rate on intermediate goods in 1985 was nearly 150 percent. By 1997 the rate had been reduced to 30 percent. As trade barriers
were reduced, imports of intermediate goods more than doubled. The tariff reductions caused prices to fall and Indian industry suddenly had
access to components and materials it could not import previously. That access enabled Indian manufacturers to cut costs and use the savings
to invest in new product lines, which was a process that played a crucial role in the overall growth of the Indian economy.16 India's approach
has been common in the developing world, where most comprehensive trade reforms during the past quarter century have been undertaken
unilaterally, without any external pressure, because governments recognized that structural reforms were in their country's interest. According
to the World Bank, between 1983 and 2003, developing countries reduced their weighted average tariffs by almost 21 percentage points (from
29.9 percent to 9.3 percent) and unilateral reforms accounted for 66 percent of those cuts.17 The Indispensible Nation The United States
accounts for the highest percentage of world trade and has the world's largest economy. The WTO/GATT system is a U.S.-inspired and U.S.shaped institution. Recession in the United States has triggered a cascade of economic contractions around the world, particularly in exportdependent economies. Needless to say, U.S. trade policy is closely and nervously observed in other countries. But despite
the
occasional anti-trade rhetoric of the Democratic Congress and the protectionist-sounding campaign pledges of President
Obama, the United States is unlikely to alter its strong commitment to the global trading system . There is
simply too much at stake. Like businesses in other countries, U.S. businesses have become increasingly
reliant on transnational supply chains. Over 55 percent of U.S. import value in 2007 was of intermediate goods, which indicates
that U.S. producers depend highly on imported materials, components, and capital equipment. And there is
also the fact that 95 percent of the world's population lives outside of the United States, so an open trade
policy is an example to uphold.
AT Remittances Impact
Remittances are resilient and too many alt causes
Ratha 9 (Dilip, "India is the top recipient of remittances," Worldbank,
blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/india-is-the-top-recipient-of-remittances)
The resilience of remittances arises from the fact that while new migration flows have declined, the
stock of migrants has been relatively unaffected by the crisis. Sources of risk to this outlook include
uncertainty about the depth and duration of the current crisis, unpredictable movements in exchange
rates, and the possibility that immigration controls may be tightened further in major destination
countries.
AT: Indian Econ Impact
Econ Collapse Inevitable- Food prices and bureaucratic inefficiencies
Schuman 11- American author and journalist who specializes in Asian economics, politics and history.
Asia business correspondent for TIME Magazine
(Michael, “India’s economy: Headed for trouble?” 1/18/11, http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/01/18/india%E2%80%99s-economyheaded-for-trouble/)
Just look at the mess India finds itself in. The wholesale price index soared 8.4% in December compared
to a year earlier. Prices of onions, vegetables and other staples are rising even faster. The latest read of the
government food price index shows they jumped almost 17% in a year. That's a serious, serious matter for a
country with so many people still stuck in poverty – nothing eats into the food on a poor man's dinner table like rapidly rising
prices. Certain basic foods, like onions, are such a crucial ingredient in Indian cooking that people just can't live without them, so rising prices at
the local market hit hard. The government has been scrambling to contain the damage, by, for example, banning the export of onions. Some of
this food inflation could well be temporary – a result of unusual weather conditions that hurt the onion crop, for example. India is also not the
only country facing escalating prices, especially of food. Prices
of commodities are rising across the board, with the Food and
mix of loose
budgets and easy money (leftover from recession-busting efforts) with a lackluster approach towards much-needed
reforms (more deregulation, for example) and investments (i.e., in infrastructure) have created bottlenecks that spawn
inefficiencies and push up prices. Here's more from Courtis: If you have aggressive monetary and fiscal policy, together with
Agriculture Organization's food price index hitting a record in December. But India's inflation is also its own fault. A
booming labor market expansion, you better have hugely powerful supply side policies, or inflation can only explode... guess what, in the
absence of China style aggressive supply side policies -infrastructure, deregulation, opening of the economy, education--, inflation is
exploding... and which means quickly dropping competitiveness.
Collapse Inevitable- decreasing competitiveness and rampant inflation
Schuman 11- American author and journalist who specializes in Asian economics, politics and history.
Asia business correspondent for TIME Magazine
(Michael, “India’s economy: Headed for trouble?” 1/18/11, http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/01/18/india%E2%80%99s-economyheaded-for-trouble/)
India's predicament is somewhat symbolic of what's happening to emerging markets overall. After
splashing money around for the past two years trying to keep their economies growing as the West
sank, they're now dealing with the consequences of those policies. Part of the problem as well has been inflicted upon
them by policy in the struggling West. The expansionary practices of the Federal Reserve have likely helped stoke
inflation by ramping up the amount of cash in the world economy. But the troubles in India should also act as a wakeup call for New Delhi. India needs to focus more on improving its infrastructure and education systems and continuing the process of
deregulation that sparked its economic miracle in the first place to ensure its growth stays healthy. Goldman Sachs economist Tushar Poddar
hopes India's policymakers will get the message. Here's what Poddar said in a recent report: We would stress that despite the risks mentioned
above, the underlying structural growth story remains strong. If unbridled optimism about economic fundamentals gives way to an appreciation
of risks which can then be meaningfully priced by markets and addressed by policymakers, we think it would lead to a more sustainable growth
environment. The
situation is also a lesson for the rest of the emerging world. Growth solves many
problems but creates others, so policymakers have to do just as much to manage that growth in good
times as nurture it in bad times.
AT: Mexican Econ Impact
Mexican economy resilient
Nevaer, 09 [Lous—New America Media, News Report, “In Global Economic Crisis, Mexico Is Resilient”]
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=b8dc03d6f2792eba9e84392106c
2c6f4>
MERIDA, Mexico – The economic crisis sweeping the globe has spared no nation, but some are showing remarkable resilience. Mexico's
economic performance, for example, has shown tremendous strength. When the U.S. Federal Reserve extended a loan of
$30 billion each to the central banks of Brazil, South Korea, Singapore and Mexico, Mexico did not touch those funds. It simply reinvested them
in Treasury bonds, leaving them in accounts in New York. This is no accident.
It stems from prudent economic policies
implemented after the December 1994 devaluation of the Mexican peso that sent the economy into a
tailspin. At that time, President Ernesto Zedillo had been in office a few days, and his entire agenda was thrown into disarray by the crisis.
The Clinton administration had to issue an emergency $50 billion loan –- which Mexico paid back ahead of schedule and with interest -– and the
International Monetary Fund, or IMF, helped craft a recovery program. It was a painful adjustment as budgets were slashed, fiscal restraint was
implemented across the board, and the Mexican people saw their investments and savings diminish. That was 15 years ago, and the lessons
learned the hard way are now paying off: Mexico's stock market fell 23 percent in 2008, the "best" performing major index at a
time when the U.S. markets fell 38 percent and Russian markets collapsed by an astounding 70 percent. Last fall, some feared that the Mexican
economy would not be able to escape the turmoil engulfing the United States, and the Mexican peso fell almost 30 percent vis-à-vis the
American dollar. It has since recovered, although it has suffered a 20 percent devaluation since the economic crisis
began last summer. These currency fluctuations reflect the fact that, because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, neither
Mexico nor Canada have "decoupled" from the U.S. economy. There
are several reasons for Mexico's economic
resilience. One is the fiscal restraint that Zedillo initiated and that his successor, Vicente Fox, continued. Fox, a former
corporate executive, made significant strides in eliminating Mexico's foreign debt. Mexico's current president, Felipe
Calderon, has kept spending in line, even as revenues have increased. When disaster struck, Mexico had a
balanced budget, almost no foreign debt and rising federal revenues, allowing it to intervene to stabilize
prices. Mexico also dodged the housing speculation that brought its neighbor to its knees. Mexico's
financial system has always been stringent in extending credit. Americans roll their eyes at the bureaucracy this entailed –two forms of ID are required to open a bank account in Mexico; when customers request checks, they have to pick them up at the bank, where
their signature and ID are verified; credit card applications must be made in person at the financial institution, and not over the phone or
through unsolicited mail-in applications. As a result, "identity
theft" is almost non-existent in Mexico, and it was nearly
impossible for a housing bubble to emerge there. Another factor is the windfall oil profits – despite the sudden
drop in oil prices. When oil peaked at $147 a barrel last summer, there was disbelief around the world: Would it shoot up to $200 or fall back?
The conventional wisdom was that $100 a barrel for oil was the new reality going forward, and there was a frenzy to lock in prices through
futures contracts. Mexican officials at Pemex, the state-owned oil monopoly, didn't believe that price was sustainable; their economic models
indicated that, with slacking demand due to the recession, a price range between $60 and $80 was "sustainable." Other countries -– most
notably Venezuela and Russia –- were more ambitious, and reckless. Both countries let spending explode, believing that they could finance
anything they wanted. The economies in both countries today are in freefall. Mexico, by comparison, was prudent,
saving the oil
windfall, and Mexican traders implemented a strategy that hinged on the price of oil falling below the
$60 to $80 range. "They're great traders," Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp., said of Pemex futures traders. "If the
economy continues to slow, they're looking like geniuses." The world economy has more than slowed: It has hit
a wall. And Mexico is collecting $90 to $110 per barrel today, for oil that is trading in the $38 to $45 range
at the beginning of 2009. Having hedged its exports, Mexico is getting a premium, and a significant windfall that will
total several billion dollars this year, enough to sustain social spending without massive federal deficits
AT: Hunger Impact
Hunger related deaths declining
The Hunger Project 08 (“Decline in the number of hunger related deaths,”
http://www.thp.org/reports/decline.htm)
Recent studies indicate that 24,000 individuals die each day of hunger-related causes, according to The
Hunger Project, a global organization committed to the end of world hunger. This figure is a significant decline from the
organization's earlier, widely-used estimate of 35,000 per day. "While this number still represents a horrendous and
unnecessary human tragedy, it also indicates that progress can and is being made," stated Joan Holmes, President of The Hunger Project. The
world does not have direct measurements of hunger-related deaths. The
Hunger Project bases its estimates on
conclusions drawn from various studies of undernutrition, malnutrition and mortality. This year, the Unicef
"Progress of Nations" report summarized many of those studies by saying that one-half of child deaths can be attributed to hunger. While there
are far fewer studies on hunger and mortality in adults, most experts agree that 3/4 of all hunger-related deaths are children below the age of
5.
Over the past two decades, child mortality rates from all causes have fallen more rapidly than the
rate of population growth, indicating an overall decline in hunger-related deaths.
Alt cause – GM crops cause mass crop failure and famine
Ho 1/21/07 (Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, director of the London-based Institute for Science in Society (ISIS),
“Making the World GM-Free and Sustainable,” http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/gm-freesustainable.html)
Genetically modified (GM) crops epitomize industrial monoculture, with its worst features exaggerated.
They are part and parcel of the "environmental bubble economy," built on the over-exploitation of
natural resources, which has destroyed the environment, depleted water and fossil fuels and accelerated global
warming. As a result, world grain yields have been falling for six of the seven past years. Expanding the
cultivation of GM crops at this time is a recipe for global bio-devastation, massive crop failures and
global famine. GM crops are a dangerous diversion from the urgent task of getting our food system sustainable in order to really feed the
world.
AT Deficit Impact
Immigration doesn’t help the deficit
Unger 2/3 -- Forbes Contributor (Rick, 2013, "Will The Cost Of Immigration Reform Explode The
National Deficit?" http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/03/will-the-cost-of-immigrationreform-explode-the-national-deficit/)
According to Barletta, citing a 2007 Heritage Foundation study, the tab for allowing immigrants a path to citizenship—
even after considering an increase in tax collection from those who are brought into the system—will total some
$2.6 trillion in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and other costs to the American taxpayer. Mr. Krugman promptly and
vehemently disagreed, labeling the costs to the federal government of creating a path to citizenship “pocket change”. So, who is telling the
truth? Considering that nobody
scoring any proposed legislation,
has yet to actually put forth a bill that would get the Congressional Budget Office moving on
we don’t really know . We can, however, get a sense of what might lie ahead based on the numbers
presented by the CBO when scoring a similar pathway to citizenship proposal put forth by a bipartisan committee in the United States Senate in
2007— a proposal that was supported by the Bush White House but ultimately never made it to a full vote in the Senate. The 2007 CBO report
concluded that federal spending resulting from a pathway to citizenship would run about $23 billion over ten years with the costs coming
primarily from government expenditures in Medicaid and refundable tax credits. However, the report also determined that legalization would
generate $48 billion in new revenue, primarily as a result of bringing in more contributions to Social Security, noting that the majority of newly
legalized immigrants would be working age—meaning they would not be calling on Social Security and Medicare payouts for many years but
would, instead, be making contributions to the program. While these numbers reveal a net ‘plus’, when
we add to the equation
the estimated cost of implementing the 2007 proposal—$43 billion over ten years—the net cost of that
immigration reform plan totaled a loss of about $18 billion over a ten-year period. And while the CBO anticipated that this
$18 billion would be added to the deficit, when looked at over a 20 year period, the CBO characterized the costs as having “a
relatively small net effect.”
If these numbers are even close to accurate, there is little question that the truth is much closer to Mr.
Krugman’s suggestion that the cost is little more than a rounding error in the federal budget rather than the cataclysmic impact alleged by
Congressman Barletta. But that was 2007 and things
have changed quite a bit since that time—changes that could
dramatically affect the relative costs and benefits of bringing undocumented immigrants out from the shadows. Certainly, the
most significant of these changes would have to be the arrival of the Affordable Care Act and the
government subsidies that could flow to what is estimated to be seven million newly minted Americans who could
benefit financially from the healthcare reform law.
No internal link – legalization won’t solve the deficit
Hill et al. 10. [Laura E., research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, a National Institute of Aging postdoctoral fellow,
Magnus Lofstrom, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, Joseph M. Hayes, a research associate at the Public Policy
Institute of California, where he studies migration and population change throughout the state, “Immigrant Legalization Assessing the Labor
Market Effects,” Public Policy Institute of California, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_410LHR.pdf#ppic]
Legalization of the estimated 12 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States would
lead to both economic benefits and costs for the nation. Some arguments for comprehensive
immigration reform suggest that legalizing immigrants will help end the current recession. This
seems unlikely.
Our research suggests that earlier findings
from the IRCA era may overstate anticipated
earnings from a new reform, at least in the short run. ¶ We do expect occupational mobility to improve for formerly unauthorized
immigrants with higher skill levels. When compared to the continuously legal, their occupational earnings growth was about 9 to 10 percent.
These higher-skill unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be overstayers than crossers, but unauthorized immigrants with college degrees
are found in both groups. Lower-skill
unauthorized immigrants are not likely to experience strong
occupational mobility as a result of a legalization program (although their occupational earnings grow over time in the
United States). It will be important that any new legislation give legalized immigrants incentives to improve their skills, especially in English. ¶
The majority of studies investigating the effect of legalizing immigrants on natives’ earnings suggest that
the effects are slightly negative for workers with low skill levels. Since we find no improvements in
occupational mobility or wages for the lowest skill levels in the short run, we do not expect that
legalizing immigrants would place any increased pressure on the wages of low-skill natives or low-skill
legal immigrants. Tax revenues may increase, although many unauthorized immigrants already file
federal and state tax returns and pay sales and payroll taxes. We found that about 90 percent of
unauthorized immigrants filed federal tax returns in the year before gaining LPR status. We expect
that increases in tax revenues resulting from increased earnings among the formerly unauthorized
would be modest.