Immigration Politics – Cal 2013 – Starter
Packet
Top Shelf
Notes
Record instructor notes about the file here…
The links still need a lot more work – there’s only enough here to get you started. They are
located at the end of the file.
1NC
Immigration reform will pass as a result of the border compromise – now is key
Washington Post 6-20
[The Washington Post. “Breakthrough on Senate immigration bill: Democrats, GOP reach border security agreement” 6/20/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A breakthrough at hand, Republicans
and Democrats reached agreement Thursday on a costly, military-style
surge to secure the leaky U.S.-Mexican border and clear the way for Senate passage of
legislation giving millions of immigrants a chance at citizenship after years in America’s shadows.¶
Lawmakers in both parties described a Southern border that would be bristling with law
enforcement manpower and technology as a result of legislation at the top of President Barack Obama’s second-term domestic
policy agenda. The emerging deal called for a doubling of the Border Patrol , with 20,000 new agents, 18 new
unmanned surveillance drones, 350 miles of new fencing, and an array of fixed and mobile devices to maintain vigilance. “ This is a
border surge . We have militarized our border, almost,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.¶ “Boots on the ground,
drones in the air,” summed up Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who has been at the center of efforts to push immigration
legislation through the Senate.¶ The plan was announced by Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Republicans
who had been publicly uncommitted on the legislation. Both said other GOP
fence-sitters would also swing behind the
measure if the changes were incorporated , and by late in the afternoon, two had done so.¶ A final vote on
the legislation is expected by the end of next week.
< Link >
Political capital is key – Obama’s maneuvering overcomes hurdles
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, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
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.
< Impact >
UQ
2NC UQ
The border surge compromise ensures passage – it will achieve 70 total votes, which beat any
of their evidence about the filibuster, the house, and the ubermajority.
Parker 6-21
[Ashley. Politics for the New York Times. “Border Deal by 2 in G.O.P. Lifts Chances of Immigration Bill” The New York Times, 6/21/13 (morning
edition) ln//GBS-JV]
The prospects for Senate approval of a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws
improved on Thursday after two Senate Republicans worked out a deal on a plan to strengthen
border security with the bipartisan group of eight senators that drafted the original bill, raising hopes that the new
agreement could build Republican support for the immigration legislation . ¶ The deal calls for
a “border surge” that nearly doubles the current border patrol force to 40,000 agents from 21,000, as well as for the completion of 700
miles of fence on the nation’s southern border. The additional border agents, the senators said, would cost roughly $25 billion.¶ Senator Bob
Corker, Republican of Tennessee and one of the deal’s architects, said he expected that his provision could attract the
support of roughly 15 Republicans for the legislation , which includes a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million
unauthorized immigrants already in the country. Those Republican votes would be a significant boon to the
measure , which backers hope to push through the Senate by the end of next week.¶ If nearly all Senate Democrats vote
for the bill, as aides now expect, the additional Republican support would not only ensure the bill’s
passage through the Senate, but that it passes with nearly 70 votes and bipartisan
momentum as it heads to the Republican-controlled House .
Top of the Docket
Dann 6-11
[Carrie. Politics for NBC. “Senate votes to begin historic immigration reform debate” NBC News, 6/11/13 ln//GBS-JV]
In an initial victory for proponents of comprehensive immigration reform, the Senate on Tuesday easily passed a
procedural vote to begin debate on the broad bipartisan measure, with just 15 senators -- all Republicans -objecting. The preliminary 82-15 vote -- which required 60 votes for passage -- offers an initial show of
strength for supporters of the legislation,
although some Republicans who voted for the initial procedural measure say
they will not support the final product unless amendments are added to strengthen the legislation’s requirements to secure the nation’s
southern border.¶ A short while later, a
vote on the motion to proceed -- which needed just a simple majority -- passed
by a similar 84-15 margin .¶ The votes came hours after President Barack Obama, flanked by a broad array of
supporters in remarks at the White House ,
urged Congress to act on the legislation
and warned opponents that there is
“no good reason to play procedural games or engage in obstruction.”¶ “If you’re serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the
vehicle to do it,” Obama said.¶ A
final vote on the legislation is not expected until before the chamber’s July 4
recess. Obama said Tuesday that he wants the bill to his desk by the end of the summer.
Obama’s pushing and now is key
Kelley 6-12
[Caroline. Politics for Time. “Can Congress Vote On Immigration Reform Before Its Vacation?” TIME, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The clock is ticking for immigration reform. On Tuesday, President Obama urged Congress to move
quickly on the sweeping reform bill
the Senate began debating this week. “There’s no reason Congress can’t get this done
by the end of the summer,” he said. The president’s urgency was reminiscent of the way President George W. Bush pushed for his own
immigration reform package in 2007. Six years ago this Wednesday, Bush visited Capitol Hill to “make a personal appeal” to Republican
senators on behalf of his plan, which included a goal that they vote before Congress’s July 4 recess—the same target recently set for this year’s
Senate reform effort by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.¶ ¶ The
Senate couldn’t deliver a vote by July 4 in 2007,
however, and Bush’s bill eventually died in the doldrums of summer. Proponents of this year’s version hope for more
success. But, they too face a calendar challenge. Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says that he
“wouldn’t bet a great deal of money on meeting the July 4th deadline” this year.¶ ¶ A significant delay in the Senate could
make it harder for the House to vote on immigration reform before Congress goes on
vacation. The House is scheduled to be in session for just 16 days following the July 4 holiday before lawmakers begin their month-long
vacation on August 5th. House Speaker John Boehner has said he hopes the House can vote before then.¶ ¶ Reform
advocates worry that if a bill isn’t passed before August , opponents might marshal intense opposition
to it in the media
and at lawmakers’ town hall meetings, just as they did with Obama’s health care plan in the summer of 2009,
which threatened to derail that bill. Ornstein thinks immigration
reform could survive Congress’s recess, but that
the delay would make passage more difficult .
The GOP’s on board
Politic365 6-11
[Politic365.com., a Frequently Updated and Reputable News Source under the larger Umbrella of Roll Call Magazine. “President Obama Pushes
Congress on Immigration Reform” 6/11/13 http://politic365.com/2013/06/11/introduced-by-a-dreamer-president-obama-pushes-congress-onimmigration-reform/ //GBS-JV]
Today President Obama
expressed his support for the bipartisan gang of eight immigration reform
bill that has been making its way through the Senate. In an speech at the White House, where he was introduced by a
DREAM Act eligible young adult, Tolu Olubunmi, President Obama said, “ The bipartisan bill is the best chance we’ve
had
in years.Ӧ The President also said that if people are serious about fixing the broken immigration system, then this is the bill to support
because it has border security and provides a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented who are living in the shadows. In referencing the
border, the President stressed that border crossings are at a historic low.¶ “I know there’s a lot of talk right
now about border security, so let me repeat: Today, illegal crossings are near their lowest level in decades, and if passed, the Senate bill as
currently written would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen,” he said.¶ By
stressing border
security, the President is trying to assure Republicans that securing the borders will remain a
top priority . Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced an amendment that would require law enforcement to certify that the border is
100% secure before any of the undocumented could receive permanent status. In recent years, the administration has
increased the militarization of the border even utilizing unmanned drones while the number of
undocumented immigrants arrested at the border continues to be low.
The substance of the deal makes it politically feasible
Mookim 6-12
[M. Politics for PolicyMic. “Immigration Reform 2013: With One Hurdle Passed, the Bill's Future Is Still Uncertain” 6/12/13
http://www.policymic.com/articles/47935/immigration-reform-2013-with-one-hurdle-passed-the-bill-s-future-is-still-uncertain //GBS-JV]
After years of operating under a broken system, Congress
has successfully produced a comprehensive, effective
plan to reform immigration in a surprisingly politically feasible manner . President Obama delivered a
speech Tuesday morning that wholeheartedly endorsed this most recent congressional effort to advance
immigration reform. Later in the day, the Senate voted by an overwhelming margin to begin
discussing the bipartisan immigration bill recently pushed through the Judiciary Committee that is
just now arriving to the Senate floor.¶ In the early stages of the debate, it is apparent that Republicans emerged most critical
of the bill, and for easily anticipated reasons. The bill currently includes a grand bargain of sorts: Once border security is
improved as per Republican request, Democrats get their much-desired path to citizenship for America’s
11 million illegal immigrants. Additionally, several provisions are included that streamline legal immigration . To
name a few, the cap on H-1B visas is raised substantially and backlogs for merit-based visas will be
cleared.
CBO report generates momentum
Cox 6-18
[Ramsey. Politics for the Hill. “Schumer: CBO report is ‘huge momentum boost’ to immigration reform bill” The Hill, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that
the Congressional Budget Office’s report that the
comprehensive immigration reform bill reduces the deficit is a “huge momentum boost.” ¶
“This report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform,” Schumer said on the Senate floor moment
after the CBO report was released. “This debunks the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a
boon to our economy, and robs the bill’s opponents of one of their last remaining
arguments.” ¶ CBO estimated that the Gang of Eight’s bill would reduce the deficit by $197 billion
over the next ten years and reduce the deficit an additional $700 billion during the second decade of its
implementation.
Ext. Will Pass – General
It’ll pass – efforts to block the deal will fall short
Bazinger 4-8
[Kenneth. Political Editor for the NY Daily News and Kiplinger. “For Obama, Republicans, a Pause in Partisanship” 4/8/13
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T043-C012-S005-obama-congress-to-pass-immigration-reform.html#pAHwARZwQoseVifF.99 //GBSJV]
The truce won't last, but it will allow some major bills to pass , including immigration reform. ¶ There's a
spring thaw of sorts under way in Congress, clearing the path for some big bills to pass before the fall, when the
focus will shift to the 2014 elections for House and Senate seats.¶ Both parties, driven by the goodwill that remains from their
recent agreement to fund the government through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year, are in the mood for progress on other
fronts.¶ The biggest surprise on tap: immigration reform. A sizable package will pass by the end of the
year . It'll include beefed-up border patrols, more work visas for skilled and unskilled individuals
and a path for legal residency for many millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally. That last provision was a long shot as
recently as a few months ago.¶ Both parties stand to benefit over time. Democrats get to claim another big
win for President Obama, allowing immigration to join health care as a cornerstone of his legislative legacy. Republicans gain a
vital truce with Hispanic voters that may help them in future elections.¶ It won't be easy. Many tea partyers remain
firmly opposed, especially to provisions that would lead to citizenship or legal residency for illegal immigrants. But they'll
come up short of votes to block Democrats and mainstream Republicans, who see immigration reform
as helping businesses to fill skilled positions that Americans aren't qualified for and unskilled
jobs that Americans don't want.
Ext. Border Compromise
More evidence –the new compromise ensures passage – prefer our evidence because its
predictive and says the recent compromise is a larger indicator of broad momentum
Washington Post 6-20
[The Washington Post. “Breakthrough on Senate immigration bill: Democrats, GOP reach border security agreement” 6/20/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Corker told reporters the
plan amounted to ‘border security on steroids” and said it would impart
“tremendous momentum” to the bill on the Senate floor . By day’s end, Republican Sens. Mark Kirk of
Illinois and Dean Heller of Nevada said they, too, were prepared to vote for the bill if the changes were
incorporated.¶ That brought to 10 the number of Republicans who have indicated they will vote for
the bill, far more than enough to assure it will have the 60 required to overcome any attempted
filibuster
by last-ditch opponents. Democrats control 54 seats, and party aides have said they do not expect any defections from their
side of the political aisle.¶ Apart from the border security measures, the
legislation as drafted already included
implementation of a biometric system to track the comings and goings of foreigners at air and
sea ports as well as land crossings, and a requirement for businesses to verify the legal status of job seekers.
Will pass – Cornyn amendment
Dann 6-11
[Carrie. Politics for NBC. “Senate votes to begin historic immigration reform debate” NBC News, 6/11/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The Senate will now spend the remainder of the month debating and amending the bill, with
much of the legislative oxygen being devoted to amendments that Republicans say are designed to
woo more support from GOP members .¶ One such measure is an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas
that would put in place more stringent “triggers” for border security before undocumented
immigrants with probationary legal status can apply for green cards.¶ Speaking with Cornyn at his side,
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell pointed to the Texas lawmaker’s proposed legislation as “the key amendment”
that -- if adopted -- that would ensure border security to the satisfaction of Republicans. ¶ Cornyn told
reporters on Capitol Hill that he has been in conversations with Democratic members of the Gang of Eight about the amendment, which Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid calls “a poison pill.”¶ “I think if they had 60 votes to pass the bill out of the Senate, they probably wouldn't be
talking to me,” Cornyn told reporters. “But they are, which tells me that they view
this as a way to get out of the Senate
on a bipartisan basis and give it some momentum and increase the likelihood of a bill
passing in the House .”
Ext. GOP
The GOP’s on board
Mariani 3-11
[John. Politics for the Times. 3/11/13
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/eight_senators_negotiating_immigration_reform_reach_agreement_on_path_to_citizensh
ip.html//GBS-JV]
While some Republicans and conservatives remain skeptical that support for immigration
reform will result in more votes from the Latino community, other Republicans mulling a White House bid "are
eager to pass something ," Bouie said.¶ "So Republicans may end up agreeing to the emerging
framework — which would be a real breakthrough for the chances of passing real immigration
reform, albeit less ambitious than liberal supporters might like."
AT//UQ Overwhelms
It’ll still be a fight
AP 4-8
[The Associated Press. 4/8/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Senators writing a comprehensive immigration bill hope to finish their work this week, opening what’s sure to
be a raucous public debate over measures to secure the border, allow tens of thousands of foreign workers into
the country and grant eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million people living here illegally.¶ Already negotiators
are cautioning of struggles ahead for an issue that’s defied resolution for years. An immigration deal came close
on the Senate floor in 2007 but collapsed amid interest-group bickering and an angry public backlash.
Will pass – but new fights derail it
Zelizer 3-25
Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor, Ph.D, Princeton University History and Public Affairs Professor, 3/25/13, Seize the immigration deal,
www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/opinion/zelizer-immigration-reform/index.html]
The stars seem to be aligning for immigration reform. The election of 2012 scared many Republicans into
thinking that their increasingly hardline stance on immigration is cutting against big demographic changes. These Republicans fear that they
might risk writing themselves off for decades to come, if the GOP loses a vital part of the electorate to Democrats. A growing number of
prominent Republicans are coming out in favor of a liberalized immigration policy, including the tea
party darlings Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. During a recent speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Paul said
that "immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution." Democratic Sen. Chuck
Schumer of New York announced that an
eight-person bipartisan group will soon reach a deal to move
forward in the Senate. So it appears that the opportunity for bold immigration reform has finally
arrived. But as any observer of congressional history knows, nothing is inevitable on Capitol Hill,
particularly in the current Congress, where both parties remain extremely polarized and there
are high costs for bucking the party orthodoxy. What needs to happen to close a deal? It is instructive to look back at
history when Congress passed two landmark civil rights measures: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both were
highly controversial; but ultimately, they went through as a result of bipartisan deals. Even though Congress is different in this era -- with both
parties deeply divided internally and a closed committee system that dampens the power of party leaders to control members -- those
historical struggles offer some instructive lessons for today as to how to seize a great opportunity that emerges. The news media have always
been a powerful force in our society. At times, they have helped push our political system toward reform. Right now, a new generation of
reporters can shine by taking on the biggest stories of the day that would have long-term impact on the direction of our country. This is what
happened during the early 1960s, when a young generation of print and television reporters brought the nation vivid reports from the front
lines of the civil rights struggle. In those years, reporters covered the brutal clashes that were taking place in southern cities like Birmingham
and Selma, Alabama, showing the nation the reality of race relations. When presidential speechwriter Richard Goodwin watched the clashes on
his television screen, he instantly understood how the media were transforming the national conversation. He noted, "For a century the
violence of oppression had been hidden from the sight of white America. ... But now the simple invention of a cathode ray tube, transforming
light into electrons, registering their impact on the magnetic tape, had torn the curtain away. And America didn't like what it saw." Similarly, in
the new Internet age that we live in, the media can offer the nation a better understanding of the plight of immigrants who are living in this
country and the kinds of problems that legislation can redress. Too often, discussions about immigration have revolved around vague and
caricatured images. In the next few months, young and enterprising reporters can help politicians and voters see why the government needs to
resolve this issue and how it can best do so. Another important lesson from history is the need to reach out to the other side when a rare
opportunity comes along. In the civil rights debate, President Lyndon Johnson depended on the Senate minority leader, Republican Everett
Dirksen of Illinois, to deliver the votes needed to end a filibuster in 1964. In order to get Dirksen on his side, Johnson told his administration
team and congressional leadership to play to Dirksen's ego and sense of history. The key was to allow Dirksen to shape the bill, within certain
parameters, so that he could leave his imprint on the measure. "You get in there to see Dirksen!" Johnson told Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the
Democratic whip who was shepherding the bill through the Senate. "You drink with Dirksen! You talk to Dirksen! You listen to Dirksen!" Dirksen
made some important changes to the bill during the negotiations but in the end, he delivered over 20 Republican votes, which killed the
filibuster. Johnson got what he wanted. President Obama will need to make the same kind of moves, giving Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell some kind of a role so that he can buy into the legislation and win some amount of credit for producing a bill. The president will
need to do the same in the House, where Speaker John Boehner will play a vital role as he tries to tame the radicals in his caucus. While giving
either Republican such a role might frustrate Democrats who feel that their party is in command, the results could be powerful. Immigration
rights activists can sit tight as the final months of the debate unfold. For all the talk about bipartisanship in the 1960s, the reality was that
bipartisanship was often produced when legislators felt immense pressure from the grass roots. When the Senate debated the civil rights bill in
a lengthy filibuster that lasted 60 days in the spring and summer of 1964, civil rights activists -- who had already forced Congress to deal with
the issue through a mass march on Washington -- conducted protests in states and districts and gathered in Washington to lobby members. The
immigration rights movement has been extremely effective in recent years, and now it must show its chops once again. It must also form
alliances with other organizations, such as civil rights and gay rights groups, that have indicated they are willing to enter into a broader coalition
to support this cause. The movement needs to work on legislators who are currently on the fence, especially Republicans who are thinking of
joining Rubio, Paul and others. The key is to do this without stimulating some kind of backlash in their constituencies. The
moment for
an immigration deal has arrived. The political incentives for saying yes are strong in both
parties, and this is an issue that needs a resolution. The key question will be whether Congress seizes this
opportunity or whether partisanship paralyzes the institution once again, as it has done so
many times before.
Visas aren’t inevitable
FN 4-9
[Fox News. “Senators arguing over high-tech visas for foreign workers in immigration deal, aides say” 4/9/13
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/09/senate-gang-8-arguing-over-high-tech-visas-for-foreign-workers-in-immigration///GBS-JV]
Senators finalizing a massive immigration bill are arguing over plans to boost visas for high-tech
workers, Senate aides and industry officials say, with disputes flaring over how best to punish companies that
train workers here only to ship them overseas.¶ Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who's taken the lead in pushing to crack down on outsourcing
firms, also is seeking higher wages for workers brought in on the H-1B visas that go to specially
skilled foreigners, aides and officials say. High-tech industry officials say his efforts risk punishing companies not involved in the abuses
he's trying to target, and lawmakers including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., are taking the other side.¶ The dispute comes as aides to
four Democratic and four Republican senators have been racing to put the finishing touches on sweeping
immigration legislation that would secure the border and grant eventual citizenship to 11
million people here illegally, while also allowing tens of thousands more high- and low-skilled workers into the country on new visa
programs.¶ Aides worked into the evening Monday on the high-tech visa issue, and senators were to resume meeting in person Tuesday after
returning to Washington from a two-week spring recess. They were hoping to complete their legislation this week, though next week may be
looking more likely.
The high-tech visa question loomed as one of a few remaining unsettled
matters. ¶ At issue is overwhelming demand from companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google for the H-1B
visas, which are now capped at 65,000 annually, plus 20,000 more that are reserved for foreign workers who have
earned an advanced degree from a U.S. university. On Friday, the Homeland Security Department announced that after less than a week of
accepting applications, it already had received more requests than visas available for the 2014 budget year.¶ Faced with that demand,
senators have contemplated lifting the cap to around 100,000, with the ability to go as high as 150,000, aides and officials
said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations were ongoing, and they stressed the numbers remained in flux and no final
decisions had been made.¶ Such
an increase would be a win for the tech industry, which has boosted its lobbying
muscle in Washington in recent years. On a related issue, the legislation also is likely to allow permanent U.S.
residency to unlimited numbers of people who get advanced degrees in science, technology or
math from U.S. universities.
AT//Needs 70 / UberMajority
They’ll get 70 votes
Koplan 6-18
[Tal. Politics for Politico. “Graham predicts 70-plus votes for immigration reform” Politico, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Sen. Lindsey Graham predicts
immigration reform will pass the Senate with more than 70 votes,
saying
passage is necessary to stop the "demographic death spiral" in the Republican Party.¶ “I’m going to leave you on a positive note, I think
we’re going to have a political breakthrough that Congress is going to pass immigration reform. I
think we’re going to get plus-70 votes , I’ve never been more optimistic about it,” the South Carolina Republican said Sunday
on NBC's “Meet the Press.”¶ Saying the Republican Party had a “deep bench” of candidates for the 2016
election, especially former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Graham, a member of the Senate Gang of Eight that fashioned the reform bill, said
immigration reform was still necessary to win.¶ “If we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table in a
reasonable practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016,” Graham said. “We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the
only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass
comprehensive immigration reform.”
AT//Won’t Pass the House
A senate deal would make it through the house – new deal, bipart, momentum
Barrett and Walsh 6-18
[Politics for CNN. “ Senate negotiators seek new compromise on immigration ” CNN News, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A bipartisan group of senators is scrambling to reach a fresh compromise they hope can propel a
proposal to overhaul U.S. immigration policy toward passage in that chamber and provide
momentum heading into the Republican-controlled House .
New Obama strategy generates momentum for House passage
Sherman and Palmer 6-13
[Jake and Anna. Politics for Politico. “White House dials up efforts with House Republicans” Politico, 6/13/13 ln//GBS-JV]
This push is strategic, of course. Obama wants to pass immigration reform, and — for the moment — the
House is the biggest stumbling block between Capitol Hill and a bill being signed into law . The White House
wants to gather a gaggle of Republicans
who just might support Obama’s initiatives.¶ “The
president and
senior staff at the White House have routinely engaged House Republican s on a variety of issues in an
effort to
build what the President has called a common sense caucus that works to find common ground on priorities
like strengthening the economy, reducing the deficit in a responsible way and reforming our broken immigration system,”
White House spokesman Josh Earnest wrote in an email to POLITICO.¶ Of course, this hasn’t yet brought the president and Republicans closer
on policy. These
meetings and phone calls haven’t resulted in legislative agreements on gun control, deficit reduction, tax reform or an
overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. But it’s a noticeable shift. ¶ When Obama wanted to blunt the sequester or enact new
gun laws, he fanned out across the country, looking to build pressure on lawmakers by rallying their constituents. It was widely perceived as a
failure. Now, the
White House recognizes that it must have a real relationship with lawmakers before
asking them to support something, according to sources involved.¶ This quiet outreach isn’t Obama’s
only action on the Hill. The administration has put a full-court press on Senate Republicans, dining with
them and bringing them onto the golf course. The White House also recently reached out to top Republican
senators
about a deficit deal.
It’ll pass the House
Weil 6-18
[Dan. Politics for Reuters. “ House Begins to Move on Immigration Reform” The AP, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A House bipartisan group plans to unveil its own long-awaited comprehensive version of an
immigration reform bill this week, as the Senate continues debate on its controversial plan that establishes a pathway to
citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants.¶ At the same time, however, Politico reports that Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte moved ahead
Tuesday with a markup of a measure calling for tougher enforcement of immigration laws.¶ House Speaker John Boehner also planned
to meet Wednesday with the all-Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss immigration
and other issues of particular concern to Hispanic members, signaling even more movement toward what could
be a bipartisan effort to get immigration reform though Congress .¶
Differences can be reconciled
AP 4-8
[The Associated Press. 4/8/13 ln//GBS-JV]
But overall, all
involved are optimistic that the time is ripe to make the biggest changes to the nation’s
immigration laws in more than a quarter-century. For many Republicans, their loss in the November presidential election,
when Latino and Asians voters backed Obama in big numbers, resonates as evidence that they must
confront the immigration issue.¶ “The politics of self-deportation are behind us,” said Graham, referring to
GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s suggestion in the presidential campaign. “It was an impractical solution. Quite frankly, it’s offensive. Every
corner of the Republican Party, from libertarians to the (Republican National Committee), House Republicans and the rank-andfile Republican Party member, is now understanding there has to be an earned pathway to citizenship .Ӧ After
consideration by the Judiciary Committee, floor action could start in the Senate in May, Schumer said.¶ Meanwhile
two lawmakers involved in writing a bipartisan immigration bill in the House, Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Mario Diaz-Balart, RFla., sounded optimistic that they, too, would have a deal soon that could be reconciled with
the Senate agreement .
AT//Boehner
Boehner’s on board and momentum controls his vote
AP 6-11
[The Associated Press. “ Obama Exhorts Congress to Pass Immigration Reform” The AP, 6/11/13 ln//GBS-JV]
President Barack Obama
prodded Congress Tuesday to send him a bill by fall remaking the nation's
immigration laws, even as the Senate prepared to cast its first floor votes on the landmark measure opening a door to citizenship for
millions.¶ " Congress needs to act, and that moment is now , " Obama said, surrounded by immigration advocates,
business and religious leaders, law enforcement officials and others in the East Room of the White House.¶ "There's no reason
Congress can't get this done by the end of the summer," the president said. "There's no good reason to play
procedural games or engage in obstruction just to block the best chance we've had in years to address this problem in a way that's fair to
middle class families, business owners and legal immigrants."¶ The
Senate was set to vote Tuesday afternoon on a
pair of procedural measures to officially allow debate to move forward on the far-reaching legislation. The
measure would boost border security and workplace enforcement, allow tens of thousands new high- and low-skilled workers into the country,
and create a 13-year path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally.¶ Both
votes were expected to
succeed by comfortable margins , because even some senators with deep misgivings about the immigration bill said the issue
deserved a Senate debate.¶ Ahead of the votes, senators were readying amendments on contentious issues including border security, back
taxes and health are coverage. Some Republicans
said they were seeking to strengthen enforcement
provisions so that they could be comfortable voting for the bill . Other GOP measures were already being
dismissed by Democrats as attempts to kill the bill by striking at the fragile compromises at its core.¶ Meanwhile House Speaker John
Boehner, R-Ohio, made his most positive comments to date on the issue, saying Tuesday he thinks
there's a good chance that legislation can be signed into law "by the end of the year."
Boehner will play ball
RC 4-21
("Boehner Faces Competing Immigration Paths," 2013, www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_faces_competing_immigration_paths-224196-1.html)
Leadership aides said that’s true, that Boehner doesn’t have a thumb on either side of the scale and that a wide array of options are still on the
table. Besides, it’s
still unclear whether the recently unveiled bipartisan Senate group’s bill can pass
in that chamber: If it does, it would put new pressure on the House.¶ Even while they say there
is no explicit commitment from Boehner, members and aides who are part of or close to the
bipartisan group seem to have confidence, even cockiness, that Boehner secretly has their
back.¶ Part of that is based on who Boehner is as a legislator: He’s a dealmaker at heart.¶ But it’s also because of
repeated public comments in which Boehner gave the group great deference.¶ The existence of the
group was revealed in a video of the Ohio Republican answering questions at the Ripon Society, a conservative think tank.¶ In his remarks then,
he said the bipartisan group was “the right group of members” to make progress on the issue of
immigration and suggested some level of ownership or authorization of the effort .¶ “My theory was, if
these folks could work this out, it’d be a big step in the right direction,” Boehner said.
AT//Rubio Jumps Ship
No benefit to jumping ship – Rubio will fight for CIR
Terbush 4-9
[John. Politics for the Week and TPM. “ Is Marco Rubio stalling on immigration reform?” 4/9/13 http://theweek.com/article/index/242445/ismarco-rubio-stalling-on-immigration-reform //GBS-JV]
For now, Rubio
is still expected to sign on to the final bill . However, spurning the legislation could be a political win-win,
since it would allow him to "say that he wanted to make a deal, but the other side was too unreasonable in its demands," says the American
Conservative's Daniel Larison.¶ As Talking Points Memo's Benjy Sarlin notes, there is some recent historical precedent for Republicans initially
supporting controversial Democratic-backed bills, only to wind up voting against them. However, he argues that Rubio's
actions are
more likely "a wink to conservatives without any actual substantive concerns behind it ." Rubio
has already placed himself to the left of his party on the issue, so there's no real benefit to
turning back now , Sarlin argues.¶ Conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin made a similar argument Monday, writing
that Rubio's communications director told her that the senator has only been angling for more leverage in the
negotiations, not attempting to stall the bill into oblivion. ¶ " No one has more to gain than
Rubio if immigration reform passes
— and passes with a good share of the GOP support," says Rubin. "And, in turn, the
Republican Party has much to gain by jump-starting legislation that President Obama did not champion in his first term."
AT//Poison Pill Amendments
No amendments that derail the deal
The Hill 4-18
("Gang of Eight vows to stay united, defeat immigration reform poison pills," 2013, thehill.com/homenews/senate/294893-gang-of-eight-vowsto-defeat-immigration-bill-poison-pills)
Members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight say they are open to amending the 844-page immigration reform bill they unveiled
this week but will band together to defeat poison-pill amendments.¶ “We expect and welcome suggested
improvements to the bill by our colleagues,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said at a press conference Thursday. “We will oppose only
those amendments that are intended to prevent a comprehensive solution from passing .Ӧ
Business groups want to increase the number of visas for immigrant workers while labor unions want to speed up the path to citizenship for an
estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.¶ Democratic
and Republican members of the gang, though, pledged
unity to fend off attacks on the bill from the right and the left .¶ A bipartisan coalition of senators made a similar
pledge in 2007, the last time the Senate debated comprehensive immigration reform.¶ The agreement broke down, however, as some
members of the group voted for amendments that others called poison pills. Members also squabbled over the characterization of
amendments and some Democrats complained that then-Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was often too quick to label a proposed change a poison pill to
protect his work from revisions.¶ Members of the gang described a difficult negotiation process that at several points appeared on the verge of
failure.¶ Sen. Charles Schumer
(D-N.Y.) said negotiations over a new class of visas for low-skilled
immigrant workers, a hot point of contention between business and labor groups, was
especially intense.¶ The group held 24 meetings before finalizing legislation, which it introduced
this week. The other members are Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Michael
Bennet (D-Colo.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).¶ Schumer said he expects additional obstacles.¶ “Today is just the beginning of our voyage. It will be
long and arduous. There
will be perils we can’t even anticipate but we start off with optimism
because this bipartisan agreement gives us a sturdy ship to ride out the stormy seas ahead,” he
said.
AT//Labor Disagreements
Labor’s on board
Elias 4-9
[Thomas. Staffer for the Californian. “Will farm labor shortage drive immigration changes?” The Californian, 4/9/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A large percentage of California fruit and vegetable pickers are illegal immigrants.
Farm bureau organizations in other states report similar labor shortages. So farmers want any immigration changes coming from
Washington, D.C., this year to include a guest worker program .¶ Agriculture organizations that usually support
Republican politicians have pushed several years for a system allowing temporary hiring of foreign workers
if employers cannot find U.S. citizens or legal residents to take the jobs they offer.¶ Organized labor has long opposed such a
One reason:
revival of the old Bracero program that allowed American employers to bring in unskilled foreign workers during and after World War II, the
unions claiming it could deprive U.S. citizens of work. But the nation’s largest labor group, the
AFL-CIO, has now worked out a
deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests that would allow workers to
be imported as needed to fill jobs that otherwise go unfilled. The proposed new visa would not
specify a single employer for each worker, so that employers could no longer discipline migrant
workers by threatening to have them deported if they’re not docile. It would also include wages
above the federal minimum and require decent working conditions. The chamber also agreed to
the unions’ idea of setting up a new government bureau to curtail work visas when unemployment
rises to as-yet unspecified levels. Two things are clear from all this: It’s highly likely that any major
immigration change legislation passing Congress this year will have a guest worker
component . And that this is happening mainly because of the labor shortages here and in other big farm states.
AT//Path to Citizenship
That hurdle’s been overcome
Mariani 3-11
[John. Politics for the Times. 3/11/13
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/eight_senators_negotiating_immigration_reform_reach_agreement_on_path_to_citizensh
ip.html//GBS-JV]
The eight Republican
and Democratic senators working on immigration reform have agreed in
private on a pathway that some 11 million illegal immigrants could take toward citizenship.¶ The group, which includes
New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer, has been meeting behind closed doors to craft an immigration
reform bill, but aides familiar with the talks gave the Los Angeles Times the details of the proposed pathway to probationary legal status:¶
"... the bill would require illegal immigrants to register with Homeland Security Department authorities,
file federal income taxes for their time in America and pay a still-to-be-determined fine. They also must have a clean law enforcement record."¶
Achieving probationary legal status would allow immigrants to work. It would not let them receive federal
public benefits, including food stamps, family cash assistance, Medicaid and unemployment insurance, the Times reported.
AT//Executive Order
Won’t do it – pref our ev because it speaks to Obama’s political calculations
Hamilton 3-26
[Keegan Hamilton 3-26, “How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today,” The Atlantic, 3-26-13,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-obama-could-but-probably-wont-stop-deporting-illegal-immigrantstoday/274352/]
On the other hand, Kenneth R. Mayer, a professor
of political science at the University of Wisconsin and author of the
book With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, argues history is littered with e x ecutive o rder s
popular with the president's party and condemned by the opposition .¶ "Democrats and liberals say, 'This is
wonderful, it's about time,' while conservatives and Republicans are outraged, saying 'He's nullifying a law, he can't do that!'" Mayer says. "The
answer is they're both right. In practice, the president can do this. But Congress
could try to stop him, and the way they
do that is raising the political cost to a degree the president doesn't find acceptable ."¶ 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.
Doesn’t solve the DA – executive action causes a fight and gets rolled back
Rodriguez, 10
(Law—NYU, 59 Duke L.J. 1787)
On the first question of political feasibility, I leave aside whether the current mix of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the legislative
priorities of the current president, and the legislative agenda as it is now unfolding would be conducive to the creation of an agency, largely
because such details are ephemeral. Instead, the
important question is whether Congress, as a general
structural matter, will be willing to delegate its power. Historically, Congress has been resistant
to executive meddling in the allocation of visas. During the 1965 immigration reforms, for
example, a proposal to create a commission charged with allocating visas proved to be a
sticking point. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act n152 eliminated the national-origins quotas but phased in the new regime over a period of years.
Members of the Johnson State Department were nonetheless concerned about the foreign policy implications of reducing the number of visas
available to Northern European immigrants, even though the visas were underutilized. n153 The bill would have put into place a procedure for
executive reallocation of visas to provide "the flexibility needed to deal with unforeseeable problems of fairness and [*1839] foreign policy."
n154 It would have required the president to consult with a new Immigration Board, whose task would have been conducting continuous study
of migration conditions and advising the president on criteria for admission. n155 Key
players in the House - primarily
Representative Michael Feighan, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House
Committee on the Judiciary - resisted. n156 Feighan argued that the Board would "usurp
[Congress's] statutory duty and functions" of regulating immigration, n157 transforming the
president's limited power to keep immigrants out in emergencies into a power to let them in.
n158 The administration ultimately bowed to the pressure engendered by the specter of
executive micromanagement and dropped the Commission from the bill. n159 [*1840] The Hart-Celler
experience raises the classic administrative law question of why Congress does or does not delegate. n160 As noted above, in the case of
immigration, Congress
may be reluctant to delegate because of a general desire to protect its
territory, as core immigration policy over time has become entrenched in Congress's bailiwick.
Perhaps Congress regards immigrant admissions decisions as value judgments that do not
require the expertise of agencies or bureaucrats - a key factor in the decision to delegate. To put
the proposition in lofty terms, immigrant admissions constitute membership decisions, which belong to the legislative body standing in for the
people.
AT//Thumpers – General
It’s the top of the docket – 1NC Bazinger says it’s the only issue of relevance that congress’
discussing and that it was discussed during Obama’s meetings with Congress this week. All
sides of the aisle are working toward a deal, which should frame the way you evaluate
uniqueness. It’s not enough for the aff to have a card that there’s “something else” that
congress has to deal with – you should hold it to a high standard – must say it interferes with
the immigration deal
Only CIR gets through
Calmes 4-7
[Jackie. Politics for NYT. “Obama Must Walk Fine Line as Congress Takes Up Agenda” The New York Times, 4/7/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Each measure — on the budget, guns and immigration — in its own way illustrates the fine line that Mr. Obama
must walk to succeed even with national opinion on his side. Privately , the White House is optimistic only about
the prospects for an immigration bill, which would create a path to citizenship for about 11 million people in the country
illegally.¶ That is because an immigration compromise is the only one that Republicans see as
being in their own interests, given their party’s unpopularity with the fast-growing Latino electorate. In contrast, most
Republicans see little advantage in backing gun legislation, given hostility toward it in their states or in
districts throughout the South and the West and in rural areas. A budget compromise would require agreeing to
higher taxes, which are anathema to conservative voters, in exchange for Mr. Obama’s support for the reductions
in Medicare and Social Security that they want.
AT//Budget Thumper
Obama’s retreat from the budget fight was a tactical victory – makes immigration reform
more likely
Ford 3-28
[John Ford, PolicyMic, 3/28/13, Why Obama Signing Sequestration Into Law Was a Strategic Move , www.policymic.com/articles/31012/whyobama-signing-sequestration-into-law-was-a-strategic-move/421387]
President Barack Obama
finally signed the Sequester into law, locking the infamous spending cuts into place, at least until
this September. It is rare for a president to sign into a law a program that he actively opposes – President
Obama called them "dumb" – so why did this one allow these cuts with relatively little confrontation ?¶ At
the risk of seeming weak, President Obama is engaging in a tactical withdrawal here, not a retreat. The
president sees that no more can be done on the budget stalemate at this time; with public opinion
favoring him, and a popular mandate still only four months fresh, he is better off using his
political capital on other reforms .¶ With over half of his term gone, and a huge laundry list of initiatives still
tabled, every move Obama makes is a time management puzzle . And with another inevitable fight
on the budget scheduled for the summer, it is time for him to focus on other things for the
spring .¶ What is next for the president now that the budget is, for the moment, a settled issue?
According to the White House, he is going to emphasize projects that do not require budgetary support : a
raise to the minimum wage, immigration , and housing, for example.
AT//IRS Thumper
Not connected to Obama
WP 6-12
[The Washington Post. “Republicans Still Struggling to Connect Obama to IRS Scandal” 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
So far, the
House Oversight Committee’s investigation of the Internal Revenue Service and its
targeting of Tea Party groups has yielded no evidence that the White House was involved.
The
original story — that this was the work of a few employees struggling to handle a growing workload — remains intact, and the available
information we have throws water on the idea they were motivated by partisanship. The IRS agent who initiated the flagging, for example, was
a Republican. And
several of the groups denied tax exempt status were — as the New York Times reported recently
— ineligible, given their partisan activities.
AT//Scandal Thumpers
The scandals have no effect on immigration reform and are even expediting its process
ABC 5-17
[“Why Immigration Reform Will Survive Obama's Scandals”, May 17th, 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigrationreform-survive-president-obamas-scandals/story?id=19203730#.UZcRIbU3vzw, ]
The trio of scandals facing President Obama have many in Washington asking whether this
marks the beginning of the end for his legislative agenda. An issue such as tax reform might be impeded
considering that the Internal Revenue Service is at the center of one of the scandals. But an initiative that could emerge
unscathed, or even strengthened, is immigration reform. Before the scandals, immigration appeared to be the item
on Obama's second-term agenda that seemed likeliest to pass through Congress. Deep fault lines have developed between both parties on
issues like gun control, the deficit, and debt reduction. But on
immigration, there is strong political incentive for
GOP leaders in Washington to join in the effort to pass a bill. And the scandals haven't
changed that. Although it's only been a few days since the scandals have overtaken the
political atmosphere in Washington, developments on immigration have quietly chugged along . A
bipartisan group in the House announced Thursday evening they have reached a deal in principle on a comprehensive bill after four years of onagain, off-again talks. And in just three markup sessions, the Senate Judiciary Committee has considered 82 of the 300 amendments offered by
its members, over a quarter of the total. Supporters and opponents of the bill believe that the
immigration reform effort can
make it through the scandal-obsessed environment in Washington.
"I think the conditions are ripe for the
[immigration] bill to make it through. The president's been very helpful. He's been there when we've asked him to be, he's laid low when we
ask him, and I've got no complaints about the president and I think he can be very helpful getting it over the finish line," Sen. Lindsey Graham
(R-S.C.), a member of the Gang of Eight, told Politico. The publication noted that he is one of "Obama's chief Benghazi critics." Mickey Kaus, a
political blogger and well known critic of the Senate Gang of Eight bill, said last week that the scandals
could take away
attention from the immigration reform effort, claiming that could improve its chances of
success. "I actually think these distracting scandals help the bill's chances of passage ," he said at an event
sponsored by BuzzFeed. "The problem with this bill is: the elites like it, the voters don't like it. Every time there is publicity, every time it's at
center stage, its chances of passage get worse." (We would note that polls show that Americans who know about the bill are divided over it,
while a plurality haven't yet formed an opinion. But moving on...) So, yes, there
are plenty of reasons immigration
reform might fail. But scandals just aren't one of them .
Internal Link
Ext. PC Key
Obama’s political capital is key because it targets opposition
AFP 6-12
[The Agence France Presse. “US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears first hurdle” AFP, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
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."
Capital solves disagreements
Dann 3-27
[Carrie. Politics for NBC. “Obama Optimistic on Immigration Legislation” NBC, 3/27/13 ln]
As a bipartisan group of senators chips away at the remaining obstacles to an immigration deal ,
President Barack Obama says he is optimistic that – if lawmakers release a draft bill early next month –
he will be able to sign comprehensive immigration reform into law before autumn.¶ “If we have a bill introduced at the
beginning of next month -- as these senators indicate it will be -- then I'm confident that we can
get it done certainly before the end of the summer,” Obama said in an interview with Telemundo on Wednesday.¶ Alfonso Aguilar, the
Executive Director for the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, Democratic pollster Margie Omero, and Nathan Gonzales, the Deputy
Editor of the Rothenberg Political Report and contributing writer for Roll call, join The Daily Rundown to talk about immigration legislation.¶
The president repeated that he could still introduce a White House-drafted version of the
legislation if the “Gang of Eight” Senate group is not able to put forward a bill . But he said
he’s confident that lawmakers will be able to work out the final snags in the negotiations in
time to unveil their proposal when they return from a two-week Easter recess next month.¶ Advertise | AdChoices¶ “I'm
optimistic,” he said. “ I've always said that if I see a breakdown in the process, that I've got my own
legislation. I'm prepared to step in . But I don't think that's going to be necessary. I think there's a
commitment -- among this group of Democratic and Republican senators to get this done.Ӧ The negotiations have been held
up in part by continuing disputes between business and labor groups about the conditions of a guest-worker
program, particularly the wages and treatment ensured to temporary workers compared to those for American workers pursuing similar jobs.¶
But the president said he doesn’t believe that the dispute could scuttle the whole reform framework.¶
“There are still some areas about … the future flow of guest workers,” he said. “Labor and businesses may not always agree exactly on how to
do this. But this is a resolvable issue.Ӧ White House Spokesman Josh Earnest expresses optimism over the ongoing negotiations
of the Gang of 8 relating to immigration reform.¶ While he expressed optimism that a final bill will contain a path to citizenship for those
currently in the country illegally, Obama would not offer specifics on how long the process of obtaining citizenship should take.¶ And he
declined to outline how the security of the nation’s border should be assessed, saying only that there should be no border security “trigger”
that must be met before undocumented persons are eligible to begin the process of seeking legal status.¶ “We don't want to make this earned
pathway to citizenship a situation in which it's put off further and further into the future,” he said. “There needs to be a certain path for how
people can get legal in this country, even as we also work on these strong border security issues.Ӧ While
the White House has
deferred to the Senate group on the legislative language, the president has used the bully pulpit in
recent days to urge lawmakers to action and remind the public of the general framework for
reform that he supports – including a path to citizenship.¶ In addition to the Telemundo interview, he also sat down with Spanishlanguage channel Univision on Wednesday. Earlier this week, the president urged Congress to show “political
courage” on the issue during remarks at a naturalization ceremony at the White House.¶ President Barack
Obama signs a bill creating the Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument in Ohio during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White
House March 25, 2013 in Washington, DC.¶ Earlier Wednesday, Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona held a joint press
conference with Democrats Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado. The lawmakers traveled to Arizona’s southern border
to survey the state of security there, a tour that offered a very real illustration of the illegal immigration issue when they spotted a woman
scaling a border fence. (She was later apprehended by border security officers, McCain said.)¶ Advertise | AdChoices¶ At a press conference,
Schumer told reporters there that negotiators are “90 percent of the way there” on a
compromise bill, adding that the trip offered a glimpse into what further resources are needed to ensure full border security.
Capital can overcome any barrier
DMR 1-22
[The Des Moines Register.
www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130122/OPINION03/301220049/0/NEWS/?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1]
Taken as an agenda for his second term, Monday’s
change, gay rights, voting rights and safe schools.
inaugural address included references to immigration, climate
Achieving those things will require the president mounting
his bully pulpit to put heat on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, protections for
the rights of gays and lesbians, gun control, environmental regulation and expansion of renewable forms of energy.¶ President Obama again
demonstrated his gift of oratory on Monday. He delivered a well-crafted inaugural address with inspiring themes woven throughout and a call
to action for our generation to achieve the ideals of previous generations.¶ But Obama should have learned in his first term that it
is
not enough to state lofty goals in great speeches. It takes hard work, perseverance and toughmindedness to deal with members of Congress who may not want him to succeed.
Obama’s leadership and signal of commitment are key
Sink 3-25
[Justin Sink, The Hill, 3/25/13, Obama: 'The time has come' to move immigration bill in Congress, thehill.com/video/administration/290129obama-the-time-has-come-to-move-immigration-reform]
President Obama used a naturalization ceremony at the White House on Monday to declare
“the time has come” to
move immigration reform through Congress. Obama said expects debate on an immigration bill to
“begin next month” at a ceremony where 28 people, including 13 armed servicemembers, became citizens. Bipartisan groups
in both the House and Senate are moving closer to unveiling separate immigration reform proposals,
and the president is hoping to build momentum for a deal . “We've known for years that our immigration system is
broken, that we're not doing enough to harness the talent and ingenuity of all those who want to work hard and find a place in America,”
Obama said. “And after avoiding the problem for years, the time has come to fix it once and for all. The time has come for comprehensive,
sensible immigration reform.” Speaking from the East Room, Obama argued that immigration strengthens the country. “It keeps us vibrant, it
keeps us hungry, it keeps us prosperous. It is what makes us such a dynamic country,” he said. “If we want to keep attracting the best and the
brightest, we've got to do a better job of welcoming them.” Advocates
for immigration reform see a real chance for
legislation to pass Congress this year, despite opposition from some House GOP lawmakers, many of
whom have said they will oppose measures that grant “amnesty” to illegal immigrants and have questioned proposed protections for gay or
lesbian couples. Immigration reform is a potent political issue for Obama, who won more than 70 percent of the
Hispanic vote in 2012. Since that showing, a growing number of conservative lawmakers have signaled they would back immigration reform,
including measures to provide a pathway to citizenship. Groups aligned with Obama
pressuring Congress.
have signaled their intention of
Obama push key
Foley 3-25
[Elise, reporter, "Obama On Immigration Reform: 'We've Got To Finish The Job'" Huffington Post -www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/obama-immigration-reform_n_2949063.html]
President Barack Obama
said Monday that he wants to see movement in the Senate on immigration
reform next month and passage of a bill “as soon as possible,” continuing his pressure on
Congress to move quickly to fix the immigration system.¶ “We are making progress, but we’ve got to finish the job,”
Obama said at a naturalization ceremony in the White House. “We’ve all proposed solutions,” he added. “We’ve got a lot of white papers and
studies. We’ve just got, at this point, to work up the political courage to do what’s required to be done.”¶ Obama, joined by Homeland Security
Secretary Janet Napolitano and Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas, told the 28 new citizens that witnessing such
ceremonies is “one of the best things” about being president. He spoke first about the importance of immigrants and what they bring to the
country.¶ “Immigration makes us stronger,” he said. “It keeps us vibrant, it keeps us hungry, it keeps us prosperous. It is part of what makes
this such a dynamic country.Ӧ Then he turned to immigration reform talks, which are moving forward in the Senate
but have not yet resulted in the introduction of a bill. The so-called “gang of eight” in the Senate is working to finish its immigration bill before
Congress returns from recess in the second week of April. As of Friday, the
bipartisan group of senators still needed to
finalize several issues, including how to deal with wages that could be affected by the future flow of guestworkers.¶ Obama
said he expects them to meet that timeline and put forward a bill in April . He didn’t put an exact time
frame on when he wants to see passage of legislation, although he urged swift movement. During a Jan. 29 speech in Las Vegas,
Obama said he would put forward his own bill if Congress failed to act, but for now he is waiting for the efforts in both chambers to move
forward.¶ The president quickly laid out his requirements for immigration reform: enhanced border security, a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants, and “modernizing” the legal immigration system. Although many Republicans are still wary of a path to citizenship,
a majority of Americans — 63 percent — support one, according to a Public Religion Research Institute poll released last week.¶ Obama, as
he has before, said
this is the time to finally pass immigration reform.
Capital’s key – publicity stunts won’t get it done – presidential leadership’s vital to passage
Joseph 3-1
[Cameron. Politics for the Hill, citing Ford O’Connell GOP Strategist. “Republicans warn Obama has 'poisoned' relations with campaign-style
attacks” The Hill, 3/1/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Still, some centrist Democrats say that while Obama’s approach has so far been effective, he needs
to make sure to stick to a
tone of bipartisanship and avoid antagonizing Republicans who might otherwise work with him.¶ “He does
need to have a hands-on approach , but what does that look like? It should, particularly from a White House that's not
looking down the barrel of an election anymore, should be one that fosters cooperation and bipartisanship,” said Kristen Hawn, the head of a
center-left super-PAC that is also helping former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D) push
their bipartisan debt reduction plan.¶ GOP strategist Ford O’Connell, who has long called for immigration reform, said he was worried Obama’s
pressure could hurt bipartisan talks.¶ “Folks inside the Beltway in both parties don't like being shown up and
when the president gallivants around the countryside saying 'this is what it is' that burns up people in Congress. It's certainly helping him on the
message side right now, but I think some people
inside and outside the Beltway are tiring of this,” O'Connell said. ¶
“You're talking about some very delicate issues and what people want within Congress is a
leader, not a legislative dictator. It's going to take some very big behind the doors action where
people have to put their cards on the table
and if
people feel like he's going to burn them
they're not going to do it .”
PC key to force a vote
Brownstein 1-31
Ronald Brownstein, National Jouranl, 1/31/13, On Immigration, What Obama Can Learn From Bush's Failed Efforts,
www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/on-immigration-what-obama-can-learn-from-bush-s-failed-efforts-20130131
The prospects for major immigration reform are now the brightest in years, but for key players in
Washington, a shadow still looms: the ghost of 2006. That was the last time the stars were aligned for a
breakthrough. Immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for those in the United States illegally had the support of President Bush,
a broad labor-business-faith coalition, and a bipartisan Senate majority. Yet that
armada ultimately splintered against the
stony refusal of House Republican leaders to consider a bill opposed by a majority of their majority.
Any of that sound familiar? Already many of the same dynamics are developing, with President Obama stamping
immigration reform as a top priority , a bipartisan Senate coalition reassembling, a broad
outside alliance of support groups coalescing—and most House Republicans rejecting anything that hints
at “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. Yet the contrasts between now and 2006, particularly in the political climate, are also
significant. Understanding both the similarities and the differences will be critical for reform advocates if they are to
avoid replicating the disappointment they suffered under Bush. Presidential interest was then, as it is now, critical in
elevating immigration reform . Since his days as Texas governor, Bush had courted Hispanics, and—even during the 2000 GOP
presidential primary campaign—he strikingly defended illegal immigrants as “moms and dads” trying to make a better life for their children.
Together with his political “architect,” Karl Rove, Bush saw comprehensive reform that coupled a path to citizenship with tougher enforcement
as an opportunity to consolidate the beachhead that allowed him to capture more than 40 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2004 reelection.
But Bush largely looked away when Republicans who controlled the House channeled that impulse in a
very different direction. In December 2005, they passed an enforcement-only bill drafted by Judiciary Committee
Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, that, for the first time, designated all undocumented immigrants as felons. (Previously, illegal
presence in the U.S. had been a civil, not criminal, violation.) Initially, debate in the GOP-controlled Senate drifted. Majority Leader Bill Frist,
considering a 2008 presidential bid, pushed his own enforcement-only bill. But amid the backdrop of huge public rallies against
Sensenbrenner’s proposal, Sen. Arlen Specter unexpectedly joined with three other Republicans and all eight Judiciary Committee Democrats in
late March to approve a comprehensive plan, including a path to citizenship, that followed a blueprint negotiated by Sens. Edward Kennedy and
John McCain. When broader Senate agreement teetered over the terms of legalization, Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez
devised a compromise that divided illegal immigrants into three categories, requiring those here less than two years to leave but allowing those
with deeper roots to eventually earn citizenship by paying fines and learning English. After Bush finally delivered a national address on
immigration, a bill embodying that plan cleared the Senate with 62 votes, including support from 23 Republicans. House Republicans
immediately signaled their disinterest by refusing to appoint a conference committee and instead scheduled hearings in border communities to
highlight security lapses. “Border security reigned supreme,” recalls Ron Bonjean, the communications director for then-Speaker Dennis
Hastert. “I remember being in a meeting with … the leadership where pollsters came in and said border security was the key to our reelection.”
Even in
2006, something like the Senate plan likely could have attracted 218 votes in the House—but
not a majority of Republicans. Faced with a collision between his two political imperatives—
courting Hispanics and mobilizing conservatives— Bush blinked , allowing House leaders to
replace the Senate bill with enforcement-only legislation, which he signed that fall. These choices began the GOP’s
slide among Hispanics that continues unabated: Hispanic support for Republican House candidates plummeted from 44 percent in 2004 to just
29 percent in 2006, presaging Mitt Romney’s disastrous 27 percent showing among those voters in 2012. That slippage is one of the two most
important differences in the political environment around immigration between 2006 and today. Back then, as Bonjean notes, hardly any
House Republicans argued that the GOP needed to pass a plan attractive to minorities. But many GOP leaders now see that as self-preservation.
“The political imperative has shifted the tectonic plates,” says Frank Sharry, a key player in the 2006 debate who
remains central as executive director of America’s Voice, which backs full citizenship for immigrants. “Immigration was viewed as a wedge issue
for Republicans in 2006. Now it’s viewed as a wedge issue for Democrats.” The “Gang of Eight” proposal released this week makes it likely that,
as in 2006, the
Senate will eventually pass a bipartisan immigration bill. Once again, there are probably 218
House votes for such a plan, but not a majority of the majority Republicans. That raises another key
difference from 2006: Hastert faced little pressure to consider the Senate bill, because Bush bit his
tongue
in 2013,
when
the speaker buried it . If House Republicans shelve another bipartisan Senate plan
they should expect
much more
public heat, because Obama won’t be
as
deferential .
Capital’s key to comprehensive legislation – that’s key to passage
Helderman and Nakamura 1/25
Rosalind S. Helderman covers Congress and politics for the Washington Post, staff writer for The Washington Post “Senators nearing agreement
on broad immigration reform proposal,” 1/25, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-nearing-agreement-on-broad-immigrationreform-proposal/2013/01/25/950fb78a-6642-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html
But obstacles
abound. For instance, Rubio has said he thinks immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able
to earn a work permit but should be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues after those who have
come here legally. Many Democrats and immigration advocates fear Rubio’s approach would result in wait-times
stretching for decades, creating a class of permanent legal residents for whom the benefits of citizenship appear unattainable. They
have pushed to create new pathways to citizenship specifically available to those who achieve legal residency as part of a reform effort. It is not
yet clear whether the Senate group will endorse a mechanism allowing such people to eventually become citizens — something Obama is
expected to champion. Schumer said it would be “relatively detailed” but would not “get down into the weeds.” A source close to Rubio said he
joined the group in December at the request of other members only after they agreed their effort would line up with his own principles for
reform. As a possible 2016 presidential contender widely trusted on the right, Rubio could be key to moving the bipartisan effort. Rubio and
other Republicans have said they would
prefer to split up a comprehensive immigration proposal into
smaller bills that would be voted on separately, but the White House will pursue comprehensive
legislation that seeks to reform the process in a single bill. “I doubt if there will be a macro, comprehensive bill,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson
(R-Ga.), who supported the 2007 effort. “Anytime a bill’s more than 500 pages, people start getting suspicious. If it’s 2,000 pages, they go
a single package will be key for passage . “We’ll not get it done in
pieces,” he said. “Every time you do a piece, everyone says what about my piece, and you get more
people opposing it.” Eliseo Medina, secretary treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which spent millions recruiting
Hispanic voters last year, said immigration advocates expect Obama to be out front on the issue . “ The
berserk.” But Schumer said Friday that
president needs to lead
and then the Republicans have a choice,” Medina said. “The best way to share the credit is for them to
step up and engage and act together with the president.”
Capital’s key – Obama must sell the deal and carefully legislate
Keller 2-3
[William. Immigration for the NYT. “Selling Amnesty” The New York Times, 2/3/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Let’s assume that President Obama
and the Democrats sincerely want an immigration bill, that this is not a
trick to trap Republicans into an anti-immigrant vote that will alienate Hispanic voters and secure Democratic advantage for a
generation. The Senate seems to be hospitable territory . Four Republicans — including the ascendant Marco
Rubio — have joined four Democrats in embracing the politically difficult principles at the heart of the
matter. Some advocates of immigration reform talk confidently of mustering 70 Senate votes , which
would represent an astonishing reversal of fortunes for an issue that has long been mired in demagogy. The House, where many
Republicans fear getting creamed by Tea Party challengers in a primary next year, is more problematic. The fear is that the
House will balk or will break immigration into little pieces, pass the parts that crack down on undocumented
workers and kill any effort to legalize the 11 million already here. That pessimism is natural; the House is the place
where ideas go to die. But it needn’t happen this time . If President Obama and Congressional leaders play
their cards right , as they are doing so far , immigration reform — real immigration reform — can clear
Congress this year. Selling the measure to the Republican House will require close attention
substance, marketing and legislative tactics .
Obama’s sustained leadership is key
Hesson 1-2
[Ted is a writer @ ABC News. “Analysis: 6 Things Obama Needs To Do for Immigration Reform,” 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/things-president-obama-immigration-reform/story?id=18103115]
On Sunday, President Barack Obama
said that immigration reform is a "top priority" on his agenda and
that he would introduce legislation in his first year.¶ To find out what he needs to do to make reform a
reality, we talked to Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director at America's Voice, a group that lobbies for immigration reform, and Muzaffar
Chishti, the director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank. Here's what we came up with.¶ 1. Be a
Leader ¶ During Obama's first term, bipartisan legislation never got off the ground. The president needs to do a better
job leading the charge this time around, according to Chishti. "He has to make it clear that it's a high
to
priority of his," he said. "He has to make it clear that he'll use his bully pulpit and his political
muscle to make it happen , and he has to be open to using his veto power." His announcement this weekend is a step in that
direction, but he needs to follow through.
Capital’s key to a workable solution for legalization and visas
Garrett 2-21
[M. Politics for the National Journal. “The Hidden Obstacles to Legal Immigration Reform” The National Journal Online, 2/21/13 factiva//GBS-JV]
The toughest issue may be legal immigration. You know, the issue everyone is for. Who is against legal immigration?
Obama is for it. Mitt Romney was for it. Our entire history is suffused with the narrative of dreams that began at the golden door first
opened by legal immigration. We all agree, right? Think again.¶ Legal immigration is much tougher than that. It’s the
stunningly underappreciated policy linchpin to reform. Its politics are even more complicated
than border security or legalization of undocumented workers. And the White House draft said nothing about it.
Nothing. The president’s speech in Nevada on Jan. 29 was similarly vacuous. The White House insists it has a plan, and Obama’s May 10, 2011,
speech in El Paso made a glancing reference to helping immigrant entrepreneurs stay and create jobs and a way for seasonal agricultural
workers to stay legally in America. That was it.¶ Legal
immigration is far more complex. If Obama and Congress
don’t create a workable balance of future legal immigration — in the argot, “future flow” — it might as
well give up. Why? Because that’s what Congress did with the 1986 immigration reform act. It
legalized 3 million undocumented workers here, didn’t tighten border security, and created a
legal immigration system so small (in numbers) and slow (in terms of approval) that illegals flooded across
the border for jobs in a variety of industries. That will happen again unless new numbers and rules are
applied to all variety of work and immigrant applicants for it.¶ It is for this reason that Republicans — chief among
them non-savior Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida — cannot and will not accept immigration reform that does
not rewrite legal immigration rules.¶ Legal immigration is now the subject of intense outside
negotiations between the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which are aligned in pursuit of reform, unlike in 2007), as well as
other stakeholders. Business wants actual job demands to determine how many visas are issued for all
varieties of work. Big labor wants — get ready — a commission to review the needs and decide how many visas should
be allocated. There’s no resolution. Yet. The White House eyes this intense debate with Sphinxlike inscrutability . ¶ It’s a high-stakes fight over an alphabet soup of visas, which includes but is not
limited to H-1B for immigrants with highly specialized “theoretical and practical” knowledge
suitable for high-tech jobs; H-2A for seasonal agricultural workers who pick crops; H-2B for peak-season nonagricultural workers
who toil at theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and ski resorts; and H-4 for the family members (nonworking spouses and children) of H-2A and H2B workers, who are desperate to legally live in America.¶ According to the State Department, there were 117,409 H-1B visa recipients in 2010
and 129,134 in 2011 — not nearly enough, according to business leaders and those eager to keep top-performing immigrant specialists here.
The Washington Post on Tuesday wrote of student visa recipients from India who have invented a “world-changing” system to decontaminate
water from hydraulic fracking. They may have to leave America and take their plans to hire 100 employees to India or elsewhere. The story said
that places like China, Canada, Germany, Australia, and Singapore are dangling cash and other incentives before visa-limited American
innovators such as these.¶ And what about the workers who wash dishes, change sheets at hotels, mow resort golf courses, and provide home
health care? Are they temporary? Are they high-skilled? No. Are they necessary? Absolutely. What are the legal numbers for these workers
going forward? The
choice will be a functioning U.S. economy, with a ready supply of legal labor, or a
choked off and backward legal immigration system (like we have now), where the jobs are filled but by
illegals … and we repeat the … cycle all over again.¶ The biggest immigration news of the weekend wasn’t the
leak. It was what the leak exposed. And what the Senate working group, now on a tight deadline, will have
to address with specificity, originality, and political deftness.¶ You read it here first. If immigration reform dies, it
will not be because of disagreeable topics such as border security, legalization, or a “national ID card.”¶ It
will be because of the agreeable topic of legal immigration .
Political Capital High
Obama’s pushing
Kelley 6-12
[Caroline. Politics for Time. “Can Congress Vote On Immigration Reform Before Its Vacation?” TIME, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The clock is ticking for immigration reform. On Tuesday, President Obama urged Congress to move
quickly on the sweeping reform bill
the Senate began debating this week. “There’s no reason Congress can’t get this done
by the end of the summer,” he said. The president’s urgency was reminiscent of the way President George W. Bush pushed for his own
immigration reform package in 2007. Six years ago this Wednesday, Bush visited Capitol Hill to “make a personal appeal” to Republican
senators on behalf of his plan, which included a goal that they vote before Congress’s July 4 recess—the same target recently set for this year’s
Senate reform effort by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.¶ ¶ The
Senate couldn’t deliver a vote by July 4 in 2007,
however, and Bush’s bill eventually died in the doldrums of summer. Proponents of this year’s version hope for more
success. But, they too face a calendar challenge. Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says that he
“wouldn’t bet a great deal of money on meeting the July 4th deadline” this year.¶ ¶ A significant delay in the Senate could
make it harder for the House to vote on immigration reform before Congress goes on
vacation. The House is scheduled to be in session for just 16 days following the July 4 holiday before lawmakers begin their month-long
vacation on August 5th. House Speaker John Boehner has said he hopes the House can vote before then.¶ ¶ Reform
advocates worry that if a bill isn’t passed before August , opponents might marshal intense opposition
to it in the media
and at lawmakers’ town hall meetings, just as they did with Obama’s health care plan in the summer of 2009,
which threatened to derail that bill. Ornstein thinks immigration
reform could survive Congress’s recess, but that
the delay would make passage more difficult .
He’s spending PC on immigration
Stanage 3-5
[Niall. Politics for the Hill. “New Obama Strategy: Take No Prisoners” The Hill, 3/5/13 ln//GBS-JV]
However, on
immigration, the leak of details from a White House proposal first appeared to diminish the chances
of progress. Obama quickly got immigration reform back on track by making phone calls to the
leading Republicans on the issue, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). McCain and
Graham were subsequently invited to a White House meeting last week. Afterward, Graham insisted that it was “one of the best
meetings I ever had with the president.Ӧ Tony Fratto, a former deputy press secretary for President George W. Bush, said that any
evaluation of Obama’s second-term approach needs to acknowledge these nuances.¶ “I don’t think
it’s some kind of second-term infusion of courage,” he said. “ It’s very tactical in the way they deal with issues. ”¶ Cal
Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, offered a more generous analysis of Obama’s strategy.¶ “Where you
can get Republican support, it makes no sense at all not to take it,” he said. “But if you can’t give them half a loaf and get a significant number
of votes in return, then why give them half a loaf in the first place?Ӧ Democratic strategist Doug Thornell, meanwhile, offered a simpler
Time is short .¶ “He’s more than halfway through his presidency now,
and it’s become apparent that Congress is totally dysfunctional,” he said. “And if he waits around for them to
demonstrate leadership, we’ll be waiting forever.”¶ The president is once again, it seems, feeling the fierce urgency of
explanation for Obama’s approach:
now .
AT//PC Fails / Hirsh
PC is real and it works – congress wants compromise and progress – pref our ev because its
newer and speaks to congressional sentiment
Roarty ‘13
[Alex. Politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic. “There's Reason to Be Optimistic About Congress—Seriously” The Atlantic, 2/21/13
ln//GBS-JV]
Nevertheless, this
is a new congressional session, and Boren's pessimism might
possibly
be
proved
wrong .
For the first time in a decade, if not longer, conditions are aligned for bipartisan deal-making , raising
hopes that Congress might actually do something and satisfy the wishes of millions of Americans
hungry for action. "I am pleased with the signs I see in Congress today to try to make deals," said Lee Hamilton, who was a veteran
Democratic House member from Indiana. "There are threads of it -- it's not a fabric yet -- but there are threads, and that's
encouraging ."¶ In today's context, defining success is important -- and requires a healthy dose of both skepticism
and pragmatism. There's little hope that this Congress can reverse the -- exacerbated by, among other things,
powerful special interests and partisan media -- that has gripped Washington. The forces that drove Rep.
Boren out of Congress remain potent, and the legislative atmosphere on Capitol Hill is still toxic. Instead of a long-term course correction, the
question is whether Republican leaders in the House, President Obama, and Senate Democrats
can facilitate a reprieve -- if only to show the public that the institution is still functional. Cutting a
deal with the broad backing of both parties isn't a question so much of relieving those pressures as of learning
to pass laws in spite of them. ¶ The makeup of the 113th Congress and the occupant of the
White House make conditions riper for bipartisan legislation than at any time since President George
W. Bush's first years in office. Since then, Washington has been in the grip of one of two dynamics: Either one party has held
Congress and the presidency, or one party, possessing limited power, has had little interest in passing consequential
legislation.¶ The latter was the case last session, when Republicans controlled only the House. In most cases, they used this chamber to
approve legislation, such as Rep. Paul Ryan's eponymous budget, that helped define the party's agenda but had no chance of gaining approval
in the Senate (much less withstanding a veto from the White House). They were trying to wait out a president whom they believed would be
sent packing in 2013.¶ Democrats were in a similar position from 2007 to 2009, when they controlled Congress but wanted to wait out Bush's
tenure. The lack of bipartisanship, of course, didn't prevent major legislation from becoming law over the past 10 years. But when Democrats
controlled Washington and passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, or similarly empowered Republicans approved Medicare Part D in 2003,
This session is different . Neither party
has unilateral control, and yet there is an appetite, in the first year of Obama's second term, to
make a serious attempt to legislate. The last time Capitol Hill saw something similar came in
2001 and 2002. Republicans suddenly lost the Senate when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont defected from the GOP in the early summer, but
they didn't need the backing of the other party -- and by and large didn't get it.¶
Congress still overwhelmingly approved the No Child Left Behind Act months later (although the first round of Bush's tax cuts passed with only
a dozen or so Democrats on board in each chamber). Later, the parties worked together to approve a slew of national security issues after the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.¶ But drawing comparisons to that period is difficult because of 9/11; and, besides, most of Bush's term is hardly
associated with bipartisan comity. The better parallel -- and the experience current optimists point to -- is
1996 and 1997, which
bridges the end of President Clinton's first term and the beginning of his second. That two-year
span saw agreements on a series of important issues, ranging from two big-ticket items (welfare
reform and a balanced-budget agreement) to lesser-known achievements (such as raising the minimum wage). The
similarity between that period and now extends beyond the split control of government . Only a
year earlier, Republicans had ridden the "revolution" of 1994 into control of Congress, when they promised to push their agenda whether
Clinton approved or not. But the party ultimately dealt with political setbacks, none more damaging than the government shutdown of 1996.
The public blamed Republicans, and afterward Clinton never again trailed GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole (who was Senate majority leader
at the time of the shutdown) in a head-to-head matchup, according to preelection polls. Public opinion
might once again be
pulling against Republicans, burnt as they were by Obama's reelection and their unexpected
losses in the Senate. In a January poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News, 49 percent of adults disapproved of the GOP -- and
only 26 percent approved. It was the worst rating for Republicans since 2008. Just as the Republicans in Clinton's time
decided their political survival depended on coming to the table, the GOP of today might do the
same. "Republicans overplayed the government shutdown, and President Clinton won that battle," said Dan
Glickman, a former House member who was Clinton's Agriculture secretary. "And, with that, he effectively used the bully
pulpit to control the agenda. He gave a lot of cover for people to vote for him. It's not the only factor,
but
members of Congress are much [more] likely to support a president when the people at
home are inclined to support the president ."¶ How much Obama's broad popularity matters to
most GOP House members is debatable. With many of the president's supporters packed into heavily Democratic urban
districts, most Republicans represent safely red districts. (In November, Mitt Romney won 227 congressional districts, a majority, despite losing
by 4 percentage points in the national vote.)¶ But Obama's
Boehner and
Majority Leader Eric
Cantor
standing could weigh more heavily on House Speaker John
than on their followers; Cantor has recently attempted to rebrand the party with a softer
image. While their charges' interests are more parochial, they have the national party's image to worry about. Popular
prod the two leaders to reach agreements with Obama, especially on
opinion could
emotional issues such as gun control
immigration . Or, at the very least, public pressure could work to ease the disagreements that make
even basic government action difficult -- a factor that might have been at work when House
Republicans engineered a three-month delay of the debt ceiling. " They're hearing the message
and
outside the Beltway that 'we elected you people to make things work,'" said John Breaux, the former longtime Democratic senator from
Louisiana.¶ The
onus falls particularly hard on Boehner, whose struggles to control his conference are well documented.
More than any other player in Washington, he will determine whether anything gets done this year. How he
decides to proceed could rest on how frequently he's willing to leave conservative colleagues out in the cold and, consequently, how far he's
willing to risk his speakership.¶ The good of the party, and not his seat of power, propelled Boehner's decision to bring the superstorm Sandy
relief bill to a vote earlier this year, when it passed with just a minority of support from Republicans. That combination --
Democrats
and the moderate wing of the House GOP -- is the pathway to enacting a sweeping set of
bipartisan agreements .¶ A week after the storm vote, a large bipartisan majority passed a three-month extension of the debt
ceiling. "It
is hard to see this Congress being viewed as a bipartisan one, but we have seen a
glimmer of light
on the recent bipartisan vote to extend the debt ceiling," said Ron Bonjean, a onetime aide to the Republican
leadership. Maintaining
that momentum in the House won't be easy, and it could require Obama's
personal leadership . Getting Boehner to take such a perilous route could depend in large part
on successful cajoling from the president . And on this subject -- the relationships among Washington's top leaders -discussion of a deal being cut becomes sharply pessimistic.
Capital is specifically necessary to repair White House-Boehner relations
Roarty 2-21
[Alex. Politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic. “There's Reason to Be Optimistic About Congress—Seriously” The Atlantic, 2/21/13
ln//GBS-JV]
The disrepair of personal relationships in Washington plays only a minor role in the absence of party
comity. But more so than other long-term factors, this is something the current players can control .
As legislators try to craft difficult bipartisan compromises, a willingness to cross party lines, even
at the risk of criticism from colleagues, is crucial. It's why Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's inclination to work with
Democrats on immigration reform or Democratic Rep. Ron Wyden's collaboration with Ryan on health
care were so widely praised; such efforts attract positive attention because they are so rare.¶ Political enemies have
worked together for the common good before. Boehner and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy
collaborated on No Child Left Behind. And Gingrich got along famously with Clinton, Breaux said,
because the two men respected each other. "Even when he was trying to impeach [Clinton], they were still able to
overcome that and get things done," Breaux said. He added: "I think that lack of personal relationships in the legislative
body is absolutely the most harmful thing, exceeding any philosophical differences. It can overcome
stringent disagreements ."¶ Hill Democrats are openly encouraging Obama, whom they saw as failing to
reach out during his first term, to rebuild those relationships. "What kind of commitment from the White House will there be to
work the Congress aggressively, daily and continuously?" wondered Glickman, who is now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It can
be painful to do that, because presidents don't like that part of the job. I'm not sure this president likes it either."
Previous immigration pushes failed because Obama spent too much PC on other issues and
couldn’t arm-twist the GOP effectively---their ev doesn’t account for the GOP’s tendency
toward intransigence which makes PC true in the context of immigration
Hutchinson 2-1
[Earl. Political Analyst for New America and host of the Hutchinson Report. “No Risk for President Obama in Immigration Reform Fight” 2/1/13
The Huffington Post, ln]
But Obama even as his popularity numbers slightly fell among Latinos did not totally ignore the issue. He lashed
the GOP for
torpedoing comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress on the two occasions when it appeared that an
immigration bill might be reintroduced.¶ Obama was not to blame that this didn't happen. The crushing problems and bruising fights
over deficit reduction, spending, health care reform, coupled with high soaring gas prices and the jobless crisis were
endless and time consuming . The fights required every bit of his political capital and arm
twisting to make any headway against an obstructionist, intransigent
and petty
GOP
determined to make him pay a steep political price for every inch of legislative ground
he sought
to gain.¶ The 2012 election changed only one thing with the GOP. That was its in your face, xenophobic rants against illegals supposedly
stealing jobs from Americans and breaking the law. GOP leaders had no choice but to tamp down their saber rattle immigration rhetoric for the
simple fact that Latino voters punished the party mightily in 2012 for that rhetoric, and sent an even stronger signal that it would continue to
punish the GOP if it didn't change at least its tone on immigration. The
2012 election changed one other thing. It gave Obama
the long sought and awaited opening he needed to go full throttle on immigration reform. ¶ The election result was
not the only strong point for Obama on reform. In 2007, then President George W. Bush was widely and unfairly blamed for making a
mess of the immigration reform fight in Congress by not pushing hard enough for passage of the bill. Immigrant rights groups
lambasted Republican senators for piling crippling demands for tight amnesty, citizenship and border security provisions in the bill. Leading
Republican presidential contenders didn't help matters by flatly opposing the bill as much too soft on amnesty and border enforcement. ¶ This
did much to kill whatever flickering hope there was for the bill's passage. This undid the inroads that Bush made in the 2000 and 2004
presidential elections when he scored big with Latino voters. A big part of that then was due to the perception (and reality) that Bush would
push hard for immigration reform. But the GOP didn't learn a thing from this. It was almost as if Bush's Latino vote ramp up was an aberration.
The GOP's metallic ear on immigration culminated in the idiotic quip from GOP presidential loser Mitt Romney that the best way to solve the
immigration crisis was for undocumented workers to "self-deport." ¶ Obama's battle for the Latino vote in 2012 was never intended to head off
any mass defection of Latino voters to the GOP. There was never any chance of that. The polls that showed Latinos less than enthusiastic about
Obama also showed absolutely no enthusiasm for any GOP would-be presidential candidate, let alone that there would be a massive vote for
GOP candidates. ¶ Still, Obama's frontal
challenge to the GOP
to do something about
immigration reform is not only
if handled right can do much to shove the
wrenching issue of what to do about the nation's millions that are here without papers, and are here to stay, off the nation's political
table. There's absolutely no risk, only gain, for Obama in taking the point on immigration reform to try and make that happen.
a long overdue move to right a long simmering policy wrong, but a move that
Hirsh’s arg is just that PC can’t set the agenda. Our uniqueness evidence proves
immigration’s already at the top of the docket, which is where Obama’s persuasive powers
are vital.
Bernstein 1-28
[Jonathan Bernstein. Assistant Professor of Political Science at UTSA, 1/28/13, “On immigration, Obama should opt for a persuasive
vagueness,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/01/28/on-immigration-obama-should-opt-for-a-persuasivevagueness/]
Ezra Klein
made an excellent point about Barack Obama and immigration reform today:¶ Republicans will fight
most anything Obama proposes…This is a frustrating fact of life for the Obama administration — and perhaps even a sick
commentary on how our political system works — but it is, nevertheless, a fact: Their involvement polarizes issues. And it’s not unique to them:
Presidential involvement in general polarizes issues. By staying out, at least for now, the Obama administration is making it easier for
Republicans to stay in.¶ The political scientist Richard Neustadt said that the
power of the presidency really just meant the
power to persuade . But by that he didn’t really mean winning debate-style arguments. Yes, that can happen, but usually
presidents persuade by bargaining
— by capitalizing
on all the things presidents can do to
convince others that they should do what the president wants them to do.¶ In this instance, if Klein is correct
— and I’m pretty sure he is — the way for Obama to “persuade” is to be as vague about the new bipartisan Senate
proposal as he can, at least in public. At the same time, the White House may need to push for specific
provisions behind the scenes .¶ And the dance is probably more complicated than that, because it’s not just presidents who
polarize, after all. A full-throated embrace of the bipartisan deal by the “usual suspect” liberal groups could easy
scare off Republican support; on the other hand, if they oppose the deal, it could make it hard for mainstream liberals to support
it. Assuming that the administration both wants the bipartisan package to be the basis for a bill that passes — but that the president also has
preferences on details that are up for grabs — he may have strong preferences on how liberal groups react. And yet the
cannot force them to do what he wants; he can only, yes,
president
persuade them . In doing so, he may call
upon whatever trust they have in their past history together , or he may be bargaining
After all, each
with them.
group involved has other things they want from the Obama Administration .¶ All of
which is only to say that the correct steps for the president are usually difficult to find. The president needs the cooperation of all sorts of
people (not just Members of Congress) who don’t have to do what he wants; then again, no
one else in the American political
system has more potential ways to influence (“persuade”) others. And from the outside , not only is it
sometimes hard to know what the president should be doing to persuade — but it’s not even always obvious who
needs persuading (Members of Congress? Which ones? Interest groups? Again, which ones? Parts of the bureaucracy?).
Issues tradeoff for Obama – if the thesis of the link is true, it precludes action of immigration
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/setting-clear-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
PC’s real – best scholarship
Beckman and Kumar ‘11
and credibility
for the remainder of his presidency.
[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 self-interest 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 Bad / Dickerson
Non-unique – he’s pushing now
HT 6-13
[The Hindustan Times. 6/13/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Obama has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months, fearing¶ his open support
would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and who are determined to
kill it.¶ ¶ But as the legislation faced a crucial test vote in the Senate , Obama waded into the fray,
leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among
Hispanic voters.¶ ¶ "This week, the Senate will consider a common-sense, bipartisan bill that is the best chance
we've had in years to fix our broken immigration system," Obama said at an event at the White House.¶ ¶ The
president also sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even some who support immigration reform -- who
argue that the bill should not be passed without tough new border security measures .
Obama can’t pick a fight on immigration – that would kill the deal – our ev comparative
Foley 1-15
[Elise is a writer @ Huff Post Politics. “Obama Gears Up For Immigration Reform Push In Second Term,” 2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/obama-immigration-reform_n_2463388.html]
Obama has repeatedly said he will push hard for immigration reform in his second term, and administration
officials have said that other contentious legislative initiatives -- including gun control and the debt ceiling -- won't be
allowed to get in the way. At least at first glance, he seems to have politics on his side. GOP lawmakers are
entering -- or, in some cases, re-entering -- the immigration debate in the wake of disastrous results for their party's presidential nominee with
Latino voters, who support reform by large measures. Based
on those new political realities, "it would be a
suicidal impulse for Republicans in Congress to continue to block [reform]," David Axelrod, a longtime
adviser to the president, told The Huffington Post.¶ Now there's the question of how Obama gets there. While
confrontation might work with Republicans on other issues
that the GOP is serious enough about reform that the
-- the debt ceiling, for example -- the consensus is
president can, and must, play the role of broker and
statesman to get a deal .¶ It starts with a lesson from his first term. Republicans have demanded that the border be secured first,
before other elements of immigration reform. Yet the administration has been by many measures the strictest ever on immigration
enforcement, and devotes massive sums to policing the borders. The White House has met many of the desired metrics for border security,
although there is always more to be done, but Republicans are still calling for more before they will consider reform. Enforcing the border, but
not sufficiently touting its record of doing so, the White House has learned, won't be enough to win over Republicans.¶ In a briefing with The
Huffington Post, a senior administration official said the White House believes it has met enforcement goals and must now move to a
comprehensive solution. The
administration is highly skeptical of claims from Republicans that
immigration reform can or should be done in a piecemeal fashion. Going down that road, the White
House worries, could result in passage of the less politically complicated pieces, such as an enforcement mechanism and high-skilled worker
visas, while leaving out more contentious items such as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants.¶ "Enforcement is certainly part of the picture," the official said. "But if you go back and look at the 2006 and 2007 bills, if you
go back and look at John McCain's 10-point 'This is what I've got to get done before I'm prepared to talk about immigration,' and then you look
at what we're actually doing, it's like 'check, check, check.' We're there. The border is as secure as it's been in a generation or two, so it's really
time."¶ One
key in the second term, advocates say, will be convincing skeptics such as Republican Sen. John
White
House also needs to convince GOP lawmakers that there's support from their constituents for
immigration reform, which could be aided by conservative evangelical leaders and members of the business community who are
Cornyn of Texas that the Obama administration held up its end of the bargain by proving a commitment to enforcement. The
pushing for a bill.¶ Immigrant advocates want more targeted deportations that focus on criminals, while opponents of comprehensive
immigration reform say there's too little enforcement and not enough assurances that reform wouldn't be followed by another wave of
unauthorized immigration. The Obama administration has made some progress on both fronts, but some advocates worry that the president
hasn't done enough to emphasize it. The latest deportation figures were released in the ultimate Friday news dump: mid-afternoon Friday on
Dec. 21, a prime travel time four days before Christmas.¶ Last week, the enforcement-is-working argument was bolstered by a report from the
nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, which found that the government is pouring more money into its immigration agencies than the other
federal law-enforcement efforts combined. There are some clear metrics to point to on the border in particular, and Doris Meissner, an author
of the report and a former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, said she hopes putting out more information can
add to the immigration debate.¶ "I've been surprised, frankly, that the administration hasn't done more to lay out its record," she said, adding
the administration has kept many of its metrics under wraps.¶ There are already lawmakers working on a broad agreement. Eight senators,
coined the gang of eight, are working on a bipartisan immigration bill. It's still in its early stages, but nonmembers of the "gang," such as Sen.
Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are also talking about reform.¶ It's still unclear what exact role the
president will play, but sources say he does
plan to lead on the issue. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, said the White
House seems sensitive to the fact that Republicans and Democrats need to work out the issue in Congress -no one is expecting a fiscal cliff-style arrangement jammed by leadership -- while keeping the president heavily involved.
Wins don’t spill over – prioritization is key
Schultz 1-22
[David. Prof at the Hamline Univ School of Business. “Obama’s Dwindling Prospects in a second term” The Minneapolis Post, 1/22/13 ln//GBSJV]
Four more years for Obama. Now
what? What does Barack Obama do in his second term and what can he
accomplish? Simply put, his options are limited and the prospects for major success quite limited.¶ Presidential power is
the power to persuade , as Richard Neustadt famously stated. Many factors determine presidential power
and the ability to influence including personality (as James David Barber argued), attitude toward power, margin of victory, public
support, support in Congress, and one’s sense of narrative or purpose. ¶ Additionally, presidential power is temporal , often
greatest when one is first elected , and it is contextual, affected by competing items on an
agenda. All of these factors affect the political power or capital of a president.¶ Presidential power
is a finite and generally decreasing product . The first hundred days in office – so marked forever by FDR’s
first 100 in 1933 – are usually a honeymoon period, during which presidents often get what they
want. FDR gets the first New Deal, Ronald Reagan gets Kemp-Roth, George Bush in 2001 gets his tax cuts.¶ Presidents lose political capital,
support¶ But, over time, presidents lose political capital. Presidents get distracted by world and domestic
events, they lose support in Congress or among the American public, or they turn into lame ducks. This is the problem
Obama now faces.¶ Obama had a lot of political capital when sworn in as president in 2009. He won a
decisive victory for change with strong approval ratings and had majorities in Congress — with eventually a filibuster margin in the
also
Senate, when Al Franken finally took office in July. Obama used his political capital to secure a stimulus bill and then pass the Affordable Care
Act. He eventually got rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and secured many other victories. But
Obama was a lousy salesman, and
he lost what little control of Congress that he had in the 2010 elections.
Presidents think PC is real – our link is true in practice
Marshall et al 11
[Bryan W, Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing?
Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (September)
We argue that the more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents
anticipate how the use of force may
affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brulé, Marshall,
and Prins 2010). It may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific
use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a
foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewhere—in essence, the
presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to
achieve legislative priorities. To be clear, presidents can and do choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in
Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on Capitol Hill.
However, political
capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president
can bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider the congressional environment in their decision to use force
because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress.
Presidents do not make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding congressional
preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative
objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are
intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative initiatives. The passage of policy is integral to their
goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (Canes-Wrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their
relationship with Congress.
Obama’s Velcro – only blame will stick
Nicholas and Hook 10
[Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook, Tribune Washington Bureau, “Obama the Velcro president,” http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/lana-velcro-presidency-20100730]
If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through two terms, Reagan
eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has become ensnared
in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and additional
public exposure. They are also crafting new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama remains the
colossus of his administration — to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to
solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize
Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture
Department official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his
recent predecessors might envy. Political
dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial
regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead, voters are measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating
enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance,
compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments
are very significant,
but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan
(D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't translated
into dinner table conversations."
Political capital is finite
Marshall et al 11
Bryan W, Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing?
Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (September)
We argue that the more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents
anticipate how the use of force may
affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brulé, Marshall,
and Prins 2010). It may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific
use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a
foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewhere—in essence, the
presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to
achieve legislative priorities. To be clear, presidents can and do choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in
Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on Capitol Hill.
However, political
capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president
can bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider the congressional environment in their decision to use force
because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress.
Presidents do not make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding congressional
preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative
objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are
intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative initiatives. The passage of policy is integral to their
goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (Canes-Wrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their
relationship with Congress.
Political capital in the context of immigration means pushing from behind – that ensures
passage and doesn’t generate opposition
Pace 3-27
[Julie. Politics for the AP. “Obama: Immigration Bill could Pass by Summer” The Times Union, 3/27/13 ln//Cal-JV]
President Barack Obama
pressed for swift action on a sweeping immigration bill Wednesday, saying lastminute obstacles are "resolvable " and predicting Congress could pass historic legislation by the
end of the summer. In back-to-back interviews with Spanish-language television networks, Obama repeatedly voiced confidence in a bipartisan
Senate group that appears to be on the cusp of unveiling a draft bill. And he said that while he is still prepared to step in with his own bill if talks
break down, he doesn't expect that step to be necessary. "If we have a bill introduced at the beginning of next month as these senators indicate
it will be, then I'm confident that we can get it done certainly before the end of the summer," Obama told Telemundo. While overhauling the
nation's patchwork immigration
laws is a top second term priority for the president, he has ceded the
negotiations almost entirely to Congress. He and his advisers have calculated that a bill crafted by Capitol Hill stands a
better chance of winning Republican support than one overtly influenced by the president. In his
interviews Wednesday, Obama tried to stay out of the prickly policy issues that remain unfinished in the Senate talks, though he said a split
between business and labor on wages for new low-skilled workers was unlikely to "doom" the legislation. "This is a resolvable issue," he said.
The president also spoke Wednesday with Univision. His interviews followed a citizenship ceremony conducted Monday at the White House
where he pressed Congress to "finish the job" on immigration, an issue that has vexed Washington for years. The president made little progress
in overhauling the nation's fractured immigration laws in his first term, but he redoubled his efforts after winning re-election. The November
contest also spurred some Republicans to drop their opposition to immigration reform, given that Hispanics overwhelmingly backed Obama. In
an effort to keep Republicans at the negotiation table, Obama has stayed relatively quiet on
immigration over the last month. He rolled out his immigration principles during a January rally in Las Vegas and made an impassioned call for
overhauling the nation's laws during his early February State of the Union address, then purposely handed off the effort to lawmakers. The
president has, however, privately called members of the Senate working group, and the
administration is providing technical support to the lawmakers. The Gang of Eight is expected to unveil its draft bill
when Congress returns from a two-week recess the week of April 8. Obama and the Senate group are in agreement on
some core principles, including a pathway to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, revamping
the legal immigration system and holding businesses to tougher standards on verifying their workers are in the country legally. But they're
at odds over key issues. The Senate group wants the citizenship pathway to be contingent on securing the border, something
Obama opposes. The president has also sidestepped the contentious guest-worker issue, which
contributed to derailing immigration talks in 2007. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFLCIO have reached significant agreements on a new visa program that would bring up to 200,000 lower-skilled workers to
the country each year. But they reached a stalemate Friday over wages for the workers, with the labor union
pushing for higher wages than the chamber has agreed to so far . Since then, talks have resumed
and negotiators are "back on the right track ," Ana Avendano, a lead AFL-CIO negotiator, said Wednesday. Avendano
declined to offer specifics but said the chamber had moved off what she termed its insistence on "poverty-level wages" for the new workers.
"We're very hopeful that we're moving," Avendano told reporters after a briefing for congressional staff on temporary-worker programs.
While Obama tries to keep the pressure on lawmakers this week, four members of the Senate
immigration group toured Arizona's border with Mexico to inspect the conditions there. Arizona's Republican Sens. John
McCain and Jeff Flake were joined by Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado for the border tour.
More evidence – Obama’s involvement makes passage more likely because of Latino support
Garrett 2-21
[M. Politics for the National Journal. “The Hidden Obstacles to Legal Immigration Reform” The National Journal Online, 2/21/13 factiva//GBS-JV]
This isn’t a fail-safe border-security plan, but it is the bare minimum Republicans can accept —
and it still may not be enough (we won’t know until lawmakers start voting). But its absence from the White House draft
conspicuously informs Republicans that the White House is pushing legalization , and the fight to come
will be on many fronts — one of them over the GOP’s ability to push enforcement while embracing but not delaying reform. The White
House knows it has the upper hand politically and intends to dare Republicans to slow
immigration reform over any issue. Informally, the White House has signaled to the Senate working
group that it has until late March to finalize its bill or President Obama will spring his.¶ As one top administration official told
me: “The only thing that prevents the GOP from getting into a much worse hole with Latinos is a
bill with a path to citizenship on the president’s desk. Anything else and they have killed immigration reform
again . And Obama is by far the most popular player in this game in the Latino community. The last thing Republicans want
to do is vote down a bill with the president’s name on it.”
Capital’s key – history proves that immigration reform dies without a strong presidential push
Brownstein 1-31
[Ronald, National Journal, 1/31/13, On Immigration, What Obama Can Learn From Bush's Failed Efforts,
www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/on-immigration-what-obama-can-learn-from-bush-s-failed-efforts-20130131]
The prospects for major immigration reform are now the brightest in years, but for key players in
Washington, a shadow still looms: the ghost of 2006. That was the last time the stars were aligned for a
breakthrough. Immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for those in the United States illegally had the support of President Bush,
a broad labor-business-faith coalition, and a bipartisan Senate majority. Yet that
armada ultimately splintered against the
stony refusal of House Republican leaders to consider a bill opposed by a majority of their majority.
Any of that sound familiar? Already many of the same dynamics are developing, with President Obama stamping
immigration reform as a top priority , a bipartisan Senate coalition reassembling, a broad
outside alliance of support groups coalescing—and most House Republicans rejecting anything that hints
at “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. Yet the contrasts between now and 2006, particularly in the political climate, are also
significant. Understanding both the similarities and the differences will be critical for reform advocates if they are to
avoid replicating the disappointment they suffered under Bush. Presidential interest was then, as it is now, critical in
elevating immigration reform . Since his days as Texas governor, Bush had courted Hispanics, and—even during the 2000 GOP
presidential primary campaign—he strikingly defended illegal immigrants as “moms and dads” trying to make a better life for their children.
Together with his political “architect,” Karl Rove, Bush saw comprehensive reform that coupled a path to citizenship with tougher enforcement
as an opportunity to consolidate the beachhead that allowed him to capture more than 40 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2004 reelection.
But Bush largely looked away when Republicans who controlled the House channeled that impulse in a
very different direction. In December 2005, they passed an enforcement-only bill drafted by Judiciary Committee
Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, that, for the first time, designated all undocumented immigrants as felons. (Previously, illegal
presence in the U.S. had been a civil, not criminal, violation.) Initially, debate in the GOP-controlled Senate drifted. Majority Leader Bill Frist,
considering a 2008 presidential bid, pushed his own enforcement-only bill. But amid the backdrop of huge public rallies against
Sensenbrenner’s proposal, Sen. Arlen Specter unexpectedly joined with three other Republicans and all eight Judiciary Committee Democrats in
late March to approve a comprehensive plan, including a path to citizenship, that followed a blueprint negotiated by Sens. Edward Kennedy and
John McCain. When broader Senate agreement teetered over the terms of legalization, Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez
devised a compromise that divided illegal immigrants into three categories, requiring those here less than two years to leave but allowing those
with deeper roots to eventually earn citizenship by paying fines and learning English. After Bush finally delivered a national address on
immigration, a bill embodying that plan cleared the Senate with 62 votes, including support from 23 Republicans. House Republicans
immediately signaled their disinterest by refusing to appoint a conference committee and instead scheduled hearings in border communities to
highlight security lapses. “Border security reigned supreme,” recalls Ron Bonjean, the communications director for then-Speaker Dennis
Hastert. “I remember being in a meeting with … the leadership where pollsters came in and said border security was the key to our reelection.”
Even in
2006, something like the Senate plan likely could have attracted 218 votes in the House—but
not a majority of Republicans. Faced with a collision between his two political imperatives—
courting Hispanics and mobilizing conservatives— Bush blinked , allowing House leaders to
replace the Senate bill with enforcement-only legislation, which he signed that fall. These choices began the GOP’s
slide among Hispanics that continues unabated: Hispanic support for Republican House candidates plummeted from 44 percent in 2004 to just
29 percent in 2006, presaging Mitt Romney’s disastrous 27 percent showing among those voters in 2012. That slippage is one of the two most
important differences in the political environment around immigration between 2006 and today. Back then, as Bonjean notes, hardly any
House Republicans argued that the GOP needed to pass a plan attractive to minorities. But many GOP leaders now see that as self-preservation.
“The political imperative has shifted the tectonic plates,” says Frank Sharry, a key player in the 2006 debate who
remains central as executive director of America’s Voice, which backs full citizenship for immigrants. “Immigration was viewed as a wedge issue
for Republicans in 2006. Now it’s viewed as a wedge issue for Democrats.” The “Gang of Eight” proposal released this week makes it likely that,
as in 2006, the
Senate will eventually pass a bipartisan immigration bill. Once again, there are probably 218
House votes for such a plan, but not a majority of the majority Republicans. That raises another key
difference from 2006: Hastert faced little pressure to consider the Senate bill, because Bush bit his
tongue
in 2013,
when
the speaker buried it . If House Republicans shelve another bipartisan Senate plan
they should expect
much more
public heat,
Political Capital Theory’s True
Capital’s real and vital to legislative success
Schier ‘9
[Prof Poli Sci at Carleton. “Understanding the Obama Presidency” The Forum, Vol 7 N1. 2009. Ebsco]
In additional to formal powers, a
president’s informal power is situationally derived and highly variable.
Informal power is a function of the “political capital” presidents amass and deplete as they
operate in office. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval
of the presidential conduct of his job, the President’s electoral margin and patronage appointments (Light 1983, 15). Richard Neustadt’s
concept of a president’s “professional reputation” likewise figures into his political capital.
Neustadt defines this as the “impressions in the Washington community about the skill and will with which he puts [his formal powers] to use”
(Neustadt 1990, 185). In
the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush’s political capital surged, and both the
public and Washington elites granted him a broad ability to prosecute the war on terror. By the
later stages of Bush’s troubled second term, beset by a lengthy and unpopular occupation of
Iraq and an aggressive Democratic Congress, he found that his political capital had shrunk .
Obama’s informal powers will prove variable, not stable, as is always the case for presidents.
Nevertheless, he entered office with a formidable store of political capital. His solid electoral victory
means he initially will receive high public support and strong backing from fellow Congressional partisans, a
combination that will allow him much leeway in his presidential appointments and with his policy
agenda. Obama probably enjoys the prospect of a happier honeymoon during his first year than did George W. Bush, who entered office
amidst continuing controversy over the 2000 election outcome. Presidents usually employ power to disrupt the political order they inherit in
order to reshape it according to their own agendas. Stephen Skowronek argues that “presidents disrupt systems, reshape political landscapes,
and pass to successors leadership challenges that are different from the ones just faced” (Skowronek 1997, 6). Given
their limited
time in office and the hostile political alignments often present in Washington policymaking
networks and among the electorate, presidents must force political change if they are to enact
their agendas. In recent decades, Washington power structures have become more entrenched and elaborate (Drucker 1995) while
presidential powers – through increased use of executive orders and legislative delegation (Howell 2003) –have also grown. The
presidency has more powers in the early 21st century but also faces more entrenched coalitions
of interests, lawmakers, and bureaucrats whose agendas often differ from that of the
president. This is an invitation for an energetic president – and that seems to describe Barack Obama – to
engage in major ongoing battles to impose his preferences.
Presidents think PC is real
Marshall et al 11
[Bryan W, Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing?
Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (September)
We argue that the more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents
anticipate how the use of force may
affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brulé, Marshall,
and Prins 2010). It may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific
use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a
foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewhere—in essence, the
presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to
achieve legislative priorities. To be clear, presidents can and do choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in
Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on Capitol Hill.
However, political
capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president
can bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider the congressional environment in their decision to use force
because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress.
Presidents do not make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding congressional
preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative
objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are
intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative initiatives. The passage of policy is integral to their
goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (Canes-Wrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their
relationship with Congress.
Best studies support our scholarship
Relyea ‘11
[Harold C. Relyea 11, Specialist in American National Government with the Congressional. Research Service, “Pushing the Agenda: Presidential
Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004 – By Matthew N. Beckmann”, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume 41, Issue 4, pages 844–845]
Matthew Beckmann of the University of California at Irvine provides an interesting empirical analysis of presidential leadership in lawmaking
for the period from the Eisenhower through the Bush II administrations . He notes that the key to a
president's legislative leadership is strategy, not resolve (p. 2), and concludes that the greatest source of
influence for postwar presidents comes “in the legislative early game, not the legislative
endgame” (p. 2). Presidents who are strategically adept work to get specific issues on the
congressional calendar and, then, maneuver to insure that certain proposals rise up as
alternatives. Beckmann suggests that the best route for constructing winning coalitions consists of
“mobilizing leading allies, determining opponents, and circumventing endgame floor fights
altogether,” rather than the typical path of gathering support from “centrist” lawmakers (p. 2). In
the end, he finds “that presidents' legislative influence is real, often substantial, and, to date, greatly
underestimated” (p. 3). The author's assessment is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 consists of his introductory overview, as briefly
summarized above. Chapter 2 presents a theory of positive presidential power, focusing on the Bush II administration's 2001 tax cut efforts in
the Senate. Here, Beckmann
attributes the White House's success to its targeted strategy of lobbying
and bargaining with allies, key opponents, and swing voters. He cautions that although this is only one example, it
represents what a president's aides can achieve when they maximize lobbying techniques for the purpose of advancing agenda-centered and
vote-centered strategies (p. 104). Reviewing the 1953-2004 record of what he considers to be key votes for presidential legislative success in
Chapter 4, the author proposes a new method for evaluating the potential impact of presidents on these votes. The two most significant
elements are (1) personal involvement of the president and (2) the extent of his influence at the earliest stages in the legislative process, at the
point of fashioning legislation (p. 126). In Chapter 5, after
testing “whether presidents' influence held up even
after accounting for a myriad of rival explanations, including congressional composition,
political context, and issue specifics, as well as simple random chance” (p. 148), Beckmann asserts that the
evidence showed presidents to be powerful, but not all powerful, players in federal
policymaking. When the president decides that some particular policy initiative deserves his
administration's backing, it is a great boon to the chances that a new law will supplant the old
one. Yet also as predicted, this potential is constrained by Congress' pivotal voters, limited by political
environment, and variable by issue. Furthermore, although the president's involvement greatly
increases the likelihood that a winning congressional coalition will be assembled, it is no
guarantee. Indeed, the nature of presidential leadership in lawmaking is that, while it generally
helps win key votes and pass preferred laws, it may not in any particular case. (p. 149) In closing, the
author observes that “integral to appraising any president's legacy is examining how effectively he recognizes and capitalizes on his office's
potential” but that equally as important as any policy outcome is the value of healthy, substantive debate in Congress, as well as the related
one of pressuring members to clearly explain their positions on issues (p.161).
2NC Rubio Link
Rubio hates the plan
The Hill ‘12
[“Cuban-American senators hit brick wall with Obama administration on Cuba policy”, June 7th, 2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/globalaffairs/americas/231487-cuban-american-senators-hit-a-brick-wall-with-obama-administration-on-cuba-policy]
The Senate's two Cuban-Americans spent Thursday morning talking past the Obama administration's top official for the Americas on the issue
of U.S. policy toward Cuba. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were the only two senators who showed up for
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subpanel hearing on freedom in Cuba. They called
the administration's relaxing of
travel restrictions to Cuba “naive” and bashed the State Department's decision to grant visas to highprofile Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro's daughter Mariela. “The Cuban people are no less
deserving of America's support than the millions who were imprisoned and forgotten in Soviet
gulags,” Menendez said. “I am compelled to ask again today — as I have before — why is there such an obvious double
standard when it comes to Cuba?” Rubio said Castro government officials are master
manipulators of U.S. policy and public opinion. The two senators favor a hard-line stance against
Cuba
until regime change takes place. Critics of that policy argue that more than 50 years of U.S. sanctions have only enabled Castro
brothers Fidel and Raul to consolidate their power while impoverishing the Cuban people.
Doing the plan anyway sends the signal Obama just wants to play politics – angers Rubio and
kills the deal
National Journal ‘13
("Obama Legacy on Immigration Reform Tied to Rubio, His Frenemy," 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/obamalegacy-on-immigration-reform-tied-to-rubio-his-frenemy-20130220)
At a time when one of Washington’s most common laments is that big deals never get made anymore, the
tension between
Obama and Rubio is an obvious symptom of an increasingly polarized political environment.
Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, they are not. The Republican president and Democratic House speaker famously put aside their partisan
backbiting for an occasional lunch or after-hours drink and reached a historic compromise on Social Security.¶ Obama
and Rubio
have never socialized one-on-one, but it’s possible they are building a new framework for the
elusive “grand bargain,” in which bright lines are drawn long before consensus is reached. “I think the tension between these two
important players shows this is a serious negotiation,” Noorani added. “At some point, they have to move behind closed doors and sit across
the table from each other, and this is the precursor to that.Ӧ Rubio and Obama have clashed over immigration policy since last year, when the
senator began promoting a proposal that would allow illegal immigrants in college or the military to obtain legal status. The president preempted Rubio by issuing an executive order granting temporary visas to children brought to this country illegally. Rubio accused the president
of enacting a shortsighted policy that would derail any efforts at comprehensive immigration reform.¶ Since then, Rubio
has
repeatedly questioned the president’s commitment to real reform. When the president gave a major speech
on immigration in Last Vegas last month, Rubio accused him of overlooking border security at the risk of increasing the number of illegal
immigrants in the U.S. And when
the White House plan was leaked over the weekend, Rubio
immediately issued a scathing statement.¶ “This legislation is half-baked and seriously flawed,” he said. “If actually
proposed, the president’s bill would be dead on arrival in Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system
for years to come.”¶ One of Rubio’s complaints was that the president would allow illegal immigrants to jump in front of people who have
applied legally, even though the president has repeatedly said they should go to the “back of the line.” Rubio also said the White House plan
fails to tighten border security, even though it calls for more patrols.¶ “Rubio
is so worried about coming off his
conservative perch that there is a knee-jerk reaction to anything the president does, and
sometimes it’s hyperbolic and factually inaccurate,” said Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the liberal
Center for American Progress. “There is a risk of creating artificial schisms just because of the right’s
distaste for anything Obama does. It would be tremendously disappointing if that meant they
couldn’t get it over the finish line.”¶ The common line of attack from Republicans that Obama
doesn’t want a deal because then his party can’t use immigration as a wedge issue flies in the face of
the president’s obvious interest in legacy-building during his second term.¶ Still, Rubio’s allies insist that if the president was truly interested in
an immigration overhaul, he would have called the senator long before Tuesday. They frequently point to an amendment Obama sponsored as
a senator as a “poison pill” that killed an immigration bill in 2007.¶ “This
president has played politics before on
immigration, and there’s a lot of suspicion within the Republican ranks,” said Republican consultant Ana
Navarro. “I think it’s incumbent upon him, after campaigning on immigration, speaking on it at his inauguration and in the state of the Union, to
issue the invitation to Rubio.Ӧ On Tuesday, the president did just that, placing phone calls to Rubio and other Republican senators working on
an immigration plan and depriving them of one of their chief complaints -- at least for one day.
Rubio’s key to the deal
**Also says Rubio’s vote isn’t a sure thing and he’s willing to horse-trade with his support of CIR
Trygstad and Drucker ‘13
[David and Kyle. “Rubio Must Sell Immigration Changes to GOP, Grass Roots” Roll Call, 1/30/13 ln //GBS-JV]
The fate of an immigration overhaul rests almost exclusively with Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican
whose star power with conservatives is crucial to moving a bill through Congress. President Barack
Obama retains veto power, and Democrats hold the Senate floor. But no comprehensive
immigration changes are likely to pass Congress without the healthy support ofHouse Republicans. And
Florida’s junior senator, perhaps more than any other Republican serving in Washington today, has the political credibility
and communication skills to sell such complicated, sensitive legislation to skeptical conservative
members, grass-roots voters and influential media commentators. Rubio’s position is all the more unique because congressional
Democrats and Obama need him, too, and appear to realize his importance to the legislative endgame. Republicans warn that Obama and
congressional Democrats
could sink Washington’s immigration policy rewrite by attaching
controversial social provisions or watering down the border enforcement and security
measures included in the bipartisan Senate framework that Rubio helped negotiate. The Florida
lawmaker has said he’ll pull his support from any bill if that occurs, and Republicans say comprehensive policy
changes will fail to garner meaningful GOP support without Rubio’s backing. “ If Rubio signals any mistrust or
misgivings, the whole thing collapses ,” GOP pollster Brock McCleary said.
Ext. Rubio Key
Careful compromise now - plan triggers a massive fight with the GOP, and lets the hard right
claim Obama wants to kill immigration – causes 2005 all over again – that’s National Journal
That kills Rubio’s credibility and any chance of a deal
National Journal 4-16,
("Immigration Reform Isn't Hurting Marco Rubio's Bottom Line," 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/politics/immigration-reform-isn-t-hurtingmarco-rubio-s-bottom-line-20130416)
Rubio has been performing a remarkable balancing act in recent months, embarking on a oneman media blitz to tout immigration reform (he did seven talk shows on Sunday) without letting the issue totally define
him. His response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech will be remembered more for his thirst— he reached off camera for a water
bottle in the middle of his remarks—than it will be for his brief reference to the immigration system. His leadership PAC leveraged publicity
over his thirst-quenching maneuver to sell Rubio-branded water bottles and raised $250,000.¶ Rubio has also drawn attention this year for
supporting Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster of the president’s CIA appointment, voting against budget deals with President Obama and opposing his
gun-control proposals across the board. His speech last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference didn’t even mention immigration
and was notable for its defense of the party’s platform. “We don’t need a new idea. There is an idea, the idea is called America, and it still
works,” he declared.¶ The
senator has worked diligently to maintain his credibility with conservatives
by pressing for tighter border security in the immigration bill, going out of his way to emphasize
disagreements with liberals and demanding a series of public hearings. “It puts in place effective
enforcement mechanisms unlike anything we’ve ever had in the history of this country before,” he said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. When
other senators were crowing that they were close to a deal two weeks ago, Rubio said declarations of success were “premature” and
emphasized he would not support any agreement that didn’t meet his conservative standards.¶ “He was playing hard to get before, but he
definitely wanted to be got,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Reform, which opposes allowing illegal
immigrants to earn citizenship. “A
lot of his maneuvering over the past few months has been theater so he
could preserve his ability to sell amnesty to conservatives.Ӧ Rubio dismissed the idea that he was playing politics
on Meet the Press, saying, “I quite frankly have avoided making the political calculus on this issue.”¶ Not only has Rubio yet to pay a
steep political price among conservatives, his changed position on immigration has drawn few complaints from liberals
who see the charismatic Cuban-American senator as crucial to passing legislation through a gridlocked Congress. During a nationally televised
debate in his 2010 campaign, Rubio said, “Earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.” Asked about that remark on Meet the
Press, Rubio responded: “What I said throughout my campaign was that I was against a blanket amnesty, and this is not blanket amnesty.”¶
While Rubio has carefully navigated the issue, it’s too soon to declare that he has avoided any
major political repercussions. Once the bill is unveiled and people and interest groups get hold
of the details, he is likely to face criticism from all sides of the issue. He is also likely to get the
most credit.
Rubio’s influence is key to keep the GOP on board
Dickerson 4-18
[John. Politics for TalkingPointsMemo. “Rubio Rising: Will immigration reform make Marco Rubio look presidential?” 4/18/13
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/04/marco_rubio_helping_to_pass_immigration_reform_if_the_florida_senato
r_helps.html//GBS-JV]
On Sunday, Rubio appeared on seven news shows, setting a new standard, but the most important pitch will be on CCTV in the conservative
club house. Rubio's
main task has been as an envoy to the Republican conservative wing. The Florida
senator is a trusted voice on this issue because of his heritage, but also because of his conservative voting
record and relationship with Tea Party activists. Rubio has a chance to sell Senate
conservatives in a way that Sen. Lindsey Graham never could.
That’s because
members know
that Rubio can help give them cover in the wider conservative world in a way Graham can't. ¶ In this role,
Rubio talks to conservatives but it also means speaking for them in negotiations with
Democrats and Republican squishes. In the coming days, we'll see if Rubio is able to maintain that balance. He has already had to knock
down false reports about free cellphones being given to illegal immigrants. In
his debates with conservative luminaries,
even if he hasn't emerged victorious, he's kept the relationship steady. "I disagree with major parts of this
bill," said talk show host Mark Levin, " but you can't deny [Rubio] has integrity.”¶ ¶ Rubio doesn’t need to convince
everyone; he simply needs to convince enough people to hold a deal together . Can he sell a new
definition of amnesty, one of the most potent words in politics? Rubio argues that the bill is not amnesty because the
pathway to citizenship is more onerous than it is under current law. Perhaps equally difficult will be convincing
conservatives that the broader security requirements and enforcement mechanisms in the bill will stick when they are in the hands of
bureaucrats who they don't trust and who have let them down before. "He
has been great at selling the summary [of the
bill]," says one veteran Senate staffer, " now he's got to sell the [legislative] language ."
Rubio’s capital is key
Grant 4-18
[David. Staffer for the MN Post. “Marco Rubio crafts conservative argument for immigration reform. Will it sell?” Minneapolis Post, 4/18/13
ln//GBS-JV]
As the bill makes its way through the committee and floor debate that Rubio has sworn to protect, “you’re going to
see more senators piling on" to oppose the bill, Mr. Krikorian says.¶ Rubio will need to sway not only some of those
senators, but also powerful outside groups
the bill as inflicting pain on American workers.
such as Numbers USA, a low-immigration advocacy organization that views
2NC Delay Link
Time is key to passage – introducing the plan clogs the agenda and derails compromise
Bolton 3-4
[Alex. Politics for the Hill. “Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics” The Hill, 3/4/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A bipartisan
Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling
legislation, as it feels subtle pressure from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to act .¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a
lead negotiator of the ad hoc group on immigration reform, says he and his colleagues realize the clock is
ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶ “We know time is of the
essence . Sometime in the next few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve,” McCain told The
Hill.¶ A Democratic source familiar with the talks said
the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the
month .¶ Either way, time is running short . Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCain’s negotiating partner, said he expected to
There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves for a two-week
Easter recess on March 22.¶ Lawmakers and groups advocating for reform say McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), need to show substantial
progress before the end of the month.¶ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has turned over
authorship of immigration reform to the group but his patience is limited. He is eager to move shortly after the committee
have a bipartisan bill sometime in March.
marks up a series of gun-violence bills this month.¶ Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over
expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to
give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply.¶ The same is true of immigration reform.¶ “I think April
is
probably the markup month they’re looking at and then to the floor in either May or June,” said Angela Kelley, vice
president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.¶ Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and
Rubio before the recess.¶ “Leahy’s really committed to getting this done and he’s going to watch it carefully and he’s
going to want to keep measuring progress. You may not get the final grade but you’ll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect
they’re going to want to see real progress,” she said.¶ “I
Leahy.¶
don’t think his patience will be endless,” a Democratic aide said of
One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future
flows of immigrant workers . Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed
comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it in 2007.¶ “I think the problem for
immigration reform will be about future flow, access to future labor,” said Graham. “The reason you have 11 million
illegal workers is that lot of employers can’t find labor, so we got to address that.”
More evidence – speed’s key
Bolton 3-4
[Alex. Politics for the Hill. “Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics” The Hill, 3/4/13 ln//GBS-JV]
A bipartisan
Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling
legislation, as it feels subtle pressure from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to act .¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a
lead negotiator of the ad hoc group on immigration reform, says he and his colleagues realize the clock is
ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶ “We know time is of the
essence . Sometime in the next few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve,” McCain told The
Hill.¶ A Democratic source familiar with the talks said
the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the
month .¶ Either way, time is running short . Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCain’s negotiating partner, said he expected to
There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves for a two-week
Easter recess on March 22.¶ Lawmakers and groups advocating for reform say McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), need to show substantial
progress before the end of the month.¶ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has turned over
authorship of immigration reform to the group but his patience is limited. He is eager to move shortly after the committee
have a bipartisan bill sometime in March.
marks up a series of gun-violence bills this month.¶ Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over
expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to
give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply.¶ The same is true of immigration reform.¶ “I think April
is
probably the markup month they’re looking at and then to the floor in either May or June,” said Angela Kelley, vice
president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.¶ Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and
Rubio before the recess.¶ “Leahy’s really committed to getting this done and he’s going to watch it carefully and he’s
going to want to keep measuring progress. You may not get the final grade but you’ll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect
they’re going to want to see real progress,” she said.¶ “I
Leahy.¶
don’t think his patience will be endless,” a Democratic aide said of
One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future
flows of immigrant workers . Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed
comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it in 2007.¶ “I think the problem for
immigration reform will be about future flow, access to future labor,” said Graham. “The reason you have 11 million
illegal workers is that lot of employers can’t find labor, so we got to address that.”
2NC Focus Link
Even if capital eventually bounces back, Obama’s got a small window to pass immigration
O’Brien 4-8
[Michael. Politics for NBC. “Budget, immigration, gun control: Congress returns to debate cornerstones of Obama agenda” NBC, 4/8/13
ln//GBS-JV]
Presidents typically have a short window of opportunity
in their second terms to ink major accomplishments, and
the next few weeks will offer President Barack Obama a key test of his ability to do just that.¶ Congress
returns from its recess Monday to begin work on central components of Obama’s second-term
agenda. Their work over the next two months could begin to cement, just four months into Obama’s second term, the president’s political
legacy.¶ A grand fiscal deal, immigration reform and tougher gun laws topped Obama’s second term agenda when he
outlined them during a Dec. 30 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”¶ All three of those priorities have, so far, eluded Obama
over the past few months; whether the president can manage a victory on any of these issues could be decided
in coming weeks .
Obama’s set his agenda to get immigration through – new fights derail it
Zeleny 1-24.
[Jeff, NYT political correspondent, “For Obama, am ambitious agenda faces ticking clock” IHT -- lexis]
The State of the Union address that Mr. Obama will deliver to Congress on Feb. 12 will offer the most definitive road map yet for how the
White House will
set priorities in his second term as well as how it intends to avoid becoming mired in a
heated debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the full agenda.
''There's no doubt you
want to get off to a strong start, and we've got a pretty big dance card,'' said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama who is leaving the
White House this week. He
ticked through a list of agenda items that included guns, immigration and
fiscal issues, but he disputed the suggestion that one item would overtake the others . ''We
clearly have this moment where we can get immigration done ,'' Mr. Plouffe added. ''If we don't get it
done, then shame on us. We've got to seize this opportunity.''
More evidence – prioritizing the plan above immigration is a brick wall – kills the deal
Harder 2-6
Amy Harder, National Journal, 2/6/13, In Washington, Energy and Climate Issues Get Shoved in the Closet,
www.nationaljournal.com/columns/power-play/in-washington-energy-and-climate-issues-get-shoved-in-the-closet-20130206¶
At a news conference where TV cameras in the back were nearly stacked on top of each other, an influential bipartisan
group of five
senators introduced legislation late last month to overhaul the nation’s immigration system. The room was so
crowded that no open seats or standing room could be found. A week later, one senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, was
standing at the podium in the same room to unveil her energy-policy blueprint. There were several open
seats and just a few cameras. At least one reporter was there to ask the senator about her position on President Obama’s choice for Defense
secretary, former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. “I’m
doing energy right now,” Murkowski responded. “I’m focused on that.” Almost
everyone else on Capitol Hill is focused on something else . Aside from the broad fiscal issues, Congress
and the president are galvanizing around immigration reform. Four years ago, the White House
prioritized health care reform above comprehensive climate-change legislation. The former will go down in
history as one of Obama’s most significant accomplishments. The latter is in the perpetual
position of second fiddle. “To everything,” Murkowski interjected fervently when asked by National Journal
Daily whether energy and climate policy was second to other policies in Washington’s pecking order. Murkowski, ranking
member of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she hoped the Super Bowl blackout would help the public understand
the importance of energy policy. “This issue of immigration: Why are we all focused on that? Well, it’s because the Republicans
lost the election because in part we did not have the Hispanic community behind us,” Murkowski said this week. “What is it that brings about
that motivation? Maybe it could be something like a gap in the Super Bowl causes the focus
on energy that we need to have. I can
only hope.” It will take more than hope. Elections have consequences, but so far the only kind of electoral consequence
climate and energy policy has instigated is one that helped some lawmakers who supported cap-and-trade legislation to lose their seats in the
2010 midterm elections. For
the pendulum to swing the other way—for lawmakers to lose their seats over not acting on
climate and energy policy—seems almost unfathomable right now. Billions of dollars are invested in the fossil-fuel power
plants, refineries, and pipelines that the country depends on today. The companies that own this infrastructure have a business interest in
keeping things the way they are. Immigration reform doesn’t face such formidable interests invested in the status quo. “They [businesses] have
employees—real, visible people—who they value and who they want to make legal as soon as possible,” said Chris Miller, who until earlier this
year was the top energy and environment adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. On
Miller added, “You’re probably never
energy and climate-change policy,
going to have anything like the fence in the Southwest or the border-control issue
that pushes action and debate on immigration, because climate-change impacts will likely continue to be more abstract in the public's
mind until those impacts are so crystal-clear it’s too late for us to do anything.” Another, tactical reason helps build momentum on immigration
and not on other issues. Obama
can capitalize on immigration as it becomes more of a wedge issue within the GOP. On
energy and climate policy, Obama faces a unified Republican Party. “ The president has cracked the
code on how to push his agenda items through . He learned from his victories on the payroll tax and the fiscal cliff that
the key is to stake out the political high ground on issues that poll in his favor while exploiting the divisions within the GOP,” said a former
Republican leadership aide who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. “ With
this in mind, the next logical
place for him to go is immigration. Unlike issues like energy or tax reform where the GOP is
united, he can claim a big win on immigration reform while striking a political blow to
Republicans.”
2NC Democrats Link
Democrats hate the plan – they think economic engagement steals America jobs
Perez-Rocha 12
[Manuel Pérez Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C, “Don't Expand NAFTA”, July 26th, 2012,
http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta]
With Canada and Mexico joining the TPP, the agreement is looking more and more like a substitute for the FTAA. So it is not
surprising that opposition to the TPP is growing as quickly as it did against that former attempt to expand the neoliberal
model throughout the Western hemisphere. The intense secrecy of the TPP negotiations is not helping the Obama administration make its
case. In their statement, North
American unions “call on our governments to work with us to include in
the TPP provisions to ensure strong worker protection s, a healthy environment, safe food and products, and the
ability to regulate financial and other markets to avoid future global economic crises.” But the truth is that only big business
is partaking in consultations, with 600 lobbyists having exclusive passwords to online versions of the negotiating text. 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.
Democrat dissent kills the deal
Mooney 2-6
Alex Mooney, CNN White House Producer, 2/6/13, Unions could again be key to immigration reform,
www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/politics/immigration-reform-unions
It should come as no surprise that prominent union leaders are among the first group President
Barack Obama courts as he seeks support for overhauling immigration policy. It was organized
labor that helped ensure defeat of a bipartisan effort to reform the nation's immigration laws five
years ago. At that time, the AFL-CIO and other prominent union groups came out against the initiative, fearing
a proposal for a temporary guest worker program for seasonal workers would weaken union membership and bargaining clout. That led
to a handful of liberal-leaning Democrats to vote against the bill, including Sens. Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin
and Debbie Stabenow. Mindful
that a potential split in the Democratic coalition this time around could
again prove fatal to the passage of an immigration bill, Obama met on Tuesday with more than a dozen labor
leaders.
Ext. Democrats Key
Democrats are key – their retreat is the only scenario for failure
Hirschfeld 3-22
[Julie. Politics for Bloomberg Business Week. “Guest Worker Visas a Sticking Point on Immigration Rewrite.” Bloomberg, 3/22/13 ln//GBS-JV]
With Senate Republicans and Democrats moving closer to an agreement to grant a chance at U.S.
citizenship to 11 million undocumented immigrants, a long- simmering dispute between organized labor and the
business lobby risks sapping the measure’s momentum . The two constituencies are at odds over
a new program to provide U.S. work visas to low-skilled foreign workers, placing pressure on lawmakers
poised for a compromise. Unions are pressing for a limited visa system that guarantees better wages for future immigrant workers,
while businesses seek a broader program more responsive to their hiring needs. It’s the thornier side of what is
otherwise a broadening consensus
in both parties around an
immigration plan, whose centerpiece is a path to
U.S. citizenship for undocumented immigrants. A bipartisan group of eight senators is nearing a deal to bolster border security and workplace
verification while revamping the legal immigration system. Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a member of the group, called
the guest-worker issue “one of the more difficult parts” of the negotiations. “I’m not going to be part of a
bill that doesn’t create a process whereby people can come to this country temporarily in the future if we need them,” Rubio said yesterday.
“There’s
no secret that the broader labor movement, with some exceptions, would rather not even
have an immigration bill.” Political Consequences The disagreement carries significant political
consequences for Republicans and Democrats alike, essentially making them choose between their strongest
constituencies -- organized labor for Democrats and big business for Republicans -- and achievement of an overriding
policy goal that both parties increasingly see as an electoral imperative. Hispanics accounted for 10 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential
election. President Barack Obama won 71 percent of their votes, and just 27 percent backed Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who had
proposed “self-deportation” for undocumented immigrants. Since then, a growing chorus of Republicans has publicly backed legal status for
undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, a group of Republican officials who unveiled a top-to-bottom review this week called for the party to
back “comprehensive immigration reform” or see its appeal shrink. “It is in neither party’s interest for one group within a party to stop this,
because it is bad for the economy if we don’t have immigration reform,” former Mississippi Governor and Republican National Committee
Chairman Haley Barbour said this week, referring to labor unions’ objections to a guest-worker program. Worker Program Former Pennsylvania
Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat co- chairing an immigration task force with Barbour at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, said
it is
ultimately up to Obama to persuade Democrats not to abandon the bill if the immigrant-worker
program doesn’t match the unions’ agenda. “If we don’t get guest-worker provisions that are exactly in line with what
labor wants, we can’t hold up the bill because of that,” Rendell said. “We’ve got to do the best we
can to preserve and protect the interests of organized labor, but in the end you can’t always get what you want.” Obama,
he added, has “his work cut out for him.”
Even if some passage is inevitable, democrats are key to a compromise on visas – that’s key
Palmer 3-21
[Anna. Politics for Politico. “GOP: Unions to Blame if Immigration Reform Fails” Politico, 3/21/13 ln//GBS-JV]
An immigration reform bill hasn’t even been unveiled, but key
Republican lawmakers are already singling out
unions as the reason why a deal could fail. The GOP offensive taps into long-simmering
disagreement between the business community and unions over how to handle visas for low-skilled workers,
which was one key reason why comprehensive immigration reform failed in 2007, the last time the issue
was debated seriously in Washington. Sen. Marco Rubio told POLITICO the guest worker program is key to his supporting immigration reform. “I
don’t think it’s any secret that
in the past, unions killed immigration reform ,” Sen. Marco Rubio said. “I think because
of pressure from some of their members, they’ve at least publicly changed their stance on this. But I don’t think they are doing cartwheels over
this.” Republicans
are walking a fine line on immigration reform, trying not to alienate their base
while hoping to attract millions of Latino voters that supported Democrats in the 2012 election. An immigration
package without a guest worker program is almost guaranteed to fail . “I’m not going to be a part of a bill that
doesn’t create a process so people can come temporarily to work if we need them,” Rubio said. “They can’t undercut American workers, but if
we don’t have a system for foreign workers to come temporarily when we need them, we’re going to have an illegal immigration problem
again.” Unions take issue with Rubio’s position that they aren’t working in good faith to find a compromise for how visas for low-skilled workers
should be regulated. AFL-CIO’s Ana Avendaño said that Republicans trying to cast unions as the reason for immigration reform to fail “reek of
desperation.” “It is their last gasp of trying to rewrite the rules of future flow to undermine the wages of local workers,” Avendaño said, arguing
that constituents and the Latino population wouldn’t be swayed by Rubio’s argument that a plan for low-wage workers held up citizenship for
11 million people. But Rubio is hardly alone. Other Republican
leaders on immigration reform like Rep. Raul Labrador are also
sounding the alarm against unions. An amendment that President Barack Obama backed in 2007 would have stripped out the
guest worker provision and was one of the issues that thwarted immigration reform happening last time. Republican opposition to immigration
reform at the time was well-documented. “It’s the labor unions
who do not want a guest worker program that’s
viable, that’s functional,” the Idaho Republican said. “They’re fighting right now in the Senate to make the guest worker
program so unwieldy, so expensive that no one will use it.” He added: “There’s no way that a Republican
would vote for immigration without a workable guest worker program. I think the unions know that, and if
you see any break apart in this immigration reform thing that we’re doing, it’s going to be because the unions and the Democratic senators are
unwilling to do what the American people want because they are willing to put the labor unions ahead of the American people.”
Impacts
Ext. Visa Provision Key
The guestworker provision is key to any meaningful immigration reform – even if some
immigration legislation is inevitable, only political capital ensures a substantial change, which
means there’s uniqueness for the DA in the context of our impacts
Nowrasteh 3-6
[Alex. Immigration at CATO. “Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform” 3/6/13 Real Clear Politics //GBS-JV]
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO reached a tentative agreement to support
increasing lawful migration through a guest-worker program for lower-skilled migrants. The details are obscure, but this
agreement is an essential first step for successful immigration reform — a step so far ignored by the Obama
administration.¶ Without a guest-worker program, quite simply, immigration reform will fail.¶ Overwhelmingly,
immigrants come to the United States because they want jobs, and American businesses have
jobs to give. Legalizing the unauthorized migrants already here is a sound policy, but without a
legal channel for workers to come, others will continue to enter the country illegally.¶ Policymakers
seem to forget that there is recent evidence to this effect. Ronald Reagan instituted an amnesty in 1986, but unauthorized immigration
continued unabated. Increased border and immigration enforcement — and it did increase — couldn’t stem the tide.¶ It is foolish to expect
legalization and enforcement alone to stop unauthorized immigration. The demand is too strong on both sides of the labor equation. We need
reforms that adapt to that reality.¶ Why is President Obama
ignoring a guest-worker visa program? Because
unions — one of the president’s most valued constituencies — have historically opposed guest workers. ¶ A 2007
immigration reform effort largely failed because of union efforts to kill it. Late in the game,
Senate Democrats amended the bill to end its guest-worker program after five years. The
amendment passed 49-48 — with then-Sen. Obama, ominously, voting in favor. As a result, Republicans and business interests
that supported increased lawful immigration withdrew their support , and the reform effort collapsed.
Turns Case – General
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.
More evidence
Gittelson ‘9
(Citation: 23 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 115 2009 THE CENTRISTS AGAINST THE IDEOLOGUES: WHAT ARE THE FALSEHOODS THAT
DIVIDE AMERICANS ON THE ISSUE OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM Robert Gittelson has been a garment manufacturer in the Los
Angeles area for over twenty-five years. His wife, Patricia Gittelson, is an immigration attorney with offices in Van Nuys and Oxnard, California.
Robert also works closely with Patricia on the administrative side of her immigration practice. Throughout his career, Mr. Gittelson has
developed practical, first-hand experience in dealing with the immigration issues that are challenging our country today. )
In the alternative, should we fail to pass CIR, and instead opt to deport or force attrition on these millions of economic refugees
through an enforcement-only approach to our current undocumented immigrant difficulties, what would be the net result? Forgetting
for now the devastating effect on our own economy, and the worldwide reproach and loss of
moral authority that we would frankly deserve should we act so callously and thoughtlessly, there
is another important political imperative to our passing CIR that affects our national security, and the security and political
stability of our neighbors in our hemisphere. That is the very real threat of communism and/or socialism. First of all, the
primary reason why millions of undocumented economic refugees migrated to the United
States is because the economies of their home countries were unable to support them . They
escaped extreme poverty and oppression, and risked literally everything they had, including their lives and their freedom, to come to this
country to try to work hard and support themselves and their families. Deporting
our illegal immigrant population back
to primarily Latin America would boost the communist and socialist movements in that part of
our hemisphere, and if the anti-immigrationists only understood that fact, they might rethink their "line in the sand" position on
what they insist on calling 'amnesty. Communism thrives where hope is lost. The economies of Latin American nations
are struggling to barely reach a level of meager subsistence for the population that has
remained at home; Mexico, for example, has already lost 14% of their able-bodied workers to U.S. migration.3" Without the
billions of dollars in remissions from these nations' expatriates working in the United States
that go back to help support their remaining family members, the economies of many of these
countries, most of whom are in fact our allies, would certainly collapse, or at least deteriorate
to dangerously unstable levels. The addition of millions of unemployed and frustrated deported
people who would go to the end of the theoretical unemployment lines of these already
devastated economies would surely cause massive unrest and anti-American sentiment. The issue
of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is not simply a domestic issue. In our modern global economy, everything that
we do, as the leaders of that global economy, affects the entire world, and most especially our
region of the world. If we were to naively initiate actions that would lead to the destabilization
of the Mexican and many Central and South American governments, while at the same time
causing serious harm to our own economy (but I digress ... ), it would most assuredly lead to
disastrous economic and political consequences. By the way, I'm not simply theorizing here. In point of fact, over the
past few years, eight countries in Latin America have elected leftist leaders. Just last year, Guatemala swore in their first leftist president in
more than fifty years, Alvaro Colom.3" He joins a growing list. Additional countries besides Guatemala, Venezuela,32 and Nicaragua33 that have
sworn in extreme left wing leaders in Latin America recently include Brazil,34 Argentina,3 5 Bolivia,36 Ecuador,37 and Uruguay.3s This
phenomenon is not simply a coincidence; it is a trend. The political infrastructure of Mexico is under extreme pressure from the left.39 Do we
really want a leftist movement on our southern border? If
our political enemies such as the communists Chavez in
Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua are calling the shots in Latin America, what kind of
cooperation can we expect in our battle to secure our southern border ?
Turns Energy
Skilled workers key to energy
Lavelle ‘8
Marianne Lavelle, energy editor for National Geographic Digital Media, has spent more than two decades covering environment, business, and
energy. “A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry,” March 13, http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2008/03/13/a-workershortage-in-the-nuclear-industry
The reason for the hurry: Big
energy construction will be booming in the next decade, concentrated in the South—not
only nuclear generators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, and electricity transmission lines. All
projects need skilled craft workers, and they are in drastically short supply .¶ The utility Southern Co.
estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20,000 workers in the Southeast. That shortfall
will balloon to 40,000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay is inching up and hours are increasing for workers who are
certified craftsmen. Fluor says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-into-overtime 50hour weeks that had been planned.¶ Looking ahead, the
nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to
the skilled-labor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but workers in the 104
atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. But in the next five years, just as the industry
hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers—35 percent of the workforce—will reach retirement
age.¶ "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing
concern," likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent
report.
Turns Hegemony
Reform’s key to heg
Nye 12
Joseph S. Nye, 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
CAMBRIDGE – 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 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.Ӧ 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 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 AsianAmericans 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, Chineseand 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 Navy
Effective immigration reform’s key to naval power
Council on Competitiveness 9
[ “Mobilizing a World Class Energy Workforce” December -- http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/CoC__Pillar_6_Handout_-_Mobilizing_a_World-Class_Energy_Workforce,_Dec09.pdf]
America currently lacks an energy workforce of sufficient size and capabilities to meet the needs
¶ of a sustainable, secure energy system.1¶ With increasing demand come abundant job ¶ opportunities in both traditional and emerging
energy industries. Unfortunately, U.S. workers are ¶ neither aware nor sufficiently prepared to take them. Moreover, with an aging population
and the ¶ retirement of the baby boomers well under way, there
is an inadequate pipeline of replacement ¶
workers, technicians and managers to succeed them. ¶ The United States stands to lose half of its electric power
industry workforce within the next five to ten ¶ years due to retirement. America’s oil and gas workforce averages 50
years in age; half are likely to retire ¶ soon. Workers in these conventional energy sector jobs, from power plant operators
to transmission line ¶ and pipeline workers, are retiring at a much faster rate than they are being replaced. The introduction of ¶
any new energy technologies will not compensate for this workforce shortage. For example, in the
nuclear ¶ industry, the fact that there has been no new construction of a nuclear facility in the
United States in over ¶ 30 years has led to the atrophy of skills, the loss of technicians, the
dearth of American students in ¶ nuclear engineering and a national security risk for the
primarily nuclear-powered U.S. Navy. 2 The development, installation and ¶ maintenance of new technologies ¶ require skills
at all levels of educational ¶ training. Many of these jobs, such as ¶ building new power plants, cannot be ¶ exported and will remain in the
United ¶ States. So-called “green collar” jobs ¶ could fill this gap over time and provide ¶ for significant domestic employment ¶ growth, but
capitalizing on this ¶ opportunity will require government ¶ being proactive in developing programs ¶ to provide the necessary skills. ¶
Government should provide a 21st ¶ century education to match the 21st ¶ century job opportunities, requirements ¶ and needs. ¶ There is
growing global competition for ¶ scientific and engineering talent today,¶ and the U.S. pipeline of students is ¶ slowing.3¶ The private sector,
where the overwhelming majority of careers will be, knows best the current ¶ opportunities that are not being met. Executives
cite
the lack of scientific, engineering and skilled talent as¶ among the most serious challenges
facing their businesses today.4¶ They know what skills will be required ¶ and can assist in developing the workforce of the future
by working closely with educational institutions as ¶ well as within their own organizations.
Skilled Labor Impact – 1st Line
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 highlyskilled 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.”
Ext. Skilled Labor IL
The deal’s key to skilled labor and innovation
Mobarak 2-12
[Mushfiq. Prof Econ Yale School Management. “Immigration and Innovation” The New York Times, 2/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
The United States economy has a comparative advantage in science and innovation. The country of
Apple, Google, Facebook, Ford, General Motors, Boeing, Microsoft and FedEx thrives by creating new products and introducing entirely new
markets. The American economy is innovation-driven, and such innovation requires, first and foremost, people with good ideas and skilled
workers who can transform those ideas into marketable products. Where does all this talent that our economy is built on originate? Are
we
the innovation leaders because we have a monopoly on talent in the world?¶ The basic data
suggest otherwise. American secondary school students consistently rank toward the bottom
among their counterparts in other countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in tests measuring science and
mathematics aptitude. The
United States has sustained its primary position as developer of new
scientific knowledge and product innovations, despite the deficiencies in math and science training, with the
immigration of skilled workers .¶ Talented people across the world are attracted to the
institutions that the United States has carefully cultivated to support innovation . By any reasonable
assessment, a clear majority of the world’s top universities are in the United States. These universities
attract talent from all over the globe. Most engineering Ph.D.’s granted at American universities now go to people born
abroad. In a recently published paper, my colleagues and I show that these foreign-born doctoral students create
new scientific knowledge and fuel innovation at science and engineering labs at American
universities. In that paper, increases in the supply of foreign students subsequently result in
significantly greater publications and citations from science and engineering departments in the
United States. Many of those students remain in the country after graduation and contribute to the
innovations produced by American companies.¶ Such data on the contributions of foreign
students to American innovation strongly support the spirit and the central provisions of
immigration reform proposals offered by the White House and by Senators Orrin Hatch, Marco Rubio, Amy Klobuchar and Chris
Coons. (Three of the senators are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will take up the issue of comprehensive immigration
reform at a hearing on Wednesday.) If
talented foreigners want to study and work in the United States,
economic logic and the data suggest that we should welcome them. American companies working in the very sectors
where our comparative advantage lies benefit from their presence. Such a policy also creates other rare but significant
benefits for the future of the nation. A typical profile of a recent Nobel laureate is a United States citizen or someone trained
or teaching at an American university, but who was born in a foreign country.¶ One might be tempted to conclude from
this narrative that our immigration system is working well, but this conclusion is premature and
dangerous for two reasons. First, the United States is not the only country in the market for that talent .
Three of the five most recent Nobel laureates from Britain were not born there. Australian and British educators were overjoyed with the
quality of their international student applicant pool when the United States instituted restrictions on student visas after 9/11. Other countries
deliberately pursue immigration policies to spur innovation.¶ Second,
it’s impossible to know the counterfactual :
how much better off we would have been had our immigration policies been more welcoming to
skilled people? American citizens like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg made brave decisions to drop out of school and start some of
the most successful companies in the history of the planet. As a former foreign doctoral student, I can attest that under current immigration
policies, such decisions are not easy to make for foreign students. For noncitizens trying to create a foothold in this country, it is virtually
impossible to take the risks that these remarkable people took.
With no clear path to citizenship, talented
entrepreneurs who are foreign-born find it very risky to start businesses . Their options are limited to
taking a salaried position with an employer who could sponsor their visa, or to marry an American. Our policies could be revised
to promote entrepreneurial risk-taking by the top talent regardless of their country of origin,
because just one Microsoft, or a Google or a Facebook, can change the world.¶ The blueprint offered by
Senator Hatch and colleagues is full of sensible provisions, including work permits for spouses
of H-1B workers. Talented people often meet and marry other educated, talented people, and having those productive spouses sit at
home is a dead-weight loss to the United States economy. Residents at any major university town in the country will recognize ads from overqualified babysitters “informally” willing to look after your children.¶ This
bill will receive predictable pushback with
simplistic arguments from special interest groups worried about skilled migrants undercutting
American wages. But as other research has shown, immigrants make a net positive contribution to the United
States economy, as they create more jobs than they take away, and their presence increases income
per worker in the United States. Arguments that skilled immigrants will displace American workers, and
thereby prevent young Americans from pursuing degrees in science, fail to recognize that entrepreneurs and
innovators start new companies and invent new products that employ more skilled workers. Do
we really believe that people like Sergey Brin or Albert Einstein took away more jobs than they created? Or that Facebook, Instagram or exciting
new product lines from Google or Microsoft do not attract more young Americans to science¶ If
skilled foreigners getting stuck
to their visa sponsors in indentured low-wage work is a concern, then visa policies should be
reformed to allow foreign-born entrepreneurs the flexibility to start their own businesses, not to
pursue policies that keep them from our shores. Indeed, the White House’s proposal for immigration reform includes such a provision for a
“start-up visa” for foreign-born entrepreneurs.¶ Another
counterargument to high-skilled immigration involves
the concept of “brain drain” – worries that by attracting talent here, we are taking away the best and the brightest from other
countries that have greater need for that talent. The fact is, these immigrants typically contribute more to their
countries of origin than people who are prevented from leaving at all. This is because of the
tremendously higher productivity of workers educated in the United States . Labor is the second largest
export from Bangladesh, the country where I was born, and remittances account for over 10 percent of our gross domestic product. I, like many
other first-generation immigrants, have continued contributing to the development of my country of birth, by combining the skills I acquired in
the United States with my context-specific knowledge to pursue research and policies that address some of the key public health and
development challenges in Bangladesh. One project demonstrates, for example, that promoting internal (rural to urban) seasonal migration is a
very cost-effective way to counter a recurring pre-harvest famine.¶ The
internal migration strategy works because it
creates a better match between where people are and where the complementary inputs (capital,
jobs) are during certain seasons, and this leads to enhanced efficiency and productivity. Attracting
talented people to the United States and allowing them to interact with the innovative
universities and companies creates similar efficiency gains that can be a win-win for the source
countries and for the United States.
More ev deal solves skilled labor and reverses the brain drain
Weihua ’13
(Chen, “US immigration reform a challenge for China”, China Daily, 2-8-2013)
The proposed immigration reform , which has sparked a heated debate across the United States, has not only raised hopes
for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, it has also thrilled Chinese students now studying in American
colleges and universities.¶ According to the proposals put forward by some Democrat and Republican senators as well as President
Barack Obama, the US will offer more work visas and green cards to high-level professionals and
foreign students with advanced degrees, especially STEM students, that is, those in the fields of
science, technology, engineering and mathematics.¶ Washington has been tightening its immigration policy since the
Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, making it more difficult for foreign professionals and students to find jobs and live in
the US. But the policy has been criticized by many and described by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as "national suicide".
Deal’s key to High-Skilled – Current items don’t thump
Preston 1-12
[Julia Preston, Obama Will Seek Citizenship Path in One Fast Push, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/us/politics/obama-plans-to-pushcongress-on-immigration-overhaul.html?_r=0]
Even while Mr. Obama has been focused on fiscal negotiations and gun control, overhauling
immigration remains a priority for him this year, White House officials said. Top officials there have been
quietly working on a broad proposal. Mr. Obama and lawmakers from both parties believe that the
early months of his second term offer the best prospects for passing substantial legislation on the issue.¶ Mr. Obama is
expected to lay out his plan in the coming weeks, perhaps in his State of the Union address early next month,
administration officials said. The White House will argue that its solution for illegal immigrants is not an amnesty, as many critics insist, because
it would include fines, the payment of back taxes and other hurdles for illegal immigrants who would obtain legal status, the officials said.¶
The president’s plan would also impose nationwide verification of legal status for all newly hired
workers; add visas to relieve backlogs and allow highly skilled immigrants to stay; and create some
form of guest-worker program to bring in low-wage immigrants in the future.¶ A bipartisan group of senators has also been
meeting to write a comprehensive bill, with the goal of introducing legislation as early as March and holding a vote in the Senate before August.
As a sign of the keen interest in starting action on immigration, White House officials and Democratic leaders
in the Senate have been negotiating over which of them will first introduce a bill, Senate aides said.¶ “This is so important
now to both parties that neither the fiscal cliff nor guns will get in the way,” said Senator Charles E.
Schumer of New York, a Democrat who is a leader of the bipartisan discussions.¶ A similar attempt at bipartisan legislation early in
Mr. Obama’s first term collapsed amid political divisions fueled by surging public wrath over illegal immigration in many states.
But both supporters and opponents say conditions are significantly different now.¶ Memories of the results of the
November election are still fresh here. Latinos, the nation’s fastest-growing electorate, turned out in record numbers and cast 71 percent of
their ballots for Mr. Obama. Many Latinos said they were put off by Republicans’ harsh language and policies against illegal immigrants.¶
After the election, a host of Republicans, starting with Speaker John A. Boehner, said it was time for the party
to find a more positive, practical approach to immigration. Many party leaders say electoral demographics are
compelling them to move beyond policies based only on tough enforcement.¶ Supporters of comprehensive changes say that the
elections were nothing less than a mandate in their favor, and that they are still optimistic that Mr. Obama is prepared to
lead the fight.¶ “Republicans must demonstrate a reasoned approach to start to rebuild their relationship with Latino voters,” said
Clarissa Martinez de Castro, the director of immigration policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Latino organization. “Democrats must
demonstrate they can deliver on a promise.Ӧ Since the election, Mr. Obama
has repeatedly pledged to act on
immigration this year. In his weekly radio address on Saturday, he again referred to the urgency of fixing the immigration system,
saying it was one of the “difficult missions” the country must take on.
More ev – they deal’s key to retain the best & brightest
ADS 2-10
[Arizona Daily Sun 2-10-13. azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editorial/cooperation-on-immigration-reform-only-way-forward/article_c5b261e3e267-566f-a235-3de051bdce57.html]
And what does reform look like? Both the bipartisan Senate package and President Obama's plan start with even more border
security and better enforcement of the federal employment verification system and temporary visas that are overstayed. These are just as
important to border security as any 20-foot-high fence -- would-be migrants who have heard they cannot find work and who know they will be
tracked down once their visas expire will think twice before leaving Mexico for Arizona.¶
LET SCIENCE GRADUATES STAY¶
For
those illegals already here, a system of registration, payment of fines, the requirement to learn English, and a waiting period for green cards
and citizenship that likely will be at least 10 years doesn't sound like amnesty to us. The
devil, of course, is in the details, but the
principles of reform should be clear: Bring millions of undocumented aliens out of the shadows,
allow them to work legally and pay taxes, and bring them into the mainstream of American culture.¶ Flagstaff, as a
university city, has a stake in the part of the reform package that calls for an immediate increase in the number
H-1B visas for foreign workers skilled in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). NAU is attracting
hundreds of foreign students in those fields, some of whom would gladly stay past graduation if
they could obtain visas. Based on the number of foreign-born U.S citizens who start businesses,
obtain patents and even win Nobel Prizes, this is just the kind of immigration reform that Flagstaff, a
self-declared STEM city, needs.
More ev
Redorbit 8
(Science, Tech, and Space News Agency, "Aerospace Industry Faces Coming Worker Shortage", 3-4,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1281235/aerospace_industry_faces_coming_worker_shortage/) Kerwin
As the large baby boom generation retires over the next decade, the aerospace and defense
industries will be particularly hard hit, and industry officials worry there are not enough
qualified young Americans to take the place of these retiring Cold War scientists and engineers.
As of last year, nearly 60 percent of U.S. aerospace workers were 45 or older, according to an Associated Press report. The problem
could carry national security implications, and significantly reduce the number of commercial
product developments that begin with military technology. Although there are two-and-a-half times the number
of engineering, math and computer science graduates as there were 40 years ago, there is also more competition for these graduates. Defense
companies must now compete with leading technology companies such as Google, Microsoft and Verizon. "It’s about choices," said Rich
Hartnett, director of global staffing at Boeing Co., in an Associated Press interview. "There are so many more options today with a proliferation
in the kinds of degrees and career paths that people can follow." But despite the industry’s efforts to emphasize the appeal and growing
importance of careers involved in national defense, Aerospace Industries Association Chief Executive Marion Blakey is concerned the U.S. could
be facing a "wake-up call," similar to the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik, the world’s first satellite. Blakey said China’s
recent
success in shooting down one of its own satellites last year, combined with the upcoming
retirement of the U.S. space shuttle fleet, demonstrate that the U.S. can no longer afford to
take its technological and military superiority for granted. Blakey formerly served as head of the Federal Aviation
Administration. In addition to fierce competition for a limited number of technical experts from all
corners of corporate America, contractors working on classified government projects are
further held back due to restrictions on hiring foreigners or off-shoring work to other countries.
"The ability to attract and retain individuals with technical skills is a lifeblood issue for us," said Ian
Ziskin, corporate vice president and chief human resources and administrative officer for Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp. Ziskin
told AP that he estimates roughly half of Northrop Grumman’s 122,000 workers will be eligible to retire in the next five to 10 years. Similar
trends exist at Lockheed Martin Corp., of Bethesda, Md., which could lose up to half of its 140,000 workers to retirement over the next decade.
Biotech Impact
Reform’s key to biotech
Schuster 2-17
(Dr. Sheldon – President @ Keck Graduate Institute, “Immigration Reform Could Lead to Great Things, Including Better Science and Better
Science Education” 02/17/2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sheldon-schuster/immigration-reform-could-_b_2706832.html)
These students and young researchers not only do amazing things while they're here but their ideas and their drive enhances the quality of
education for all of our students and the quality of life for all of our citizens. There
can be a multiplying effect to
innovation when international knowledge and ideas gain their own traction in homegrown
academic institutions and industries. German rocket scientists who came to work in the U.S. in the wake of World War II were
not solely responsible for landing Neil Armstrong on the moon. But they were the core from which a great international
community of scholars and engineers were able to take NASA to astounding heights. The input
of international students teaches all of our students how to integrate ideas that may vary greatly from
their own and how to approach problems from a global perspective -- two skills that are required
for success in the life science industry and that we need if we are to continue to remain the
world leader in the rapidly advancing biotechnologies , such as individualized human genome sequencing.
Reforming our immigration system so that more young professionals like these have the option to
work in the United States not only boosts the national economy and strengthens the biotech hubs
here in Southern California, which are so important to my state's economy, it also improves the quality of U.S. academic
institutions, and, ultimately, is likely to hasten the pace of scientific discovery and innovation. It will
certainly go a long way toward keeping the U.S. and its academic institutions at the center of
such discovery and innovation.
Key to GM foods
Martino-Catt and Sachs ‘8
[Susan J. Martino-Catt, Monsanto Company Member of Plant Physiology Editorial Board, Eric S. Sachs Monsanto Company Member of ASPB
Education Foundation Board of Directors, “ Editor's Choice Series: The Next Generation of Biotech Crops,” Plant Physiology 147:3-5 (2008)]
Crop genetic modification using traditional methods has been essential for improving food quality and
abundance; however, farmers globally are steadily increasing the area planted to crops improved with
modern biotechnology. Breakthroughs in science and genetics have expanded the toolbox of
genes available for reducing biotic stressors, such as weeds, pests, and disease, which reduce agricultural productivity. Today, plant
scientists are leveraging traditional and modern approaches in tandem to increase crop yields, quality, and economic returns, while reducing
the environmental consequences associated with the consumption of natural resources, such as water, land, and fertilizer, for agriculture.¶
The current need to accelerate agricultural productivity on a global scale has never been
greater or more urgent. At the same time, the need to implement more sustainable approaches to
conserve natural resources and preserve native habitats is also of paramount importance. The
challenge for the agricultural sector is to: (1) deliver twice as much food in 2050 as is produced today (Food
and Agricultural Organization of the World Health Organization, 2002Go); (2) reduce environmental impacts by producing
more from each unit of land, water, and energy invested in crop production (Raven, 2008Go); (3) adapt
cropping systems to climate changes that threaten crop productivity and food security on local
and global levels; and (4) encourage the development of new technologies that deliver economic returns for all farmers, small and
large. These are important and challenging goals, and are much more so when real or perceived
risks lead to regulatory and policy actions that may slow the adoption of new technology.
Optimistically, the adoption of rational approaches for introducing new agricultural and food
technologies should lead to more widespread use that in turn will help address the agricultural
challenges and also increase the acceptance of modern agricultural biotechnology (Raven, 2008Go).¶
In the 12 years since commercialization of the first genetically modified (GM) crop in 1996, farmers have planted more than 690 million
hectares (1.7 billion acres; James, 2007Go) without a single confirmed incidence of health or environmental harm (Food and Agricultural
Organization of the World Health Organization, 2004Go; National Academy of Sciences, 2004Go). In the latest International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications report, planting of biotech crops in 2007 reached a new record of 114.3 million hectares (282.4 million
acres) planted in 23 countries, representing a 12.3% increase in acreage from the previous year (James, 2007Go). Farmer benefits associated
with planting of GM crops include reduced use of pesticides and insecticides (Brookes and Barfoot, 2007Go), increased safety for nontarget
species (Marvier et al., 2007Go; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007Go), increased adoption of
reduced/conservation tillage and soil conservation practices (Fawcett and Towry, 2002Go), reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural
The first generation of
biotech crops focused primarily on the single gene traits of herbicide tolerance and insect
resistance. These traits were accomplished by the expression of a given bacterial gene in the crops. In the case of herbicide tolerance,
practices (Brookes and Barfoot, 2007Go), as well as increased yields (Brookes and Barfoot, 2007Go).¶
expression of a glyphosate-resistant form of the gene CP4 EPSPS resulted in plants being tolerant to glyphosate (Padgette et al., 1995Go).
Similarly, expression of an insecticidal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis in plants resulted in protection of the plants from damage due to
insect feeding (Perlak et al., 1991Go). Both of these early biotech products had well-defined mechanisms of action that led to the desired
phenotypes. Additional products soon came to market that coupled both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance in the same plants. As
farmers adopt new products to maximize productivity and profitability on the farm, they are increasingly planting crops with "stacked traits" for
management of insects and weeds and "pyramided traits" for management of insect resistance. The actual growth in combined trait products
The next
generation of biotech crops promises to include a broad range of products that will provide
benefits to both farmers and consumers, and continue to meet the global agricultural
challenges. These products will most likely involve regulation of key endogenous plant pathways resulting in improved quantitative traits,
was 22% between 2006 and 2007, which is nearly twice the growth rate of overall planting of GM crops (James, 2007Go).¶
such as yield, nitrogen use efficiency, and abiotic stress tolerance (e.g. drought, cold). These quantitative traits are known to typically be
multigenic in nature, adding a new level of complexity in describing the mechanisms of action that underlie these phenotypes.
In addition
to these types of traits, the first traits aimed at consumer benefits, such as healthier oils and
enhanced nutritional content, will also be developed for commercialization.¶ As with the first generation,
successful delivery of the next generation of biotech crops to market will depend on establishing their food, feed, and environmental safety.
Scientific and regulatory authorities have acknowledged the potential risks associated with genetic modification of all kinds, including
traditional cross-breeding, biotechnology, chemical mutagenesis, and seed radiation, yet have established a safety assessment framework only
for biotechnology-derived crops designed to identify any potential food, feed, and environmental safety risks prior to commercial use.
Importantly, it has been concluded that crops
developed through modern biotechnology do not pose
significant risks over and above those associated with conventional plant breeding (National Academy
of Sciences, 2004Go). The European Commission (2001)Go acknowledged that the greater regulatory scrutiny given to
biotech crops and foods probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods . The
current comparative safety assessment process has been repeatedly endorsed as providing assurance of safety and nutritional quality by
identifying similarities and differences between the new food or feed crop and a conventional counterpart with a history of safe use (Food and
Drug Administration, 1992Go; Food and Agricultural Organization of the World Health Organization, 2002Go; Codex Alimentarius, 2003Go;
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003Go; European Food Safety Authority, 2004Go; International Life Sciences
Institute, 2004Go). Any differences are subjected to an extensive evaluation to determine whether there are any associated health or
Biotech crops
undergo detailed phenotypic, agronomic, morphological, and compositional analyses to identify potential harmful
effects that could affect product safety. This process is a rigorous and robust assessment that is applicable to the next
environmental risks, and, if so, whether the identified risks can be mitigated though preventative management.¶
generation of biotech crops that potentially could include genetic changes that modulate the expression of one gene, several genes, or entire
pathways. The safety assessment will characterize the nature of the inserted molecules, as well as their function and effect within the plant and
the overall safety of the resulting crop. This
well-established and proven process will provide assurance of
the safety of the next generation of biotech crops and help to reinforce rational approaches
that enable the development and commercial use of new products that are critical to meeting
agriculture's challenges.
Alternative’s extinction
Trewavas ‘2k
(Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology – University of Edinburgh, “GM Is the Best Option We Have”, AgBioWorld, 6-5,
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/best_option.html)
There are some Western critics who oppose any solution to world problems involving technological progress. They denigrate this remarkable
achievement. These luddite individuals found in some Aid organisations instead attempt to impose their primitivist western views on those
countries where blindness and child death are common. This new form of Western cultural domination or neo-colonialism, because such it is,
should be repelled by all those of good will. Those who stand to benefit in the third world will then be enabled to make their own choice freely
about what they want for their own children. But these are foreign examples; global
warming is the problem that requires
the UK to develop GM technology. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will
simply lead to a wetter climate and be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this
situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters. There
are already
worrying signs of salinity changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged
and necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We
would not have much warning. Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between
stable states in fractions of a decade. Even if the climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and
rampant disease will be the consequence. GM technology can enable new crops to be
constructed in months and to be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM
offers. The UK populace needs to much more positive about GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D. a volcano near the
present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200 million Hiroshima A bombs. The dense cloud of
dust so reduced the intensity of the sun that for at least two years thereafter, summer turned
to winter and crops here and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere failed completely. The population
survived by hunting a rapidly vanishing population of edible animals . The after-effects continued for a decade
and human history was changed irreversibly. But the planet recovered. Such examples of benign nature's
wisdom, in full flood as it were, dwarf and make miniscule the tiny modifications we make upon our
environment. There are apparently 100 such volcanoes round the world that could at any time
unleash forces as great. And even smaller volcanic explosions change our climate and can easily
threaten the security of our food supply. Our hold on this planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D.
explosion would destroy much of our civilisation. Only those with agricultural technology sufficiently advanced
would have a chance at survival. Colliding asteroids are another problem that requires us to be
forward-looking accepting that technological advance may be the only buffer between us and
annihilation. When people say to me they do not need GM, I am astonished at their prescience, their ability to read a benign future in a
crystal ball that I cannot. Now is the time to experiment; not when a holocaust is upon us and it is too late. GM is a technology
whose time has come and just in the nick of time. With each billion that mankind has added to
the planet have come technological advances to increase food supply. In the 18th century, the start of
agricultural mechanisation; in the 19th century knowledge of crop mineral requirements, the eventual Haber Bosch process for nitrogen
reduction. In the 20th century plant genetics and breeding, and later the green revolution. Each time population growth has been sustained
without enormous loss of life through starvation even though crisis often beckoned. For the 21st century, genetic
manipulation is
our primary hope to maintain developing and complex technological civilisations. When the
climate is changing in unpredictable ways, diversity in agricultural technology is a strength and
a necessity not a luxury. Diversity helps secure our food supply. We have heard much of the precautionary principle in recent years;
my version of it is "be prepared".
Russian Bioweapons Impact
Expanding visas is key to Russian bioweapon security – otherwise there’s no check on
pathogen engineering
Brumfiel ‘3
[Geoff. Physical Science for Nature. “Russia’s Bioweapons Labs: Still Out in the Cold” Nature, Vol 423. June 2003. Ebsco//GBS-JV]
Collaborations between Western researchers and former Soviet bioweapons scientists could
benefit both parties. But mistrust and bureaucracy are getting in the way , says Geoff Brumfiel.¶ In autumn
2001, three American researchers sped down a deserted two-lane road that cuts through the forests south of Moscow. They were travelling to
Obolensk, once a secret city and home to one of the former Soviet Union's largest bioweapons research complexes — the State Research
Center for Applied Microbiology.¶ The researchers were part of a programme, funded by the
Pentagon, that aims to keep
Russia's former bioweapons scientists gainfully employed on useful projects. Despite the dilapidated surroundings
in Obolensk, the visitors were enthused by the opportunities for collaboration. The crumbling concrete buildings "looked almost like a ghetto",
recalls Rebecca Morton, a veterinary scientist at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. But after two weeks, she had hatched a plan to work
with Obolensk researcher Vitaly Pavlov on endemic
Eurasian strains of Francisella tularensis. This bacterium causes
tularaemia, a potentially fatal and extremely infectious disease that affects the liver, spleen,
lungs and lymph nodes, which was studied at Obolensk because of its bioweapons potential.¶
Morton's project, which would study the surface proteins on different strains of the bacterium in an effort to develop strain-specific diagnostic
tests, is exactly the sort of initiative that the programme is designed to support. But almost 18 months down the line, she is no nearer to getting
the project under way. Although her proposal
has had positive peer review, the funding request is still
winding its way through the Pentagon's bureaucracy. "I haven't spoken to Vitaly for a while, because I don't have much to tell
him," says Morton. "It's a little embarrassing."¶ Obstacle course¶ Other researchers who hope to set up collaborations at the Obolensk
centre and its sister facility, the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology, known as Vector, at Koltsovo near Novosibirsk in Siberia,
are experiencing similar delays.
Cultural differences, mistrust between Russia and the United States, and
bureaucratic obstacles on both sides are all conspiring to stall promising avenues of
research .¶ After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, US funds flowed rapidly to former nuclear scientists
and rocket engineers, with the goal of preventing them from accepting lucrative offers from
countries eager to acquire an arsenal of ballistic nuclear weapons. But bioweaponeers were left out in the cold. The
reason, according to Amy Smithson, a senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center — a security-policy think-tank in Washington DC — was
that US officials lacked contacts inside the super-secret Soviet bioweapons network. "The
biological non-proliferation
programme literally had to be started from scratch," she says. As a result, more than half of the staff at
Obolensk and Vector melted away during the 1990s — to where, no one knows for sure.¶ Obolensk and Vector were two
research powerhouses in a network of facilities spread throughout the Soviet Union, known collectively as 'Biopreparat'. This network
weaponized diseases such as plague, anthrax, tularaemia, brucellosis and smallpox, behind the
façade of a state-run pharmaceutical enterprise. Scientists at Obolensk and Vector even genetically
engineered bacteria to resist antibiotics. In addition to the staff's expertise, the centres have containment
labs for working on dangerous pathogens — the provision of which is currently a limiting factor
in US plans to ramp up biodefence research.¶ With Russia now suffering epidemics of diseases such as
tuberculosis and AIDS, it stands to benefit from projects that would redirect the expertise at Obolensk
and Vector to these problems. " Russia is a time bomb right now," says Ann Harrington, who studies options for reducing the
threat of bioweapons at the National Defense University in Washington DC. "It has an enormous need for facilities that
can support public health, and that can monitor and identify disease ."¶ In her former job as acting director of
the US state department's Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction, Harrington helped to set up the programme that took Morton and her
colleagues to Obolensk. The modus operandi of this scheme, funded by the US Department of Defense and administered by the US National
Academies, is to build partnerships between Western academics and the former Soviet bioweapons establishment. A sister programme, run by
the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), a non-proliferation organization in Moscow funded in most part by the European
Union, Japan and the United States, aims to pay for more extended visits by foreign scientists to former Soviet bioweapons labs (see 'Blazing
the trail').¶ Take your partners¶ Under the National Academies scheme, researchers are paid to travel to Obolensk or Vector for up to two
weeks in search of partnerships. If they find a Russian to work with, they draw up a proposal, which is reviewed by the US academies' National
Research Council, and can win up to $10,000. The idea is that participants will then apply for further grants from the Pentagon, the ISTC or
other non-proliferation bodies.¶ Researchers selected for the first round of visits went to Russia in autumn 2001. "I had this idea that I could
essentially extend my lab and also switch to interesting organisms that I wouldn't be able to study in the United States," says Konstantin
Severinov, a microbiologist of Russian extraction who now works at Rutgers University in New Jersey.¶ But so far, little
progress has
been made towards realizing the programme's potential. At a National Academies meeting in Washington DC last December, Severinov and
Gregory Ebel, an immunologist with the New York State Department of Health in Slingerlands, expressed their frustration. Severinov, who
studies viruses called phages that infect bacteria, said that his research
explained that both US
at Obolensk has slowed to a crawl, and Ebel
and Russian customs officials were blocking transport of even the most simple
equipment.¶ The problems have several causes, but many stem from the secretive culture of Biopreparat. For decades, the network's
scientists were cut off from the outside world, other Russian researchers and even each other. Unsurprisingly, they are not familiar with the
grant writing, publication and peer review that underpins mainstream science.¶ At higher levels, trust
continues to be an issue.
Many senior managers at Obolensk and Vector are veterans from the Soviet era and have a deep
mistrust of the United States. They have almost absolute authority over their labs — determining what can flow to the West, and
having an obligation to the Russian state to protect classified research. "Scientists may be convicted for giving state secrets to foreigners," says
Ken Alibek, who served as deputy director of Biopreparat for five years before defecting to the United States in 1992.¶ As
a result of
these attitudes, some US politicians complain that the Russian labs are simply trying to take cash
handouts without opening themselves up to proper scrutiny. "We must ensure that the investment can be
directly traced to an actual tangible reduction in military threats," the chair of the House of Representatives
Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter (Republican, California), said at a hearing in January. Suspicions about the new schemes are
heightened by the experience of earlier non-proliferation programmes established in the former Soviet Union, which have been plagued by
corruption: lab administrators have been known to take a cut from each research grant at their facility.¶ Today, financial
checks are in
place to prevent such abuses, but these also slow research. Following a congressional crackdown, for instance, there
are now strict limits on how much of the funding can be spent by US researchers on projects in
Russia. "We have some money for travel," says Bruce Scharf, a veterinary scientist at the State University of New York's Downstate Medical
Center in Brooklyn, who is setting up a project to study rabies at Vector under the National Academies programme. "But I'm not paid a cent."¶
Closed borders¶ Perhaps
the most serious problems are those caused by customs and immigration
restrictions . Especially since the terrorist outrages of 11 September 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed, the US customs
service has enforced strict controls on the import of biological material. As a result, Scharf has been unable
to get the rabies samples he is studying at Vector into the United States. Similarly tough regulations on both the US and
Russian sides are preventing Sergey Morzunov, a Russian-born microbiologist at the University of Nevada at Reno,
from sending even basic materials, such as reagents for a DNA sequencing kit, to Vector. "The expiry date for my sequencing
kit is May 2003, but it is still sitting on a shelf in the warehouse," Morzunov complains.¶ New immigration regulations have
also stopped Russian partners in the programme from visiting the United States to build links
with their new Western colleagues, adds Vladimir Volkov, deputy director of the Obolensk facility. "Getting a visa for a
business trip to the States may now take over three months ," he says.
Russian bioweapons cause extinction
Maartens 6
(Dr. Willie, Ph.D. – Business Economics and Management, Mapping Reality: A Critical Perspective on Science and Religion, p. 251-252) Kerwin
The scientists are the ’high priests of today’ and their beliefs, dogmas, et cetera, will influence the
politicians, and the other decision-makers more than most. This situation might be the trigger to human
extinction, and more horribly the extinct-tion of other innocent species as well. When human civilization’s
radio signals eventually reach the nearest star at the speed of light, our civilization might have extinguished itself by that time already.
When it happens, it could happen very, very quickly. You just have to contemplate the mass of
biological weapons that the former USSR has developed, and stored on an Island in the Aral Sea to become
Super strains of Anthrax, that can even survive an atomic explosion, is but one of
the known deadly agents.
extremely scared.
Climate Impact
Skilled workers solve warming
Herman and Smith, 10
(Richard T. Herman is the founder of Richard T. Herman & Associates, an immigration and business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio which serves a
global clientele in over 10 languages. He is the co-founder of a chapter of TiE, a global network of entrepreneurs started in 1992 in Silicon
Valley. He has appeared on National Public Radio, FOX News, and various affiliates of NBC, CBS, and ABC. He has also been quoted in such
publications as USA Today,InformationWeek, PCWorld, ComputerWorld, CIO, Site Selection and National Lawyers Weekly, Robert L. Smith is a
veteran journalist who covers international cultures and immigration issues for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio’s largest newspaper. Bob grew
up in Cleveland, where he lives with his wife, Cleveland Orchestra violinist Chul-In Park, and their two children, Jae, 5, and Sun-Hee, 3. He has
written extensively about immigration issues and has interviewed people at all points of the immigrant experience, from undocumented field
workers to hugely successful entrepreneurs, Parts of this paper were excerpted from the book “Immigrant Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs
are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker)” (John Wiley & Sons, 2009) by Richard T. Herman & Robert L.
Smith. Available wherever books are sold, “Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy,” Immigation Policy Center,
http://immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/why-immigrants-can-drive-green-economy)
Raymond Spencer, an Australian-born entrepreneur based in Chicago, has a window on the future—and a gusto for investing after founding a
high-technology consulting company that sold for more than $1 billion in 2006. “I have investments in maybe 10 start-ups, all of which fall
within a broad umbrella of a ‘green’ theme,” he said. “And it’s interesting, the vast majority are either led by immigrants or have key technical
people who are immigrants.” 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.
Suffering an Antiquated System ▲ While unlimited H1-B visas are available to foreign workers
at U.S. government and university research labs, the antiquated green-card system creates a
disincentive for immigrant researchers who seek a more permanent stay and status in the
U.S. Anyone coming to America from a foreign land experiences the U.S. immigration system.
They seldom forget the experience. This vast bureaucracy, with tentacles reaching into myriad federal agencies, wields
enormous power over the lives of people trying to follow its directives. Federal immigration authorities decide if a persecuted family can escape
Congo, if a prospective college student from Germany will start the school year on time in Cleveland, or if a Honduran family separated for
years will be reunited in Miami. U.S. immigration law dictates who can enter America and how long they can stay. Congress can enact new
immigration policies as it deems fit—and it did so in 1986 and in 1990. But the foundation of the system remains the Federal Immigration and
Nationality Acts of 1965 and 1952. The 1965 act diversified America by opening immigration to new parts of the world, but it also levied
restrictions that soon become dated and counterproductive. In a manufacturing era, the act made family reunification an overarching goal,
while paying relatively little attention to the migration of highly skilled workers. In fact, it imposed rigid nationality quotas on skilled
immigrants. The result, critics say, is a dinosaur of a system ill-equipped to deal with the demands of a fast-changing, global economy.
[CONTINUED] “Our immigration laws discriminate pretty heavily against highly talented scientists and engineers who want to come to this
country and be part of our technological establishment,” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a Congressional panel in May 2009. Of
particular concern to employers and economists are two sets of quotas: one that limits the number of visas available to skilled workers, and
another that limits the visas available to a nationality. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) issues about 1 million green cards
per year. Also known as immigrant visas, green cards bestow permanent residency, or the right to live and work permanently in America. A
green card puts one on the path to citizenship. In a typical year, the vast majority of green cards go to people sponsored by a family member
already here. There is no limit to the numbers of green cards that can be issued to the spouses, parents, and unmarried children of naturalized
U.S. citizens. America accepts far fewer people whose main reason for coming is to practice a profession, to pursue science, or to start a
company—even if that person possesses extraordinary ability. The government is restricted by law to issuing 140,000 employment or skillbased green cards each year to applicants and their immediate family members. That’s about 15 percent of the immigrant visa pool. A chunk of
green cards are set aside for religious workers and wealthy investors, so the United States actually offers 120,000 employment-based green
cards each year. Within the employment visa categories, known as EB visas, are several subcategories that acknowledge skill levels. For
example, 40,000 visas are designated for persons of extraordinary ability—outstanding professors, researchers, and multinational executives.
Another 40,000 visas are designated for professionals with advanced academic degrees whose work will serve U.S. national interests. And
another 10,000 visas are available for wealthy people who commit to investing in a U.S. enterprise and creating jobs. So, out of 1 million green
cards issued in an average year, 90,000, or about 9 percent, are reserved for persons with advanced degrees, exceptional skills, or capital to
create jobs. Put another way, about 9 percent of immigrant visas are reserved for high-skill immigrants—the people driving the New Economy.
It’s a scant amount in the context of a U.S. labor force of 154 million people. Should those exceptional immigrants hail from a nation whose
workers are in high demand—for example, India and China—they face delays imposed by a nationality quota system. The 1965 immigration law
sets per-country limits on employment visas. People from any one nation cannot use more than 7 percent of the visas available that year. This
means that workers from large sending countries are forced to wait, sometimes more than 8 years, because their visa allotment has been
“oversubscribed” by their fellow citizens. The 7 percent quota applies equally to every nation on Earth, regardless of its size or the potential
number of immigrants it sends to America. For example, Malawi, which has a population of 10.5 million people, is allocated the same amount
of employment visas as India, which has a population of over 1 billion. In any given year, only 5,600 green cards are reserved for Indians with
advanced academic degrees or extraordinary ability, the same number available to nationals of Malawi. Congress has sought to circumvent the
quotas and respond to industry demands—especially in high technology—with guest worker visas like the H1-B, a source of some controversy.
The H-1B is a temporary visa for a professional offered a job by a U.S. company that agrees to pay the prevailing market wage. Only 65,000
regular H-1B visas are available each year, a quota set in the early 1990s and temporarily increased to 195,000 from 2001 to 2003. Many
employers say the cap is set too low to meet their needs, especially as they seek to staff engineering and software positions. Some lawmakers
would like to help them with a higher quota. These skilled immigrants often come to America as students, then go to work in growing
industries. A 2008 study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that for each worker hired on an H-1B visa, at least five new jobs
were created. But many labor groups argue that the cap is already set too high. Only a bachelor’s degree is required to qualify for this visa, and
critics charge the H-1B visas crowd skilled Americans out of the workplace, suppress wages, and make it easier for employers to outsource jobs
to low-cost countries like India. Even immigrant advocates criticize the H-1B as a second-class visa that produces an anxious life. Tied to their
employers, the guest workers cannot switch jobs unless their new employer is willing to sponsor their visa, and their spouses are not allowed to
work. The three-year visa can be renewed once. But after six years, the visa holder must go home unless he or she is able to get a green-card
sponsor. The
national-origin quotas, coupled with a limit of 90,000 immigrant visas reserved for
highly skilled professionals or investors, helps to explain why so many talented immigrants—
many of them H-1B visa holders—wait in vain for permission to live and work in America. Many
are now leaving the U.S., or simply not coming to study or work on an H1B. After revealing the high-skill
visa backlog in 2007, Vivek Wadhwa and his researchers at Duke University began to examine the impact. With the support of the Kauffman
Foundation, they surveyed about 1,200 Chinese and Indian professionals who had studied or worked in America and returned home. The
returnees were an impressive bunch, overwhelmingly young, smart, and ambitious, as described in the March 2009 report, “America’s Loss is
the World’s Gain.” Nearly 90 percent held master’s or doctorate degrees. Many said they expected to start their own companies. Homesickness
was common among the immigrants who went back, and many expressed frustration with the U.S. immigration system. But even more said the
home country suddenly offered good jobs and bright career prospects. That is the new reality that demands a response, Wadhwa argues.
Foreign-born mathematicians, engineers, and chemists can now find world-class companies in Bangalore, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Seoul, and
Singapore. With high-tech opportunities blossoming elsewhere, and anti-immigrant attitudes hardening in America, Wadhwa said his adopted
homeland faces a crisis. “The United States is no longer the only place where talented people can put their skills to work,” he writes. “It can no
longer expect them to endure the indignities and inefficiencies of an indifferent immigration system, and it must now actively compete to
attract these people with good jobs, security and other amenities.” The competition is heating up. In an earlier study, Wadhwa pointed out that
most high-skilled immigrants obtained their primary education before coming to America, meaning that the United States inherited the
benefits of schooling that was paid for elsewhere. Some countries are looking to recoup that investment and attract their diasporas back home.
Alberta, Canada, sensing an opportunity to snatch talent from America, is sending recruiting teams to U.S. cities to lure disgruntled foreign
professional workers on temporary H-1B visas. The province is offering expedited permanent-residency cards and quicker pathways to
entrepreneurship. Many researchers believe these immigrant-attraction strategies will show results. “The reality of the global economy is that
employers and their capital will follow the talent—wherever that talent is permitted to work and flourish,” Stuart Anderson, executive director
of the National Foundation for American Policy, wrote in 2007. “While members of Congress often talk about ‘protecting’ American jobs, those
who persist in pursuing restriction on hiring skilled foreign nationals unfortunately are inhibiting creation and innovation in the United States.”
In 2007, Microsoft opened up a research and development facility in Vancouver, Canada, just over the border from its Seattle headquarters.
Microsoft defended its decision by citing U.S. immigration restrictions on high-skilled talent. Perhaps no country understands better the role of
foreign talent in creating jobs for its people than Singapore. In July 2008, Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, declared that Singapore
must be open to foreign talent to achieve a “critical mass” for innovation and entrepreneurship. Even with the global recession in full swing,
Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng announced that restricting the entry of high-skill immigrants would be “short sighted” and
“could ultimately lead to more job losses for Singaporeans.” America loses more than innovation if newly minted graduates go elsewhere; it
loses tax dollars. A 2009 report by the respected Technology Policy Institute found that immigration restrictions cost billions in lost opportunity,
taxes, and wages. The institute concluded that legislation considered by Congress to loosen green-card and H-1B visa restrictions could reduce
the federal deficit on the order of $100 billion across 10 years. In short, fantastic opportunities are being lost as high-skill immigrants are
steered elsewhere. We need to polish our welcome. For starters, Wadhwa argues, the United States could reduce the huge backlog of visa
requests simply by making more visas available to skilled immigrants and by accelerating the processing times. His is one voice in a growing
chorus that hopes to wrest the spotlight from illegal immigration and illuminate the larger wave, its potential, and the consequences of
inaction. But the academic studies, while critically important, do not seem to cut through the noise and connect with the American people. The
American people are not demanding high-skill immigration reform. They don’t see it as a job-creation opportunity. The word “immigrant”
almost automatically summons an angry response that immigrants “take jobs.” Something else is needed. Time for a New Narrative ▲ Stories
connect us to each other. Drawing from the same well of human aspiration, triumph and failure, our personal stories create an emotional bond
that transforms strangers into familiar faces. As America once again struggles with the question of whether and how to welcome the immigrant
stranger, the telling of new immigrant stories is needed to help heal the chasm between “us” and “them,” and between our personal immigrant
past and our nation’s immigrant present and future. During this Great Recession, with unemployment near 10%, the immigration narrative also
needs to offer hope for Americans—hope that tomorrow will be better. Hope today comes in the form of good old American jobs. We have
been told that maybe 4 million blue and white-collar jobs may be created by advances in alternative energy technology, and that wind, solar,
thermal, and other sources of energy will move us closer to energy independence, greater national security and a healthier planet. But so far,
we haven’t been that interested in asking the question, “who will create and commercialize this new green technology? Much
like the
role that immigrants played, in partnership with American-born colleagues, in the information
technology revolution and the elevation of Silicon Valley to almost mythical status, immigrants
are now emerging as key drivers of America’s quest for world-class clean energy technology. A
glance at recent research on the contributions of immigrants supports the expectation that
immigrants are helping to lead the green economy and other emerging industries: Immigrants
are nearly twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a business. Immigrants are filing
patents at twice the rate of the American-born. Immigrants founded more than half of the hightech companies in Silicon Valley. Immigrants are much more likely to earn an advanced degree
than the native-born. (Continued……. (Feel Free to ask for the deleted text) Throughout Michigan and the Midwest, civic and union
leaders cheered the made-in-America strategy. U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan told the national media that a company founded by
immigrants was moving the country in the right direction. “We need a twenty-first century manufacturing strategy in this country,” she said.
“Companies like A1234 are not only creating quality, good-paying jobs in Michigan, but are insuring that we do not move from a dependence on
foreign oil to a dependence on foreign technology.” John Dingell, a member of Congress from Michigan, called the A123-Chrysler partnership
momentous on two levels. “The future of this country is dependent upon addressing two vital challenges—stopping the spread of global
warming, and creating the next generation of manufacturing jobs here in the United States,” he said. “This project gets us closer to achieving
both of those goals.”
Economic Growth Impact – 1st Line
Immigration reform’s key to the economy – our evidence is reverse-causal
Oakford et al 3-20
[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor
force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell
University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration
and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. “The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented
Immigrants” 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-grantinglegal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
But legal status
and citizenship are also about the economic health of the nation as a whole. As our study
demonstrates, legal status and a road map to citizenship for the unauthorized will bring about significant
economic gains in terms of growth, earnings, tax revenues, and jobs— all of which will not
occur in the absence of immigration reform
also show that
or with reform that creates a permanent sub-citizen class of residents. We
the timing of reform matters: The sooner we provide legal status and citizenship,
th e greater the economic benefits are for the nation.¶ The logic behind these economic gains is straightforward. As
discussed below, legal status and citizenship enable undocumented immigrants to produce and earn
significantly more than they do when they are on the economic sidelines. The resulting
productivity and wage gains ripple through the economy because immigrants are not just
workers—they are also consumers and taxpayers. They will spend their increased earnings on
the purchase of food, clothing, housing, cars, and computers. That spending, in turn, will
stimulate demand in the economy for more products and services, which creates jobs and
expands the economy.¶ This paper analyzes the 10-year economic impact of immigration reform under three scenarios. The first
scenario assumes that legal status and citizenship are both accorded to the undocumented in 2013. The second scenario assumes that the
unauthorized are provided legal status in 2013 and are able to earn citizenship five years thereafter. The third scenario assumes that the
unauthorized are granted legal status starting in 2013 but that they are not provided a means to earn citizenship—at least within the 10-year
timeframe of our analysis.¶ Under
the first scenario—in which undocumented immigrants are granted
legal status and citizenship in 2013—U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, would grow by an
additional $1.4 trillion cumulatively over the 10 years between 2013 and 2022. What’s more, Americans would earn
an additional $791 billion in personal income over the same time period—and the economy would create, on average, an additional 203,000
jobs per year. Within five years of the reform, unauthorized immigrants would be earning 25.1 percent more than they currently do and $659
billion more from 2013 to 2022. This means that they would also be contributing significantly more in federal, state, and local taxes. Over 10
years, that additional tax revenue would sum to $184 billion—$116 billion to the federal government and $68 billion to state and local
governments.¶ Under
the second scenario—in which undocumented immigrants are granted legal
status in 2013 and citizenship five years thereafter—the 10-year cumulative increase in U.S.
GDP would be $1.1 trillion, and the annual increases in the incomes of Americans would sum to $618 billion. On average over the
10 years, this immigration reform would create 159,000 jobs per year. Given the delay in acquiring citizenship relative to the first scenario, it
would take 10 years instead of five for the incomes of the unauthorized to increase 25.1 percent. Over the 10-year period, they would earn
$515 billion more and pay an additional $144 billion in taxes—$91 billion to the federal government and $53 billion to state and local
governments.¶ Finally,
under the third scenario—in which undocumented immigrants are granted
legal status starting in 2013 but are not eligible for citizenship within 10 years—the cumulative
gain in U.S. GDP between 2013 and 2022 would still be a significant—but comparatively more modest—$832 billion. The annual
increases in the incomes of Americans would sum to $470 billion over the 10-year period, and the economy would add an average of 121,000
more jobs per year. The income of the unauthorized would be 15.1 percent higher within five years. Because of their increased earnings,
undocumented immigrants would pay an additional $109 billion in taxes over the 10-year period—$69 billion to the federal government and
$40 billion to state and local governments.¶ These immigration reform scenarios illustrate that
unauthorized immigrants are
currently earning far less than their potential , paying much less in taxes, and contributing
significantly less to the U.S. economy than they potentially could. They also make clear that Americans stand to
gain more from an immigration reform policy of legalization and citizenship than they do from
one of legalization alone—or from no reform at all. Finally, the magnitude of potential economic gains
depends significantly on how quickly reforms are implemented. The sooner that legal status
and citizenship are granted to the unauthorized, the greater the gains will be for the U.S.
economy.
Ext. Growth IL
The best studies support our scholarship – CIR boosts growth
Oakford et al 3-20
[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor
force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell
University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration
and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. “The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented
Immigrants” 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-grantinglegal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Numerous studies and government data sets have shown that positive economic outcomes are
highly correlated with legal status and citizenship. Large and detailed government datasets—such as the
U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey—have documented, for example, that U.S.
citizens have average incomes that are 40 percent greater or more than the average incomes of
noncitizen immigrants, both those here legally and the unauthorized.¶ Within the immigrant community, economic outcomes also
vary by legal status. A study done by George Borjas and Marta Tienda found that prior to 1986 Mexican immigrant men legally
in the United States earned 6 percent more than unauthorized Mexican male immigrants . Research
suggests that undocumented immigrants are further “underground” today than they were in 1986—and that they experience an even wider
wage gap. Katherine Donato and Blake Sisk, for example, found that between 2003 and 2009, the
average hourly wage of
Mexican immigrants legally in the United States was 28.3 percent greater than it was for undocumented
Mexican immigrants.¶ In addition, a U.S. Department of Labor study—based on a carefully constructed and
large longitudinal survey of the nearly 3 million unauthorized immigrants who were granted legal status and given a road map to
citizenship under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986—found that these previously undocumented
immigrants experienced a 15.1 percent increase in their average inflation-adjusted wages within
five years of gaining legal status. Studies have also reported that citizenship provides an added economic boost above and beyond the gains
from legalization. Manuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins, for instance, found that even
when controlling for a range of factors
such as educational attainment and national origin, naturalized immigrants earned 11 percent
more than legal noncitizens.¶ There are several reasons why legalization and citizenship both
raise the incomes of immigrants and improve economic outcomes. Providing a road map to
citizenship to undocumented immigrants gives them legal protections that raise their wages. It also
promotes investment in the education and training of immigrants that eventually pays off in the form of higher wages and
output; grants access to a broader range of higher-paying jobs; encourages labor mobility which increases the returns on the labor
skills of immigrants by improving the efficiency of the labor market such that the skillsets of immigrants more closely match the jobs that they
perform; and makes it more possible
reasons is explained in more detail below.
for immigrants to start businesses and create jobs . Each of these
Reverse causal ev – immigration rescues the economy – otherwise collapse inevitable
Gittelson 3-26
(Robert, president, Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, 03/26/13, “Immigration reform: Future flow must meet economic
need” The Hill)
For me and my colleagues in the Conservatives for Comprehensive
Immigration Reform coalition, we want to see a fair,
our borders, our businesses, and our visa
pragmatic, and just immigration reform that respects the rule of law; secures
process; ensures fairness to taxpayers; protects the unity of the immediate family; and especially respects the Godgiven
dignity of every person. Furthermore, we strongly feel that our nation has a moral imperative to assure that any immigration reform establishes
a path toward earned legalization and eventual citizenship for those that are currently undocumented, and can qualify for this program.
However, at the end of the day, we also want to see a reform of our legal immigration system that will
actually work to solve the problems inherent in the broken immigration system that have led us to
the dysfunctional situation that America is mired in today.
Therefore, it is with some measure of frustration
that we find ourselves at a stalemate on the very important issue of "future flow." Make no mistake, one of the main reasons why we now have
11,000,000 undocumented individuals in this country today, is because the legal immigration system that we currently have, did not sufficiently
address the issue of future flow when it was enacted in 1986. Other than the issues of a legalization of the undocumented, and the various
security and enforcement issues mentioned above, nothing will ensure a successful immigration overhaul more than getting this aspect of an
immigration solution correct.
Without a sufficient supply of future immigrant workers, we will not be
able to achieve the economic expansion that will be mandatory to balance our future
budgets, or to save our future entitlement programs. Those are hard facts, but they represent
an accurate assessment of the reality of our fiscal requirements in the 21st century.
CIR’s key to legal protections – solves growth
Oakford et al 3-20
[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor
force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell
University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration
and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. “The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented
Immigrants” 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-grantinglegal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Legalization allows the newly authorized to invoke the numerous employment rights that they
previously could not benefit from—but were in most cases entitled to—due to their constant
fear of being deported. Providing unauthorized workers with legal status increases their
bargaining power relative to their employers, which in turn lowers the likelihood of worker
exploitation and suppressed wages. This means that newly legal immigrants will be better
equipped to contest an unlawful termination of employment, to negotiate for fair
compensation or a promotion, and to file a complaint if they believe they are being mistreated
or abused. Citizenship provides even greater protections than legalization. Citizens, for
example, cannot be deported, while immigrants who are legal residents are still subject to
deportation under certain circumstances.
CIR’s also key to education
Oakford et al 3-20
[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor
force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell
University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration
and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. “The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented
Immigrants” 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-grantinglegal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Legal status and a road map to citizenship both provide a guarantee of long-term membership
in American society and cause noncitizen immigrants to invest in their English language skills and
in other forms of education and training that raise their productivity. Research shows that legal status and a road map to
citizenship both create the opportunity and incentive for workers to invest in their labor-market
skills at a greater rate than they otherwise would: Nearly 45 percent of the wage increases experienced by newly
legalized immigrants is due to upgrades in their human capital. Similarly, a Department of Labor study of newly
legalized immigrants found that they had significantly improved their English language skills and
educational attainment within five years of gaining legal status and a road map to citizenship .
Access to better jobs
Oakford et al 3-20
[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor
force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell
University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration
and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. “The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented
Immigrants” 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-grantinglegal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Undocumented immigrants are not legally living in the country, nor are they legally permitted
to work here. Expensive federal- and state-level employer sanctions on the hiring of
undocumented workers further restrict their access to fairly compensated and legal work
opportunities because employers are reluctant to hire immigrants. If they do hire immigrants, they may use the threat of these sanctions
to justify paying immigrants lower wages than they are due.¶ Legal noncitizen immigrants also suffer from restricted
job access due to lack of citizenship. Many jobs—including many public-sector jobs, as well as high-paying private-sector jobs—are
either available only to citizens or require security clearances that noncitizens cannot obtain. In
addition, employers often prefer citizens to noncitizens—a form of discrimination that is sometimes permissible
under U.S. labor laws. Even where it is unlawful to discriminate, some employers may hire citizens over
noncitizens for a variety of reasons, including:¶ To ensure that they are not violating the law by
mistakenly hiring undocumented immigrants¶ Because they may believe that citizens are better employees than
noncitizens¶ Because they would prefer to hire a co-national rather than a noncitizen.
Key to labor mobility
Oakford et al 3-20
[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor
force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell
University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration
and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. “The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented
Immigrants” 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-grantinglegal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Legalization, investment in education and training, and access to better jobs leads to greater
returns on the labor skills and education of undocumented immigrants. The undocumented also
experience increasing returns from the improved labor-market mobility that follows legalization. Prior to
legalization, unauthorized immigrants are subject to deportation if they are apprehended and ,
therefore—regardless of their skills—they tend to pursue employment in low-paying occupations, such as
farming, child care, and cleaning services, where their legal status is less likely to be discovered. Thus, unauthorized workers do
not receive the same market returns on their skills that comparable but legal workers receive. Prior to legalization, a high
school diploma does not result in a statistically significant wage premium over those without this education. After legalization, however,
“having
a high school diploma or education beyond high school” results in an 11 percent wage
premium. In other words, the returns on the labor skills of the legalized improve in part because
workers move to sectors where their skills and education are both valued and relevant to the
work being conducted. Hence, legalization and citizenship improve the efficiency of the labor
market by ensuring that people are working in fields where their skillsets and training are being
used to the fullest extent.
Entrepreneurship
Oakford et al 3-20
[Patrick. Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department. His research focuses on issues relating to U.S. immigration policy and the labor
force. Patrick holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell
University. Prior to joining American Progress, Patrick spent time researching state-level immigration laws and the intersection of immigration
and employment law as a research fellow at Cornell. “The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented
Immigrants” 3/20/13 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-grantinglegal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/ //GBS-JV]
Legal status and citizenship facilitate noncitizen-immigrant entrepreneurship by providing
access to licenses, permits, insurance, and credit to start businesses and create jobs . Despite the legal
obstacles to entrepreneurship that noncitizens currently face, the U.S. economy benefits significantly from
immigrant innovators. Immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—are more likely to own a business and
start a new business than are nonimmigrants. Immigration reform that untethers the creative
potential of immigrant entrepreneurs therefore promotes economic growth, higher incomes,
and more job opportunities.
It solves long-term growth
Krudy ‘13
[Edward. Politics for Reuters. “Analysis: Immigration Reform could Boost US Economic Growth” Reuters, 1/29/13 ln//GBS-JV]
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 wage-earners. 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.
Competitiveness IL
Brain drain now – CIR key to reverse the trend
Castro 4-6
[Julian. Mayor of San Antonio, TX. “Hey Congress: Get Immigration Reform Done!” Politico, 4/6/13 ln//GBS-JV]
Every year, as
competition increases across the globe, American companies throw up their hands and watch
e ngineers, nurses and entrepreneurs, who were trained in American universities, leave in
frustration only to invent new products, heal the sick and bring new innovations to other
countries. Now is the time for Congress to make sure their groundbreaking and job-creating efforts happen
here .¶ Americans deserve a system that works, one that’s both efficient and accountable and that puts the
undocumented immigrants already here – whether they live in Virginia, North Carolina, Utah or Texas – on a path to earned citizenship. It’s
the right thing to do, and it’s in our nation’s and our economy’s best interests.
Immigration deal saves the economy – our ev reverse-causal
Roberts 2-11
[Cokie and Steven. “Immigration Reform Key to Averting Economic Suicide” 2/11/13
http://www.stardem.com/opinion/columns/article_44df8220-74b8-11e2-b769-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story //GBS-JV]
¶ But legal
immigrants are more important to the country's economic future and deserve equal
attention. The current strictures that inhibit investors, inventors and entrepreneurs from
settling in the United States might be the single most wrongheaded and self-defeating policy
followed by the entire federal government. And that's saying something.¶ ¶ Every serious study shows that
immigrants are job makers, not job takers. The nativists who resisted newcomers throughout our history have always been
wrong, and they're wrong today. Immigrants are far more likely than homegrown workers to start
businesses and secure patents. The Kauffman Foundation concludes that 52 percent of Silicon Valley
startups were "immigrant-founded," and that list includes Google and Yahoo, Intel and Instagram.¶ ¶ Instead of
welcoming these economic dynamos, we're driving them away. "Right now," the president said recently in
Nevada, "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."¶ ¶ We have, and it's sickening. Countries like Australia,
Germany and Canada are taking advantage of our idiocy by enticing these brilliant students with offers of rapid residency and citizenship. Other
grads are simply going home, to China, India and the Philippines, where a rising middle class is making life a lot more comfortable than it was a
generation ago.¶ ¶ "When
America turns away a potential investor, entrepreneur or job creator, that
person does not simply cease to exist," warns the R Street Institute, a pro-business think tank. "She returns to her
own country and starts a business that competes directly with American companies . And she hires
citizens of her own country instead of Americans."¶ ¶ It gets worse. American companies are being forced to follow
that departing talent and shift operations to other countries. Microsoft points out that while it now spends 83
percent of its research budget in the U.S., "companies across our industry cannot continue to focus R&D jobs
in this country if we cannot fill them here." Unless the law changes, "there is a growing possibility that
unfilled jobs will migrate over time" to countries that are far friendlier to immigrant workers.¶ ¶
Fortunately, smart lawmakers in both parties are confronting the issue . Currently only 65,000 work permits, called
H-1B visas, are available annually for foreign-born grads, and they are snapped up quickly in most years. A bipartisan measure, the
Immigration Innovation Act, or "I-Squared," would raise that cap considerably, to 300,000 in years of rapid
economic growth. Moreover, visa holders would find it easier to change jobs and their spouses
would be allowed to work, a critical factor in retaining young, two-professional families.¶ ¶ Obtaining a green card and permanent
residency presents an even tougher obstacle course than getting a work visa. That's especially true for immigrants from populous countries
such as China and India, because employment-related permits are subject to strict national quotas. I-Squared
would end those
quotas, expand the total number of green cards and create new exceptions for "outstanding
professors and researchers." The bill shrewdly recognizes the political pressures to produce more homegrown science and
engineering whizzes, so it would impose a fee on applicants for H-1B visas and use the revenue to support local educational efforts in those
fields.¶ ¶ The I-Squared legislation makes total sense. So does another initiative, also bipartisan, that would create a new visa category for
immigrants willing to invest in startup companies. But, then, these ideas have made sense for years and nothing has happened.¶ ¶ The
craziness has to end now. As a separate bill or as part of a larger immigration package, Congress must act, and soon. Even Mitt Romney and
President Obama agreed on this issue during the campaign. We
desperately need those "brilliant students" the
president talks about to stay and work, to think and create, here in America. Driving them away
amounts to economic suicide .
Vital to growth and competitiveness
Palomarez 3-16
[Javier Palomarez, Forbes, 3/6/13, The Pent Up Entrepreneurship That Immigration Reform Would Unleash,
www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/06/the-pent-up-entrepreneurship-that-immigration-reform-would-unleash/print/]
The main difference between now and 2007 is that today
the role of immigrants and their many contributions to
the American economy have been central in the country’s national conversation on the issue. Never before have Latinos
been so central to the election of a U.S. President as in 2012. New evidence about the economic importance of
immigration reform, coupled with the new political realities presented by the election, have given reform a higher
likelihood of passing. As the President & CEO of the country’s largest Hispanic business association, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce (USHCC), which advocates for the interests of over 3 million Hispanic owned businesses, I have noticed that nearly every meeting I
hold with corporate leaders now involves a discussion of how and when immigration reform will pass. The USHCC has long seen comprehensive
immigration reform as an economic imperative, and now the wider business community seems to be sharing our
approach. It is no longer a question of whether it will pass. Out of countless conversations with business leaders in virtually
every sector and every state, a consensus has emerged: our broken and outdated immigration
system hinders our economy’s growth and puts America’s global leadership in jeopardy .
Innovation drives the American economy, and without good ideas and skilled workers, our
country won’t be able to transform industries or to lead world markets as effectively as it has done for
decades. Consider some figures: Immigrant-owned firms generate an estimated $775 billion in annual revenue, $125 billion in payroll and about
$100 billion in income. A study conducted by the New American Economy found that over 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started
by immigrants or children of immigrants. Leading
brands, like Google, Kohls, eBay, Pfizer, and AT&T, were founded by
immigrants. Researchers at the Kauffman Foundation released a study late last year showing that from 2006 to 2012, one in four
engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder — in
Silicon Valley it was almost half of new companies. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented workers currently
in the U.S. Imagine what small business growth in the U.S. would look like if they were provided
legal status, if they had an opportunity for citizenship. Without fear of deportation or prosecution, imagine the pent up
entrepreneurship that could be unleashed. After all, these are people who are clearly entrepreneurial in spirit to have
come here and risk all in the first place. Immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses as native-born Americans, and
statistics show that most job growth comes from small businesses. While immigrants are both critically-important
consumers and producers, they boost the economic well-being of native-born Americans as well. Scholars at the Brookings Institution recently
described the relationship of these two groups of workers as complementary. This is because lower-skilled immigrants largely take farming and
other manual, low-paid jobs that native-born workers don’t usually want. For example, when Alabama passed HB 56, an immigration law in
2012 aimed at forcing self-deportation, the state lost roughly $11 billion in economic productivity as crops were left to wither and jobs were
Immigration reform would also address another important angle in the debate – the need to entice highskilled immigrants. Higher-skilled immigrants provide talent that high-tech companies often
cannot locate domestically. High-tech leaders recently organized a nationwide “virtual march for
lost.
immigration reform” to pressure policymakers to remove barriers that prevent them from recruiting the workers they need. Finally,
and perhaps most importantly, fixing immigration makes sound fiscal sense. Economist Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda calculated in
2010 that comprehensive immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion to the country’s GDP over 10 years and add $66 billion in tax revenue –
enough to fully fund the Small Business Administration and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce for over two years. As Congress
continues to wring its hands and debate the issue, lawmakers must understand what both businesses and workers already know: The
American economy needs comprehensive immigration reform.
AT//Employer Abuse Turn
Doesn’t cause employee abuse
Nowrasteh 3-6
[Alex. Immigration at CATO. “Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform” 3/6/13 Real Clear Politics //GBS-JV]
At the time, the leaders of the
AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, and other unions all wrote letters opposing the guest-worker
program. James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters opposed a guest-worker program because it would “[force] workers to toil
in a truly temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and abuse by those seeking cheap
labor.Ӧ But the employer abuse issue is a straw man . There is a rather simple remedy: visa portability,
which would allow guest workers to easily switch jobs. The ability to quit a job without the legal
risk of deportation would give guest workers the ability to effectively enforce their own labor
standards: They could depart an abusive employer without fear of deportation.
AT//Overburdens Health Care
The new bill constrains immigrant health care access in the near term
Moody 4-10
[Chris. Politics for TalkingPointsMemo. “Rubio seeks to assure GOP that immigration overhaul will create toughest enforcement laws in U.S.
history” http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rubio-seeks-convince-gop-immigration-overhaul-create-toughest-093049158--election.html
4/10/13 //GBS-JV]
If passed,
the law ultimately would cost billions of dollars in new spending for border security measures, while
creating a visa-exit system to track when people overstay their visa and a program that would
enforce workplace compliance laws. There also is language in the bill that would prohibit those
currently in the country illegally to receive government-subsidized health insurance benefits
tied to the 2010 federal health care law for up to 15 years .
AT//Rector (CIR Hurts Growth)
Rector concludes high skilled immigrants generate growth
Rector ‘7
[Robert. Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at Heritage. And Christine Kim. “Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill
Immigrants to the US Taxpayer” Heritage Special Report #14, 5/22/7 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/05/the-fiscal-cost-oflow-skill-immigrants-to-the-us-taxpayer //GBS-JV]
Finally, it is important to remember that, in contrast to low-skill immigrants, immigrants
with a college degree¶ become
positive fiscal contributors from the outset; the taxes they pay will exceed the benefits their families receive.¶ Unlike lowskill immigrants, high-skill immigrants will not produce a generation of sharp fiscal losses, and their¶
children are far more likely to do well in school and be strong fiscal contributors themselves
when compared to the¶ children of low-skill immigrants.
The 2007 study from which all your math originates is a joke – disregard every claim made in
their evidence
Nowrasteh 4-4
[Alex. Economist Analyst for CATO. “Heritage Immigration Study Fatally Flawed” 4/4/13 http://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immigration-studyfatally-flawed //GBS-JV]
There are indications that The Heritage Foundation may soon release an updated version of its 2007 report, “The
Fiscal Cost of LowSkill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer,” by Robert Rector. That 2007 report’s flawed methodology
produced a grossly exaggerated cost to federal taxpayers of legalizing unauthorized immigrants
while undercounting or discounting their positive tax and economic contributions – greatly affecting the 2007 immigration reform
debate.¶ Before releasing its updated report, I urge the Heritage Foundation to avoid the same serious errors that so undermined Mr.
Rector’s 2007 study. Here is a list of some of its major errors :¶ Count individuals, not households .[1]
Heritage counts household use of government benefits, not individual immigrant use. Many unauthorized immigrants are married to U.S.
citizens and have U.S. citizen children who live in the same households. Counting
the fiscal costs of those native-born
U.S. citizens massively overstates the fiscal costs of immigration. ¶ Employ dynamic scoring
rather than static scoring . [2] Heritage’s report relies on static scoring rather than dynamic scoring, making the same mistake in
evaluating the impact of increased immigration on welfare costs that the Joint Committee on Taxation makes when scoring the impact of tax
cuts. Instead, Heritage should use dynamic scoring techniques to evaluate the fiscal effects of immigration reform. For example, Heritage
should assume that wages and gross domestic product are altered considerably because of immigration policy reforms. In contrast to that
economic reality, immigrant wages, gross domestic product, and government welfare programs are unrealistically static in Mr. Rector’s
study. His study largely ignores the wage increases experienced by immigrants and their descendants
over the course of their working lives, how those wages would alter after legalization, and the
huge gains in education amongst the second and third generation of Hispanics .[3] Heritage is devoted to
dynamic scoring in other policy areas – it should be so devoted to it here too.[4]¶ Factor in known indirect fiscal effects .[5]
The consensus among economists is that the economic gains from immigration vastly outweigh the costs.[6] In
2007, Mr. Rector incorrectly noted that, “there is little evidence to suggest that low-skill immigrants increase the incomes of non-immigrants.”
Immigrants boost the supply and demand sides of the American economy, increasing
productivity through labor and capital market complementarities with a net positive impact on
American wages.[7] Heritage should adjust its estimates to take account of the positive spill-overs of low-skilled immigration.¶
Assume that wages for legalized immigrants would increase – dramatically .[8] Heritage did not assume
large wage gains for unauthorized immigrants after legalization. In the wake of the 1986 Reagan amnesty, wages for legalized immigrants
increased – sometimes by as much as 15 percent – because legal workers are more productive and can command higher wages than illegal
workers. Heritage
should adopt similar wage increases to estimate the economic effects of
immigration reform if it were to happen today.[9] ¶ Assume realistic levels of welfare use .[10]
Vast numbers of immigrants will return to their home countries before collecting
entitlements,[11] the “chilling effect” whereby immigrants are afraid of using welfare reduces
their usage of it, and immigrants use less welfare across the board.[12] 100 native-born adults eligible for
Medicaid will cost the taxpayers about $98,000 a year. A comparable number of poor non-citizen immigrants cost approximately $57,000 a year
– a 42 percent lower bill than for natives. For children, citizens cost $67,000 and non-citizens cost $22,700 a year – a whopping 66 percent
lower cost. Heritage should adjust its estimates of future immigrant welfare use downward. [13] ¶
Use latest legislation as
benchmark .[14] The current immigration plan, if rumors are to be believed, would stretch a path to
citizenship out for 13 years.[15] Most welfare benefits will be inaccessible until then, so Heritage’s
report must take that timeline into account.¶ Remittances do not decrease long term consumption .[16]
Remittances sent home by immigrants will eventually return to the U.S. economy in the form of
increased exports or capital account surpluses. Heritage should recognize this aspect of economic reality rather than
assuming remittances are merely a short-term economic cost. ¶ Factor in immigration enforcement costs .[17]
Heritage did not compare costs of legalization and guest workers to the costs of the policy
status quo
or increases in enforcement. The government spends nearly $18,000 per illegal immigrant apprehension while the economic
distortions caused by forcing millions of consumers, renters, and workers out of the U.S. would adversely affect income and profitability.[18]¶
Use transparent methodology .[19] Heritage’s methodology should replicate that of the National
Research Council’s authoritative and highly praised – even by immigration restrictionists – study entitled The New
Americans.[20] That study is the benchmark against which all efforts at generational fiscal accounting – including Heritage’s 2007 report – are
measured. If Heritage deviates from their methods, it should explain its methodology in a clear and accessible way that states why they altered
Don’t count citizen spouses .[22] Heritage counted U.S.-born spouses of unauthorized immigrants as fiscal costs.
Counting the net immigrant fiscal impact means counting immigrants and perhaps their
children at most,[23] not native-born spouses who would be on the entitlement roles
regardless of whether they married an immigrant or a native-born American.¶ Suggest changes
practice.[21]¶
to the welfare state . Heritage has elsewhere called low-skill migrant workers “a net positive
and a leading cause of economic growth”[24] and accurately reported that “[t]he consensus of the
vast majority of economists is that the broad economic gains from openness to trade and
immigration far outweigh the isolated cases of economic loss.”[25] Instead of arguing against low-skill
immigration, Mr. Rector should instead suggest reforms that would, in the words of Cato’s late Chairman Bill Niskanen, “build a
wall around the welfare state, not around the country.”[26]¶ It is imperative that the economic costs and benefits of increased immigration be
studied using proper methods and the most recent data. A previous report by the Heritage Foundation in 2006 entitled, “The Real Problem with
Immigration … and the Real Solution,” by Tim Kane and Kirk Johnson roundly rejected the negative economic assessments of Mr. Rector’s 2007
study.[27] Not only does Mr. Rector not speak for the broad conservative movement; it appears that economists who have worked for the
Heritage Foundation also disagree with Mr. Rector’s conclusions. ¶ For decades, the Heritage Foundation has been an influential intellectual
force in conservative circles. Its economic analyses have been predicated on consideration of the dynamic effects of policy changes as opposed
to static effects. Unfortunately, Mr. Rector’s
past work has not been consistent in this regard, employing the
same static scoring conservatives have traditionally distrusted in other policy areas. ¶ Many conservatives rely
on the Heritage Foundation for accurate research about immigration’s impact on the economy. Before releasing another study
assessing the net fiscal impacts of immigration reform, Heritage should correct the errors
outlined above to guarantee the most accurate information on this important topic is available.
The deal’s key to skilled workers – comparatively bigger internal link to growth
Basu 2-6
Basu 2/6, Rekha Basu is a staff writer. (“Immigration reform has plenty of positives”,
(http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20130206/OPINION02/302060026/Immigration-reform-has-plenty-positives-, 2/6/2013) Kerwin
It’s starting to look as if meaningful
immigration reform finally has a chance of becoming law. If it does,
it could bring to an end one of the country’s most self-defeating standoffs. It won’t necessarily be because
politicians suddenly found God or awoke to the value of immigrants. More likely it will be out of pragmatic self-interest.
The Latino voting population is growing rapidly, and immigration reform is very important to its
members. Senate Republicans know what it could mean for them that Democrat Barack Obama
trounced Republican Mitt Romney among Hispanics, 71 percent to 27 percent in November.
But regardless of why our broken immigration system ultimately gets fixed, the implications for
America’s future are boundless if it does. From a community standpoint, it will mean an end to
a two-tiered society in which 11 million people don’t even exist on paper. The meat packer, the
construction worker, the people who mow our lawns, clean our homes or care for our kids
won’t need to be paid under the table or by using fake documents. The roads will be safer as
people who aren’t legally eligible to drive get licenses and insurance. More license fees mean
more money for strapped public services. Neighborhoods will become more stable, as people
who couldn’t get bank loans or credit cards or Social Security numbers are eligible to buy
instead of rent. People not forced underground can play more active roles in their children’s schools, in neighborhood and civic
organizations. As crime victims, they will be freer to call police on criminals who might prey on others. It will be harder for employers and
managers to exploit, rape, withhold wages from, and force overtime on workers, because workers won’t be silenced by their immigration
status.
And there are the economic benefits. New jobs will be created and filled, new patents will
be granted and employers will be better able to fill medical, engineering, computer and other
high-tech jobs for which there is a skills shortage. That will allow U.S. companies to stay
productive. This isn’t just conjecture. High-skilled immigrants contribute more than their share
as inventors, employers and consumers. Studies show immigrants are more likely than nativeborn Americans to get patents on new inventions or processes. Immigrants from India, for
example, are only 1 percent of the U.S. population, yet one-third of the engineers in Silicon
Valley. And 71 percent of Indians in America have a bachelor’s degree compared to 28 percent
of the overall U.S. population. One in four high-tech start-ups is started by an immigrant. In
fact, for every 100 H1B visas (temporary visas for high-skilled immigrants), 183 American jobs
are created. But there aren’t enough visas. With the right kind of immigration reform, there
won’t be a 25-or-more year wait for a permanent residence visa (for Indian professionals, the
wait can be up to 70 years), or a yearly limit of 140,000, or a 25,000 cap per country. The line to
become a citizen will move faster. Families will not be separated for decades, with those here
sending half their paychecks back to members who can’t legally join them. More money will
stay in this economy. The skills of many graduates of our top universities won’t be lost when
they are forced to leave the country. More people are not just employees but customers for
businesses. On the downside, it’s possible that some U.S. workers will be competing with immigrants for low-wage jobs. Then again, if
employers can’t pay people less for being undocumented, then the playing field will be more level. But studies also find that
American workers don’t want the jobs undocumented immigrants have taken, or don’t want to
move to underpopulated areas for them, as immigrants do. Before this can happen, the White House and
Congress need to reach agreement on some issues. Meanwhile, expect an uptick in immigrant-bashing and baseless claims and stereotypes.
Turns economy/competitiveness
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 c omprehensive i mmigration r eform 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
c omprehensive i mmigration r eform 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.
India Relations Impact– 1st Line
Deal solves US-India relations --- builds trade relationships
LAT ‘12
(The LA Times, 11/19/12. Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, p. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/usimmigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-by-source-countries.html)
" C omprehensive
i mmigration r eform will see expansion of skilled labor visas," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell, director of
policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. A former research chief for the
congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at
least a fivefold increase in the
number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and
China."¶ There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters
new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy, Lowell said.¶
"Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with
the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than
not," he said.
Key to every existential threat
Armitage et al ‘10
[Richard is the President of Armitage International and former Deputy Secretary of State. R. Nicholas Burns is a Professor in the Practice of
Diplomacy and International Politics, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for
New American Security. “Natural Allies: A Blueprint for the Future of U.S.-India Relations,” October, Center for New American Security,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Burns%20-%20Natural%20Allies.pdf]
A strengthened U.S.-India strategic partnership is thus imperative in this new era. The
transformation of U.S. ties with New Delhi over the past 10 years, led by Presidents Clinton and
Bush, stands as one of the most significant triumphs of recent American foreign policy. It has also
been a bipartisan success. In the last several years alone, the United States and India have completed a landmark civil nuclear cooperation
agreement, enhanced military ties, expanded defense trade, increased bilateral trade and investment and deepened their global political
cooperation.¶ Many
prominent Indians and Americans, however, now fear this rapid expansion of
ties has stalled. Past projects remain incomplete, few new ideas have been embraced by both
sides, and the forward momentum that characterized recent cooperation has subsided. The Obama
administration has taken significant steps to break through this inertia, including with its Strategic Dialogue this spring and President Obama’s
planned state visit to India in November 2010. Yet there remains a sense among observers in both countries that this critical relationship is
falling short of its promise.¶ We believe it
is critical to rejuvenate the U.S.- India partnership and put U.S.
relations with India on a more solid foundation. The relationship requires a bold leap forward. The United States should
establish a vision for what it seeks in the relationship and give concrete meaning to the phrase “strategic partnership.” A nonpartisan working
group of experts met at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) over the past eight months to review the main pillars of the U.S.-India
relationship and we articulate here a specific agenda of action.¶ In order to chart a more ambitious U.S.-India strategic partnership, we believe
that the United States should commit, publicly and explicitly, to work with India in support of its permanent membership in an enlarged U.N.
Security Council; seek a broad expansion of bilateral trade and investment, beginning with a Bilateral Investment Treaty; greatly expand the
security relationship and boost defense trade; support Indian membership in key export control organizations, a step toward integrating India
into global nonproliferation efforts; and liberalize U.S. export controls, including the removal of Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)
subsidiaries from the U.S. Entity List.¶ These and the other actions outlined in this report will require India to make a number of commitments
and policy changes, including taking rapid action to fully implement the Civil Nuclear Agreement; raising its caps on foreign investment;
reducing barriers to defense and other forms of trade; enhancing its rules for protecting patents and other intellectual property; further
harmonizing its export control lists with multilateral regimes; and seeking closer cooperation with the United States and like-minded partners in
international organizations, including the United Nations. ¶ The U.S. relationship with India should be rooted in shared interests and values and
should not be simply transactional or limited to occasional collaboration. India’s rise to global power is, we believe, in America’s strategic
interest. As a result, the United States should not only seek a closer relationship with India, but actively assist its further emergence as a great
power.¶ U.S.
interests in a closer relationship with India include:¶ • Ensuring a stable Asian and
global balance of power.¶ • Strengthening an open global trad[e]ing system.¶ • Protecting and
preserving access to the global commons (air, sea, space, and cyber realms).¶ • Countering
terrorism and violent extremism.¶ • Ensuring access to secure global energy resources.¶ •
Bolstering the international nonproliferation regime.¶ • Promoting democracy and human
rights.¶ • Fostering greater stability, security and economic prosperity in South Asia, including in
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.¶ A strong U.S.-India strategic
partnership will prove indispensable to the region’s continued peace and prosperity. Both India
and the United States have a vital interest in maintaining a stable balance of power in Asia.
Neither seeks containment of China, but the likelihood of a peaceful Chinese rise increases if it
ascends in a region where the great democratic powers are also strong. Growing U.S.-India
strategic ties will ensure that Asia will not have a vacuum of power and will make it easier for
both Washington and New Delhi to have productive relations with Beijing. In addition, a
strengthened relationship with India, a natural democratic partner, will signal that the United
States remains committed to a strong and enduring presence in Asia.¶ The need for closer U.S.-India
cooperation goes well beyond regional concerns. In light of its rise, India will play an increasingly vital role in
addressing virtually all major global challenges. Now is the time to transform a series of
bilateral achievements into a lasting regional and global partnership.
Ext. India Relations IL
Visa policy is dragging down US-India relations now – only CIR can reaffirm our alliance with
India
Zee News 12
[“Krishna, Hillary to discuss visa fee hike in NY”, October 1st, 2012, http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/krishna-hillary-to-discuss-visa-feehike-in-ny_802978.html]
New York: The
issue of US visa fee hike, which has hurt several Indian IT firms, is expected to come
up for discussion when External Affairs Minister SM Krishna meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton here on
Monday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. India has "consistently" taken up the issue of the visa
fee hike with the US and the issue will figure in talks between Krishna and Clinton, official sources said. The US had raised
visa fee in 2010 to fund its enhanced costs on securing border with Mexico under the Border Security Act. Some of the top Indian
companies TCS, Infosys, Wipro and Mahindra Satyam were affected by the US action and India is expected to soon seek consultations with the
US at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the issue. The sources said that young
Indian professionals working in the
US have been the "cornerstone" of India-US relations and are a pillar in the improved bilateral
relations that has brought the two countries closer. Hiking visa fees or limiting the number of work visas
available to Indian companies is tantamount to "undermining that pillar and growth in India-US
relations," they added. "Raising visa fees and putting other barriers is not in consonance with the
forward thinking of growing bilateral ties," the sources said. This will be the third bilateral meeting between Krishna and
Clinton this year. They had previously met in India in April and again in June in Washington. The sources said that the two countries have a fairly
elaborate agenda and the visa issue is one of the issues in a broader relationship. Krishna will also address the 67th session of the UN General
Assembly today.
part of the world are essential to the peace and prosperity of the world.
h-1b’s are key to indian relations.
Economic Times ’09
[Oct. 19, “India to ask US for more H-1B visas,” http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/services/travel/visa-power/Indiato-ask-US-for-more-H-1B-visas/articleshow/5137427.cms]
India is likely to ask the United States to raise the cap on visas for skilled workers at the bilateral trade forum
meeting to be held in New Delhi later this month, a government official told ET. India may also push for a special mechanism for Indian
professionals travelling to the US for short-term assignments arising out of contractual obligations. The
issue of a more liberal
and simple US visa regime for professionals will be high on India’s agenda at the bilateral meeting to be
chaired by Indian commerce minister Anand Sharma and the US trade representative Ron Kirk, the official said. H-1B visas, which are nonimmigrant US visas for skilled professionals, given for up to six years, are highly popular with Indian IT companies such as Infosys, Wipro, TCS
and Satyam, which usually corner a big chunk of such visas issued by the US. The subsidiaries of these companies in the US usually employ H-1B
visa professionals to deliver services at customer’s location. “The
number of world-wide H-1B visas issued to
professionals was reduced by more than half to 65,000 per year about two years back. This has
affected the functioning of Indian companies in the US, especially ones in the IT sector,” the official said. He added
that India was keen on taking up with the new US government the issue of a possible increase in
the cap on such visas. Although, this year, the entire quota of 65,000 H-1B visas has not yet been utilised because of the on-going
global economic slow down, the official pointed out that it was a temporary phase and the demand for US work visas would soar the moment
the global economy began to look up.
Visa restrictions destroy US-India cooperation.
Nalapat 10
(M.D., Professor of Geopolitics – Manipal University, Vice Chair – Manipal Advanced Research Group, and Peace Chair – UNESCO, “Outside
View: Obama and India”, UPI, 1-16, Lexis)
Today, thanks to Hillary Clinton, these
irritants are back. Indian scientists, including people such as Goverdhan Mehta who
is a member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, are once again being denied visas to enter the United States. Those
working in aerospace, physics and chemistry find it next to impossible to visit the United States
even to attend a conference. This has created anger among India's scientists, who are now
dismissive of Singh's claim that there has been a qualitative improvement in U.S.-India hightech cooperation. Of course, a few cosmetic measures have been permitted by Clinton and Obama, such as the sending of a small
NASA payload aboard India's recent mission to the moon.
Ext. India Relations Impact
US/India relations are key to prevent South Asian nuclear war
Schaffer 2,
(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.
Controls all Asian escalation
Tellis 5,
[Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment, 11/16/2005 (Ashley, Testimony before the House Committee on International
Relations, http://carnegieendowment.org/2005/11/17/u.s.-india-global-partnership-how-significant-for-american-interests/5417) Kerwin
If I am permitted to digress a bit, let me say parenthetically, that advancing
the growth of Indian power, as the
Administration currently intends, is not directed, as many critics have alleged, at “containing”
China. I do not believe that a policy of containing China is either feasible or necessary at this
point in time. (India too, currently, has no interest in becoming part of any coalition aimed at
containing China.) Rather, the Administration’s strategy of assisting India to become a major
world power in the twenty-first century is directed, first and foremost, towards constructing a
stable geopolitical order in Asia that is conducive to peace and prosperity. There is little doubt today that
the Asian continent is poised to become the new center of gravity in international politics. Although lower growth in the labor force, reduced
export performance, diminishing returns to capital, changes in demographic structure, and the maturation of the economy all suggest that
national growth rates in several key Asian states—in particular Japan, South Korea, and possibly China—are likely to decline in comparison to
the latter half of the Cold War period, the spurt in Indian growth rates, coupled with the relatively high though still marginally declining
growth rates in China, will propel Asia’s share of the global economy to some 43% by 2025, thus
making the continent the largest single locus of economic power worldwide. An Asia that hosts
economic power of such magnitude, along with its strong and growing connectivity to the
American economy, will become an arena vital to the United States— in much the same way that Europe was
the grand prize during the Cold War. In such circumstances, the Administration’s policy of developing a new global
partnership with India represents a considered effort at “shaping” the emerging Asian
environment to suit American interests in the twenty-first century. Even as the United States
focuses on developing good relations with all the major Asian states, it is eminently reasonable
for Washington not only to invest additional resources in strengthening the continent’s
democratic powers but also to deepen the bilateral relationship enjoyed with each of these
countries—on the assumption that the proliferation of strong democratic states in Asia
represents the best insurance against intra-continental instability as well as threats that may
emerge against the United States and its regional presence. Strengthening New Delhi and
transforming U.S-Indian ties, therefore, has everything to do with American confidence in
Indian democracy and the conviction that its growing strength, tempered by its liberal values,
brings only benefits for Asian stability and American security. As Undersecretary of State
Nicholas Burns succinctly stated in his testimony before this Committee, “By cooperating with
India now, we accelerate the arrival of the benefits that India’s rise brings to the region and the
world.”
Agriculture Impact – 1st Line
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-farmers-blame-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 to
heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will
result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Key to small farms
Gual 10
(Frank, Farm job, anyone?, Associated Content, p. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5877166/farm_job_anyone.html 10/17/10)
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 the farm labor force.
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.
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. 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 the
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 herein argued that the functions performed by small
farming systems still
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
prevalent in Africa, Asia and Latin America—in the post-peak oil era that humanity is entering—comprise
farmers are key for the world’s 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 and cattle, millions of small farmers
in the Global South still produce the majority of staple crops 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 sustainability as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year-round yields even under
marginal environmental conditions. 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 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 transgenic crops will create “islands” of intact
germplasm which will act as extant safeguards against potential ecological failure 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 than one
third of total 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 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 medium-sized farms to organic production would
store carbon in the soil equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road.¶ 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 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 biodiversity and natural resources.
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
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 the market remain under grassroots control.¶ 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.
Ext. Agriculture IL
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.Ӧ 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 long-term 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.
More ev
ACIR ‘7
[December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM Lexis]
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.
Ext. Agriculture Impact
Food insecurity’s the greatest proximate cause of war
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 Foundation president, puts it well: “The 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 twentyfirst century civilization. Today I think not only that it could be the weak link but that it is the weak
link.
Mexico Impact – 1st Line
Immigration reform is key to Mexican stability and border cooperation
Castaneda ‘3
(Castañeda, Jorge G. Source: Foreign Affairs; May/Jun2003, Vol. 82 Issue 3, p67-81, 15p, 4 Black and White Photographs)
Dealing with Mexico is in many ways the most important regional task facing the Bush administration. The
matter can be summed up simply: President Vicente Fox's consolidation of Mexico's first democratic transfer of
power must be -and be seen to be-a success . There is nothing more important to the United
States than a stable Mexico , and today a stable Mexico means a democratic one. And the
United States has a huge role in making Mexico's transition to democracy a success, or in
contributing to its failure . The success or failure of this experiment will be judged in Mexico ultimately in the light of the
country's economic performance-which has not been impressive these past two years. But Mexicans will also judge the state of their country's
relations with the United States. They will look to see whether Presidents Fox and Bush deliver on the ambitious bilateral agenda they sketched
out at their historic February 2001 meeting at Fox's ranch in Guanajuato, Mexico. On issues of trade, drug enforcement, the border, building a
North American Economic Community, energy, and, most significant, immigration, the two countries set out a bold series of goals to meet by
the end of Bush's first term, if not sooner. Indeed, in the first eight months of their respective presidencies, Bush and Fox achieved a
fundamental breakthrough on immigration. By the time of the Guanajuato meeting, both sides had identified the core policies needed to tackle
undocumented migration flows from Mexico to the United States: an expanded temporary-worker program; increased transition of
undocumented Mexicans already in the United States to legal status; a higher U.S. visa quota for Mexicans; enhanced border security and
stronger action against migrant traffickers; and more investment in those regions of Mexico that supplied the most migrants. The speed with
which both governments carried out these negotiations certainly captured the political imagination of both societies. Fox's resounding state
visit to Washington on the eve of the September 11 terrorist attacks further lifted the new initiatives and underscored both leaders'
commitment to them. But the symmetry ends there: Fox staked much more on this partnership than Bush did. And since the Mexican president
has little to show for his gamble, he has paid a high domestic political price for his willingness to bring about a sea change in Mexico's relations
with the United States and the rest of the world. Indeed, this change has been on the order of what President Carlos Salinas did with Mexico's
economy or what President Ernesto Zedillo did with the nation's political system.
Hence the centrality of immigration in
the bilateral relationship today: both Bush and Fox stated dramatic goals and raised
expectations enormously. The United States understandably was forced to put the issue on hold for a time. But what was initially
portrayed as a brief interlude will now probably stretch through Bush's entire first term. It will be almost impossible to
point to success in the bilateral relationship without a deal on immigration . And unless there is such
a breakthrough, Fox's six-year term in office, nearly half over, may well be seen in Mexico as an exercise in high expectations but disappointing
results. To avoid a breakdown in relations, Bush must make a state visit to Mexico City this year. He should take with him sufficient progress on
key issues-immigration; trade concerns relating to sugar, tuna, trucking, and the North American Free Trade Agreement's agricultural chapter;
and funding for heightened security and the expedited passage of people and cargo at the border-to show that Mexico remains a top priority
for his administration. Bush must also show that he is willing to spend political capital to ensure the success of Fox's push for true Mexican
democracy. Washington
may have so far missed an opportunity to present its relationship with
Mexico City as a model for the rest of the hemisphere and , indeed, for the rest of the
developing world -an example of how a rich and powerful neighbor and a still relatively poor and weak one can get along and
contribute to each other's success. But the
window of opportunity has not been shut . In the aftermath of
the current conflict with Iraq, the United States would benefit hugely by demonstrating that it
can construct alliances beyond its traditional circle of friends.
Alternative’s terrorism
Cato ‘8
[Former Senior Counsel at the US Dept of Justice. “The Weaponization of Immigration” The Washburn Law Journal, Feb 08. JSTOR//JVOSS]
al Qaeda has
considered using the Southwest Border to infiltrate the United States. Several al Qaeda leaders
believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal
entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.75 Deputy Secretary Loy
emphasized the threat saying that "entrenched human-smuggling networks and corruption in areas beyond
our borders can be exploited by terrorist organizations."76 An unclassified post-September 11th
Border Patrol bulletin, reviewed by 9/11 Commission staff, warned of meetings in Madrid, Spain between
members of al Qaeda and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). These terrorists discussed
using Mexican Islamist converts to infiltrate the United States across its southwest border.
Recent reports signal that a " growing number [of illegal aliens picked up by the Border Patrol
on the southwest border] hail from Central and South America, Asia, even Mideast countries such as
Syria and Iran. "77
Recent information from ongoing investigations, detentions, and emerging threat streams strongly suggests that
State failure’s a controlling impact
Manwaring ‘4
[Max. Latin America Expert @ CSIS, PhD in Poli Sci from UChicago. Shadows of the Past and Images of the Future 2004, Pg 36-8]
State failure is an evolutionary process, not an outcome. This state of affairs is often brought on by
poor, irresponsible, and insensitive governance, and leads to at least one other very fundamental reason why states fail.
That is, state failure can be a process that is exacerbated by nonstate (insurgent) groups that, for whatever reason, want to take down or
exercise illicit control over a given government. In Latin
America, Colombia is, Peru has been, and both continue to be good examples of
this. The narco-insurgent/terrorist [is a] threat to the authority of the central governments. Through
murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, destruction of infrastructure, and other means of coercion and persuasion, these violent,
internal, nonstate actors compromise the exercise of state authority.
The government and its institutions become
progressively less and less capable of performing the tasks of governance, including exercising their
fundamental personal security functions to protect citizens. As a result, the narco-insurgents become increasingly
wealthy and powerful, and affected countries deteriorate further and further toward failed state status. Peru’s Sendero Luminoso
calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure armed propaganda. Drug cartels operating in that country and
throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities business incentives. Thus, in
addition to helping
to provide wider latitude to further their specific objectives, Sendero’s and other violent nonstate
actors’ armed propaganda and business incentives are aimed at lessening a regime’s credibility
and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. This debilitating and
destabilizing activity generates the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the
global community today. More specifically, failing or failed states in Latin America, Africa, the MiddleEast, and Asia are breeding grounds for instability, insurgency, and terrorism. A breakdown in
institutional governance can breed or exacerbate humanitarian disasters and major refugee
flows. Such states can host networks of all kinds, including criminal business enterprises and/or
some form of ideological, religious, or populist crusade. They also spawn a variety of pernicious
and lethal activities and outcomes, including torture and murder; poverty, starvation, and
disease; the recruitment and use of child soldiers; trafficking in women and human organs for transplants;
trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and weapons of mass
destruction; genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism; and criminal anarchy and insurgency. At the same
time, these networks and activities normally are unconfined and spill over into regional
syndromes of destabilization and conflict. Additionally, failing and failed states simply do not go away . Ample
evidence demonstrates that failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states,
narco-states, or new people’s democracies. Moreover, failing and failed states tend not to (1) buy U.S.
and other exporting nations’ products, (2) be interested in developing democratic and free market institutions
and human rights, or (3) cooperate on shared problems such as illegal drugs, illicit arms flows, debilitating refugee flows, and
potentially dangerous environmental problems. In short, the longer they persist, the more they and their
associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity .
Extinction
Corsi ‘5
[Jerome. PhD in Poli Sci from Harvard, Expert in Politically-Motivated Violence. Atomic Iran, Pg 176-8//JVOSS]
The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the
president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be
that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will
have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when
those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will
be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device
Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues,
which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of
radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect
another attack by our known enemy –Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a
nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list
just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic
world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge
intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us.
inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building.
[CONTINUES} Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in
the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the
world calculation. Muslims
around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam,
especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had
been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for the president not to retaliate
might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the
nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That
the
president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by
nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed
unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people
would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge.
Ext. Mexico
Squo immigration policies drive Mexican anti-Americanism – results in terrorism
Marizco ‘4
[Michael. International Expert for the AZ Daily Star. “Mexico Works to Spot Terrorists” The Arizona Daily Star, 8/9/4. Lexis//JVOSS]
Worry that the
porous border with Mexico could become a popular route for terrorists increased last
month after a woman now being investigated for suspected terrorist links tried to board a flight in
McAllen, Texas, near the U.S.-Mexico border, with a falsified passport. She arrived in Mexico from
London, then crossed into the United States, apparently by wading across the Rio Grande, a federal
affidavit said. "While we are thankful that law enforcement personnel prevented her from boarding that plane, the incident raises a larger
terrorists from the Middle East are using our inadequately patrolled land
borders with Canada and Mexico for easy entry into the United States," Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said in a letter sent
issue, specifically, whether
Tuesday to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Tancredo, one of Congress' most vocal critics of U.S. immigration laws, was one of 12
lawmakers who signed the letter. The lawmakers contend terrorists
could be among the thousands of nonMexican immigrants who are arrested then released into the country on their own
recognizance while they await deportation hearings. But before releasing a detainee, officers are required to confirm
the migrant's identity and run a background check to ensure the entrant doesn't pose a safety risk or threat to national security, immigration
officials said. The potential terrorist threat also was mentioned in the recent 9/11 Commission Report, which notes
the ease
with which people can cross the border. "We must also be able to monitor and respond to
entrances between our ports of entry, working with Canada and Mexico as much as possible," the commission
wrote. [CONTINUES…] Glenn Spencer, founder of the Sierra Vista-based border watch group American Border Patrol, said he's glad Mexican
officials have stepped up their effort to intercept potential terrorists, but he's not convinced it will be a success. He said a
terrorist
could find support with the widespread anti-American sentiment south of the border. "There is
an ocean of that attitude in which they can swim. It would not surprise me that terrorists would exploit those
attitudes. "You do not have that attitude in Canada. The threat is definitely from the southern border; there's no
question about it," he said. His group has been conducting exercises that it says demonstrate how insecure
Arizona's border with Mexico is when it comes to catching illegal entrants with bad intentions.
Late last month, a group member smuggled a fake "weapon of mass destruction" from the Mexican side of the border fence south of Palominas
to a "safe house" near Sierra Vista. A few days later, the group repeated the demonstration, carrying the foam-filled briefcase stuffed in a
backpack all the way to Tucson's U.S. District Court building Downtown. He said the
United States must do "whatever it
takes" to seal the border with Mexico and ensure that potential terrorists will be caught.
More ev – Mexico’s key
Farah ‘5
[Joe. Founder of World Net Daily and Nationally Syndicated Columnist. “Mexico’s Blind Eye” www.worldnetdaily.com, 13 June 05. //JVOSS]
Mexican agencies charged with intelligence and counter-terrorism, such as the Office of Coordination of the
Presidency and the Center for Research on National Security, CISEN, do little more than offer half-hearted monitoring
of militant Islamic activity, say G2 Bulletin sources. Mexico is facing a national crisis in dealing with drug
lords who are killing elected officials, police chiefs and innocent civilians. Officials there have
little interest and fewer resources to devote to law enforcement and intelligence activities that
threaten the U.S., not Mexico. As WND reported last week, Islam is on the move in Mexico and throughout
Latin America, making dramatic gains in converting the native population, increasing
immigration, establishing businesses and charities and attracting attention from U.S.
government officials who have asked their neighbors to the south to keep an eye on foreign
Muslim groups. While Mexico has pledged to monitor these activities on behalf of the U.S., those familiar with the recruitment
practices and the Mexican government's oversight say the U.S. has reasons for concern . For instance, Gen. Jorge Serrano,
the head of the Attorney General Office's special terrorism investigation unit, says no Muslim terrorists have been found living in Mexico. Yet
intelligence sources in the U.S. and Canada say Islamic jihadists have been working with zealots
in Mexico for more than 20 years. Early activities were sponsored by Iran. Later, the recruitment activities got support from the
Egyptian, Pakistani and Saudi embassies. It is known the Egyptians paid the rent for a prayer hall and allocated funds for students who wanted
to study at the Islamic al-Azhar University in Cairo. The Pakistanis organized Muslim converts and others to visit madrassas in Pakistan, a golden
opportunity offered to the Taliban and al-Qaida to reach a larger pool of recruitment candidates. Saudi funds created a range of activities linked
to Hajj or studies in Saudi Arabia where young zealots established contacts with Sufi and Wahabi activists one way or another connected to
Mexican authorities revealed in 2002 they knew Spanish Muslim
converts of Basque origin were present in Chiapas state preaching the ideas of Islam and jihad
as they mingled with local aboriginals. At least in two cases Mexican authorities, unable to determine the whereabouts of
master terrorist Osama bin Laden.
Basque Muslims, sent letters to their last known address informing them their stay in the country was illegal. According to a CISEN official, most
Basque and Spanish Muslims were linked to the North African-based al-Murabitun World Tzotzil Movement, known for its blend of socialism
and Islam. Information on Basque activity in Mexico is regularly collected by the Spanish government, but is not shared with the U.S. by the
Small, sometimes clandestine Islamic clubs in Mexico, usually disguised as cultural
groupings, are on the increase. Information on ways to cross the U.S. and Mexican border and
where to go, including recommended U.S. states and so-called asylum cities has actually already
reached all corners of the jihadi Khalifat world. Some documents found in Pakistan, and more
information from Iraq and Lebanon, proves jihadists are aware they are in danger of being
detected when they use legitimate ports of entry to the U.S. Therefore they prefer to reach
their sympathizers in Mexico and then penetrate the U.S. together with hundreds of thousands
of Mexicans, drug lords and gang members.
Mexicans.
Immigration: Aff
2AC Won’t Pass
Won’t pass –
A. GOP will link it to health care – kills the deal
Nakamura 6-17
[David. Lead Political Analyst for the Wash Post. “Republicans trying to use health-care law to derail Obama’s immigration reform efforts” The
Washington Post, 6/17/13 ln//GBS-JV]
After spending years unsuccessfully trying to overturn “Obamacare,” Republicans are now attempting to
use President Obama’s landmark health-care law to derail his top second-term initiative — a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s
immigration system.¶ Conservatives in both chambers of Congress are insisting on measures that
would expand the denial of public health benefits to the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants
beyond limits set in a comprehensive bill pending in the Senate.¶ In the House, Republicans are
considering proposals that would deny publicly subsidized emergency care to illegal immigrants
and force them to purchase private health insurance plans, without access to federal subsidies, as a requirement
for earning permanent legal residency.¶ In the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has endorsed an amendment to a comprehensive immigration bill
he helped negotiate that would deny health benefits to immigrants for five years after they become legal residents — two years after they
would be eligible to become citizens under the legislation.¶ Some Republicans, eager
to capi-tal-ize on public
uncertainty about the complexities of the Affordable Care Act, are casting the immigration legislation
as a similarly unwieldy law.¶ The immigration bill “reminds me of a more recent piece of
legislation: Obamacare,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on the Senate floor last week. “It grants broad new powers to the same
executive branch that today is mired in scandal for incompetence and abuse of power. Total cost estimates are in the trillions. And rather than
fix our current immigration problems, the bill makes many of them worse.Ӧ The
insertion of the politics of health-care
reform — one of the most polarizing issues in Washington — into the immigration debate
threatens to split open the emerging bipartisan coalitions that are crucial to passing a bill.
B. Won’t get 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, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
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
Marco Rubio of Florida, has already signaled that he
of Representatives. Its leading Republican sponsor, Sen.
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.
Ext. Won’t Pass the House
PC can’t get immigration through the House – the Obama-Boehner relationship is beyond
repair
Roarty ‘13
[Alex. Politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic. “There's Reason to Be Optimistic About Congress—Seriously” The Atlantic, 2/21/13
ln//GBS-JV]
Maintaining that momentum
in the House won't be easy, and it could require Obama's personal
leadership . Getting Boehner to take such a perilous route could depend in large part on
successful cajoling from the president. And on this subject -- the relationships among Washington's top leaders -discussion of a deal being cut becomes sharply pessimistic. ¶ The two men's relationship is
described as personally friendly, but professionally it
has produced nothing but dysfunction.
debt-limit negotiations of 2011 culminated in last year's failed fiscal-cliff talks.
with Obama one-on-one
What began with the
Boehner has vowed never to negotiate
again.¶ Washington has had a litany of successful speaker-president relationships through the years.
Think Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton -- or Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill in the 1980s. But Obama
and Boehner haven't been
able to find a workable formula. " There is zero trust between Boehner and the president, and
trust is what's necessary to get deals done ," said Mike Hacker, a former Democratic leadership aide. "It's not just
mutual interest."¶ The belief among the GOP that the president won't act on good faith in the current
negotiations is further straining the broken relationship between the two men. Rather than trying to
cut a deal with Republicans, Obama might work only toward defeating them in next year's
midterms, to try to re--take the House. At that point, assuming his party retains the Senate, congressional Democrats would
be poised to pass legislation as they did during Obama's first two years in office. "In the matrix they're crafting to take back
the House, there's no function for bipartisanship ," said Mike Ference, a former aide to Cantor.¶ Obama's
recent actions haven't put GOP worries to rest. His inaugural speech was long on urging the country to adopt a
progressive agenda but short on emphasizing the need for compromise. After completely ignoring House Democrats in
2012, the president announced plans to hold eight fundraisers for them this cycle. Obama , in the
eyes of the GOP, seems less interested in working with Republicans than in rolling over them .¶ The
atrophying of strong relationships on Capitol Hill is only one of many reasons polarization is so
entrenched. Certainly the proliferation of powerful political organizations, such as the free-market Club for Growth, and the influence of
partisan media have also played a role. In the bigger picture, the decades-long popular sorting out between the
parties and their ideology has probably mattered most: Conservative Southern Democrats and
liberal Northeastern Republicans are now nearly extinct. But another suggested cause of increased polarization,
gerrymandered districts, remains hotly disputed in the political-science community. Research shows
that members' voting behavior changes only slightly, if at all, with the partisan makeup of their
district; lawmakers support whatever their party decides,
according to this argument.
2AC PC
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-political-capital-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 standardbearer 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.
If the plan causes a fight it solves the DA
Dickerson ‘13
(John, Chief Political Correspondent at the Slate, Political Director of CBS News, Covered Politics for Time Magazine for 12 Years, Previous White
House Correspondent, Go for the Throat!, http://tinyurl.com/b7zvv4d)
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
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
and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget
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 the clever application of 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 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. ¶ This theory of political transformation rests on the weaponization (and slight
bastardization) of the work by Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes
transformational presidents from caretaker presidents. In order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the
orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust themselves. Obama's gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work,
but by exploiting the weaknesses of today’s Republican Party, Obama
has an opportunity to hasten the demise of
the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second
Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers , supporters of “self-deportation” and the pure no-tax wing.
AT//Rubio Link
Rubio’ll walk on CIR
Cogan 4-2
[M. Politics for The New Republic. “Why
strike a deal
Rubio Will Probably Walk The senator may be too risk-averse to
on immigration” The New Republic, 4/2/13 http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112814/marco-rubio-and-immigration-
reform-why-hes-likely-walk?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=c6bd8a4b25-TNR_Daily_040313&utm_medium=email# //GBSJV]
That's not universally seen as a positive. I didn't get into it much in my piece, but as McKay Coppins noted in his fun take on the South Florida
Republican community, even
some of Rubio's political allies down there have been frustrated that so far his great
stores of political goodwill haven't been put to much use. And getting Republicans on board for this
bill is going to require a willingness to take big risks. It's going to expend a lot of political capital, and will
almost certainly mean making enemies among members of his own party (see, for example, Texas Senator Ted
Cruz, also a Cuban-American GOP Senator, who says he has "deep concerns" about the deal now and is unlikely to support it in the future.)
Rubio's past political behavior doesn't suggest he'd be the type to take the plunge on this ,
especially with all of the untold opportunities for right-wing radio to turn a small but very vocal minority against
reform. ¶ Of course, he's only been in office for 27 months—that's plenty of time still for him to surprise us—but this line from Politico's
report should give immigration-reform hopefuls serious pause: "Either way, in the end, Rubio's view has evolved from
believing that he needed passage in order to be able to display a substantive accomplishment, to believing he will
get credit for trying so aggressively." In other words, it's a lot easier to walk away , basically unscathed, and
portray himself as the reasonable guy who genuinely wanted reform but couldn't negotiate with
the unreasonable Democrats, than it is to stick around and actually get the bill done.
CIR Fails – General
Immigration reform’s not key to anything
Hill et al ‘10
[Laura. Research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. She has been a research associate at The SPHERE Institute and a National
Institute of Aging postdoctoral fellow. She holds a Ph.D. in demography from the University of California, Berkeley. And Magnus Lofstrom is a
research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. He also holds appointments as a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labor
(IZA) at the University of Bonn and as a research associate at the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San
Diego. He has also served as a researcher and has taught at IZA and at the University of California, Irvine. He received his Ph.D. in economics
from the University of California, San Diego. AND*** Joseph M. Hayes is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California, where
he studies migration and population change throughout the state. He has studied migration in the Central Valley, the families of newly arrived
immigrants to California, and the state’s prison population. He holds an M.S. in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin,
Madison. 2010, “Immigrant Legalization Assessing the Labor Market Effects,” Public Policy Institute of California,
www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_410LHR.pdf#ppic//GBS-JV]
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.
AT//Economy IL
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 higher-educated 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 overqualification 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 non-recognition of foreign qualifications or excessive
requalification requirements for foreigners.
It wrecks growth
Rector ‘7
[Robert. Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at Heritage. And Christine Kim. “Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill
Immigrants to the US Taxpayer” Heritage Special Report #14, 5/22/7 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/05/the-fiscal-cost-oflow-skill-immigrants-to-the-us-taxpayer //GBS-JV]
In FY 2004, low-skill immigrant households received $30,160 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct benefits, means-tested
benefits, education, and population-based services). In general, low-skill
immigrant households received about
$10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S. household, largely because of
the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill immigrant
households.¶ In contrast, low-skill immigrant households pay less in taxes than do other
households. On average, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. Thus, low-skill immigrant
households received nearly three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in
taxes paid.¶ A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of
direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the
average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).¶ At
$19,588, the average annual fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households was nearly twice the amount of taxes paid. In order for the
average low-skill household to be fiscally solvent (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received), it would be
necessary to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all means-tested welfare, and to cut
expenditures on public education roughly in half.¶ American families often are net tax payers during working age and
net tax takers (benefits exceeding taxes) during retirement. This is not the case for low-skill immigrant households; in these
benefits substantially exceed taxes at every age level. Consequently, low-skill
immigrant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average
adult life span of 60 years for each head of household, the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly
$1.2 million for each low-skill household for immediate benefits received minus all taxes paid.¶
As noted, in 2004, there were 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households. With an average net fiscal deficit of $19,588 per household, the
total annual fiscal deficit for all of these households together equaled $89.1 billion (the deficit of
$19,588 per household times 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households). Over the next ten years, the net cost (benefits
minus taxes) to the taxpayer of low-skill immigrant households will approach $1 trillion. ¶ Current
households
immigrants (both legal and illegal) have very low education levels relative to the non-immigrant U.S. population. At least 50 percent and
perhaps 60 percent of illegal immigrant adults lack a high school degree.[1] Among legal immigrants the situation is better, but a quarter still
lack a high school diploma. Overall, a third of immigrant households are headed by individuals without a high school degree. By contrast, only 9
percent of non-immigrant adults lack a high school degree. The current immigrant population thus contains a disproportionate share of poorly
educated individuals. These individuals will tend to have low wages, pay little in taxes, and receive above average levels of government benefits
and services.¶ Recent waves of immigrants are disproportionately low skilled because of two factors. For years, the U.S. has had a permissive
policy concerning illegal immigration: the 2,000-mile border with Mexico has remained porous and the law prohibiting the hiring of illegal
immigrants has not been enforced. This encourages a disproportionate inflow of low-skill immigrants because few college-educated workers
are likely to be willing to undertake the risks and hardships associated with crossing the southwest U.S. deserts illegally. Second, the legal
immigration system gives priority to "family reunification" and kinship ties rather than skills; this focus also significantly contributes to the
inflow of low-skill immigrants into the U.S.¶ Understanding of the fiscal consequences of low-skill immigration is impeded by a lack of
understanding of the scope of government financial redistribution within U.S. society. It is a common misperception that the only individuals
who are fiscally dependent (receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes) are welfare recipients who perform little or no work, and that as
long as an individual works regularly he must be a net tax producer (paying more in taxes than his family receives in benefits). ¶ In reality, the
present welfare system is designed primarily to provide financial support to low-income working families. Moreover, welfare is only a modest
part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the government. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily
subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many
other services. At the same time, government requires these families to pay little in taxes. This very expensive assistance to the least
advantaged American families has become accepted as our mutual responsibility for one another, but it is fiscally unsustainable to apply this
system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants.¶ Finally, it
is sometimes argued that
since higher-skill immigrants are a net fiscal plus for the U.S. taxpayers, while low-skill
immigrants are a net loss, the two cancel each other out and therefore no problem exists. This
is like a stockbroker advising a client to buy two stocks, one that will make money and another
that will lose money. Obviously, it would be better to purchase only the stock that will be
profitable and avoid the money-losing stock entirely. Similarly, low-skill immigrants increase
poverty in the U.S. and impose a burden on taxpayers that should be avoided.¶ U.S. immigration
policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration. In general, government
policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty
and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers.
AT//Latin America IL
Plan’s a bigger internal link to relations than immigration reform – their author concedes
there are a bunch of alt causes that only the plan could conceivably resolve
Shifter 2012
(Michael, President of the Sol M. Linowitz Forum Intern-American Dialogue (Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,
An Inter-American Dialogue Policy Report, April, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
In part as a result of these shifts, US-Latin
American relations have grown more distant . The quality and
intensity of ties have diminished . Most countries of the region view the United States as less and less relevant to their needs—
and with declining capacity to propose and carry out strategies to deal with the issues that most concern them .In the main, hemispheric
relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and, happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred relations in the past have subsided . But the USLatin America relationship would profit from more vitality and direction . Shared interests are not pursued as vigorously as they should be, and
opportunities for more fruitful engagement are being missed . Well developed ideas for reversing these disappointing trends are scarce.
Some enduring problems stand squarely in the way of partnership and effective cooperation .
The inability of Washington to reform its broken immigration system is a constant source of friction between the United States and nearly
every other country in the Americas . Yet US officials rarely refer to immigration as a foreign policy issue . Domestic policy debates on this issue
disregard the United States’ hemispheric agenda as well as the interests of other nations .Another
chronic irritant is US drug
policy, which most Latin Americans now believe makes their drug and crime problems worse .
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting Mexico, acknowledged that US anti-drug programs have not
worked . Yet, despite growing calls and pressure from the region, the United States has shown little
interest in exploring alternative approaches .Similarly, Washington’s more than half-century
embargo on Cuba, as well as other elements of United States’ Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all other
countries in the hemisphere . Indeed, the US position on these troublesome issues—immigration,
drug policy, and Cuba—has set Washington against the consensus view of the hemisphere’s
other 34 governments .These issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas .
The United States and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need to resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships.
Immigration reform’s not key
Oppenheimer ‘13
[Andres. International Desk for the Miami Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/19/3189668/obama-may-help-latin-americawithout.html 1/19/13 //GBS-JV]
Latin America is probably one of the farthest things from President Barack Obama’s mind, but there are several
— largely domestic — reasons why, during his second term, he may become the best U.S. president for the
region in recent times.¶ 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.¶ According to Manuel
Orozco, author of the new book Migrant Remittances and Development in the Global Economy, the $73 billion that U.S.-based undocumented
workers send to Latin America annually is likely to increase by 18 percent if their immigration status is legalized. That would mean an extra
influx of about $13 billion in 2014, Orozco told me.¶ Second, Obama’s
new proposals to ban assault weapons in the
help reduce violence in several
Latin American countries that are flooded with weapons smuggled from the United States.¶ Mexico, where more than 60,000
people have died in drug-related violence over the past six years, says 83 percent of the weapons seized in its
aftermath of the most recent massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., would
territory are brought illegally from the United States. The Mexican government, alongside others,
has demanded that Washington do something to ban sales of semi-automatic weapons and
impose stricter controls on gun purchases.¶ Many Latin American officials say that, now that Obama can’t run for a new term, he will be freer to
push harder for gun-control laws.¶ Third, the
recent approval of marijuana legalization measures in Colorado
and Washington state is likely to allow Obama greater flexibility in drug-related talks with Latin
America.¶ Over the past year, the presidents of Guatemala, Uruguay, Mexico and Colombia, among others, have called for a serious debate on
drug legalization with Washington. They say that four decades of drug interdiction programs have failed to curb trafficking, and that it’s time to
divert more funds to education, drug prevention and rehabilitation.¶ Fourth, Obama’s stated intention to negotiate a Trans-Pacific
Partnership ( TPP ) trade agreement, while mostly geared at Asian countries,
would also benefit Latin American countries
on the Pacific coast, including Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile .¶ The TPP could become the world’s biggest
trade deal if Japan — the world’s third largest economy — decides to join.¶ Fifth, Obama’s likely appointment of Sen. John
Kerry to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is expected to lead Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. — a supporter of
greater U.S. cooperation with Latin America — to replace Kerry as chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. That’s good news to countries that rely on U.S. assistance.
AT//Border Security IL
Border’s sufficiently strong now
Saenz 2/13
[Arlette Saenz – Reporter for ABC News “Border Security No Barrier to Immigration Reform, Napolitano Says”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/border-security-no-barrier-to-immigration-reform-napolitano-says/, 2/13/2013]
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
insisted that the U.S. border has “never been stronger” and
dismissed the notion that border security is the first initiative that must be addressed before all
other immigration reform is put in place.¶ “I often hear the argument that before reform can move forward we must first
secure our borders, but too often the ‘border security first’ refrain simply serves as an excuse for failing
to address the underlying problems. It also ignores the significant progress and efforts that we
have undertaken over the past four years,” Napolitano said in testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s first hearing
on immigration reform Wednesday. “Our borders have, in fact, never been stronger.”
AT//India Relations IL
Immigration reform’s worse for relations – if they’re right about the influx of high-skilled
labor, India would perceive it as an American strategy for brain drain
KPMG ‘11
[KPMG International Consulting. “Unlocking the Potential: The Indian Aerospace and Defense Sector”
http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ThoughtLeadership/KPMG_Indian_Defence_Industry.pdf]
No substitute to trained manpower The backbone of the defence sector as is true for most skills
led manufacturing industries are its human resource and in turn, the skills and technical abilities
of the workforce. Estimates suggest that almost 50 percent of the workforce in this sector is
constituted by engineers and management graduates. Countries like France have developed
highly regarded specialist schools like Institut Superier de l’Aeronautique et de l’Espace (ISAE) and Ecole Nationale de l’Aviation
Civile (ENAC) in Toulouse and Ecole Nationale Superieure de Mecnique et d’Aerotechnique (ENSMA) in Poitiers to train engineers for this fi eld.
As the French industry grew, substantial investments were made in the form of professional federations such as Groupement des Industries
Francaises Aeronautiques et Spatiales (GIFAS) to promote the interests of this sector 10 . With a pool of 134000 specialist employees, the
French Aerospace and Defence industry today is clearly a European leader 11 . Whilst one could also reason that since Aerospace and Defence
being a very niche sector with specific skills requirement, it is first important to develop training grounds for the manpower so that they are
‘sector ready’ for application of these skills. On the other hand, it can also be argued that once the sector comes out of infancy that one would
see the setting up of such training schools/innovation hubs. Both arguments may be correct in their own respects and a logical way ahead
would be that they both need to function together so that one complements the other. As
one of the world’s top 10 military
markets, India’s increasing importance to defence contractors has already been established. As
Indian Aerospace and Defence is on the path to growth and development through technology
and business from both the domestic private sector and the global integrators, there are
valuable lessons that can be learnt from the experience of contemporaries across the globe,
who in the past have outdone their potential in this sector. The global Aerospace and Defence
evolution clearly suggests that it requires a synchronised working of the government’s will and
policy coupled with technology and R&D, proven manpower and manufacturing abilities for this
sector to create sustainable growth and economic contribution in a country.
More evidence – CIR would rob India’s worker base
KPMG ‘11
[KPMG International Consulting. “Unlocking the Potential: The Indian Aerospace and Defense Sector”
http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ThoughtLeadership/KPMG_Indian_Defence_Industry.pdf]
D: Availability of skilled manpower An
important enabler for any successful industry is enriched manpower
base. It becomes even more indispensable in Aerospace and Defence owing to its dependence
on highly skilled human resources. India has the largest pool of English speaking scientists and
engineers in the world. With over 380 universities, 11,200 colleges and 1,500 research
institutions, India has the second largest pool of scientists and engineers in the world. Every
year, over 2.5 million graduates are added to the workforce, including 300,000 engineers and
150,000 IT professionals. 28 India is ranked third globally, after USA and China, in terms of absolute number of students enrolled in
higher education institutions at 11.2 million students. 29 Mastery over quantitative concepts coupled with English proficiency has resulted in a
skill set that has enabled India to reap the benefits of the current international demand for IT. According
to industry feedback,
the research and training institutes in India are insufficient as compared to the number of
students. Moreover, the training provided in these institutes is not uniform across the country. The
government needs to invest more into the sector for the development of professionals so as to
leverage the potential of the human resources in an effective manner .
AT//Agriculture IL
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
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
Applications (ISAAA), said on Thursday. James said
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
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.”
1996, when it was first commercialized. “
Some degree of famine’s inevitable
Harsch ‘3
(Ernest, Africa Recovery, May, http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol17no1/171food1.htm)
To many around the world, the image of famine in Africa is closely linked to drought and, in some countries, war. But even
when there
is no drought or other acute crisis, about 200 million Africans suffer from chronic hunger, UN Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Director-General Jacques Diouf noted during a recent visit to Senegal. The reasons are multiple:
low farm productivity, grinding poverty, the ravages of HIV/AIDS and unstable domestic and
international agricultural markets.¶ "Food insecurity in Africa has structural causes ," Mr. Annan
emphasizes. "Most African farmers cultivate small plots of land that do not produce enough to meet the
needs of their families. The problem is compounded by the farmers' lack of bargaining power
and lack of access to land, finance and technology." Because small-scale farmers and other rural Africans have so few
food stocks and little income, a period of drought can quickly trigger famine conditions . This is
especially true for rural women, who are among the poorest of the poor and who account for
the bulk of food production in Africa.
It doesn’t cause war
Barnett ‘2k
(Jon, Australian Research Council Fellow in the School of Social and Environmental Enquiry at the University of Melbourne, Review of
International Studies 26, April)
The ways in which population growth leads to environmental degradation are reasonably well
known. However, the particular ways in which this leads to conflict are difficult to prove . In the absence of
proof there is a negative style of argumentation, and there are blanket assertions and abrogations; for example: ‘the
relationship is rarely causative in a direct fashion’, but ‘we may surmise that conflict would not arise so readily, nor would it prove so acute, if
the associated factor of population growth were occurring at a more manageable rate’.38 It
is possible though, that rather than
inducing warfare, overpopulation and famine reduce the capacity of a people to wage war . Indeed, it is
less the case that famines in Africa in recent decades have produced ‘first rate breeding grounds for conflict’; the more important,
pressing, and avoidable product is widespread malnutrition and large loss of life.
Politics Links – Starter Packet
Link turn cards should be specific to the aff you’re reading and can be found in the core file
for your aff.
Topic Neg
Topic Link UQ
Minimal engagement with Latin America
Cerna ‘11
[Michael, staff @ CRC, "China's growing presence in Latin America: Implications for US and Chinese presence in the region" China Research
Center -- Vol 10 No 1 -- www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-theregion/]
In March 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama met with leaders and officials in Brazil, Chile and El Salvador. Mr.
Obama made this visit amid growing Chinese power in the region. The trip marked the first time President Obama had
visited Latin America since becoming President. By comparison, at this point in Hu Jintao’s presidency, the Chinese
president already had visited four countries, including Brazil, where he signed 39 bilateral agreements and announced $100 billion in
investments. While Mr. Obama was well-received during his trip,
the most common response in those countries was
that the trip was symbolic but not very substantive. Obama’s visit did not reflect any shift in
policy. Many of the major statements these countries hoped for (such as a call for Brazil’s permanent place on the U.N. Security Council), in
fact, were not made. Mr. Obama admitted on his trip: “There have been times when the United States took this region for granted,” according
to the Latin American Herald Tribune. Those times are not yet in the distant past and there are fears this administration is making mistakes
similar to ones in the past. After promising during his 2000 election campaign to correct Washington’s indifference to Latin America, George W.
Bush was accused of turning his back on the region in favor of more pressing issues in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The
President showed no concern for a growing Chinese influence in the hemisphere, and China put
both feet inside before anyone in Washington seemed to realize the door was open . This was a move
China had planned during the administration of George H.W. Bush.
LA 1NC
Engagement with Latin America’s a fight in congress
Meyer and Sullivan ‘12
[Peter J. Meyer - Analyst in Latin American Affairs and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin
America and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations”, June 26th, 2012, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf]
At this juncture it
is uncertain if Congress will approve a stand-alone FY2013 foreign aid appropriations
measure, or whether such legislation will be rolled into an omnibus appropriations measure that combines several appropriations bills.
With increasing frequency, Congress has included the language of appropriations bills that have not first received House or Senate floor action
in omnibus appropriations measures. In these cases, the
lack of floor action on the individual bills has reduced the
opportunities for Members to consider and amend regular appropriations measures. For example, for FY2012 foreign aid appropriations,
neither chamber approved individual State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bills before such
appropriations were include in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). If similar action is taken for FY2013, it would continue
the pattern of reduced opportunities for Members that are not on the Appropriations Committees to consider and debate foreign aid
legislation, including assistance to Latin
America and the Caribbean. To date in the FY2013 foreign aid
appropriations process, the Administration has requested a 9% reduction in foreign aid to
Latin America
and the Caribbean while
House and Senate Appropriations Committees have approved bills
that would likely further reduce U.S. assistance going to the region, although by how much is unclear. The
House bill, H.R. 5857, would reduce the Administration’s worldwide foreign aid request by
almost 12%
while the Senate bill, S. 3241,
would reduce overall foreign aid by almost 5%. Potential automatic spending cuts stemming from the implementation of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) could result in further cuts in worldwide foreign assistance, including aid to Latin America and the Caribbean. Further
reductions in assistance to the region beyond the Administration’s FY2013 request would force the Administration to make even more difficult
choices about where to prioritize assistance and scale back some of its foreign aid programs in a critical neighboring region where the United
States has extensive ties and diverse economic, political, and security interests.
Ext. Latin America
More evidence – no political will for the plan, only backlash
Meyer and Sullivan ‘12
[Peter J. Meyer - Analyst in Latin American Affairs and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin
America and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations”, June 26th, 2012, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf]
When considering foreign assistance levels for Latin American and Caribbean nations, Congress might
examine the issues of political will and program sustainability. According to the State Department’s first Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), the United States should “assess and monitor host nations’ political will to make the reforms
necessary to make effective use of U.S. assistance to ensure our assistance is being targeted where it can have the most impact.”76 Unless
partner nations are willing to implement complementary reforms and take ownership and sustain programs as aid is reduced and withdrawn,
the results of U.S. assistance will likely be limited and short-lived. The
nations of Latin America and the Caribbean have a
mixed record in terms of demonstrating political will and ensuring program sustainability. The Colombian
government, which has benefitted from high levels of U.S. assistance for more than a decade, has undertaken numerous reforms and raised
revenue. As a result, the United States is able to carry out a managed transition of its assistance programs in the country in which aid is slowly
reduced as Colombia takes over financial and technical responsibility.77 Similarly, USAID is closing its mission in Panama, and closing out its
voluntary family planning programs in a number of other Latin American countries because partner nations have developed the capacity to
manage and fund the programs on their own.78 Despite these successes, numerous GAO reports over the past decade indicate that
political will has often been lacking
in the region,
government revenue to sustain efforts
especially with regard to raising sufficient
initiated with U.S. support. A 2003 study of U.S. democracy programs in six Latin
American nations found “cases in which U.S.-funded training programs, computer systems, and police equipment had languished for lack of
resources after U.S. support ended.”79 Likewise, a 2010 study of counter-narcotics programs found that several countries in the region were
unable to use U.S.-provided boats for patrol or interdiction operations due to a lack of funding for fuel and maintenance.80 Even MCC-funded
projects, in which assistance is contingent on partner nation actions, have run into problems with program sustainability. A July 2011 study of
the MCC compact in Honduras found that the lifespan of roads built to improve small farmers’ access to markets may be relatively limited as
the municipalities where they were constructed lack the equipment, expertise, and funding for road maintenance.81
Cuba Neg
Cuba Link UQ
US engagement toward Cuba’s low
Reuters 5-31
[“Cuba says inclusion on U.S. terrorist list 'shameful'”, May 31st, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-cuba-usa-terrorismidUSBRE94U05020130531]
(Reuters) - In what has become an annual ritual, the
United States on Thursday kept Cuba on its list of "state sponsors
of terrorism" and Havana reacted angrily, calling it a "shameful decision " based in politics, not reality.
Cuba said in a statement that the U.S. government was pandering to the Cuban exile community in
Miami against its own interests and the wishes of the American people. "It hopes to please an anti-Cuban
group, growing smaller all the time, which tries to maintain a policy that now has no support and doesn't even represent the national interests
of the United States," said the statement issued by Cuba's foreign ministry. Iran,
Sudan and Syria also are on the list, which
terrorism designation comes with a
number of sanctions, including a prohibition on U.S. economic assistance and financial
restrictions that create problems for Cuba in international commerce , already made difficult by a U.S. trade
is published annually by the U.S. State Department. Cuba has been on it since 1982. The
embargo imposed against the island since 1962. The State Department's explanation for Cuba's inclusion on the list discounted most of the
reasons from previous years and said "there was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to
terrorist groups." In the past, the report fingered Cuba for harboring rebels from the Marxist-led FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, and members of Basque separatist groups. This year, it noted that Cuba is sponsoring peace talks between the FARC and the
Colombian government and has moved to distance itself from the Basques. Washington's
primary accusation was that
Cuba harbors and provides aid to fugitives from U.S. justice. Cuba does not deny that it has
fugitives from the United States, but said none had been accused of terrorism.
Cuba Aid/Democracy 1NC
All foreign aid to Cuba is for democracy assistance which causes political fights, none goes to
the government
PolitiFact 11
[“The U.S. gives foreign aid to Cuba and Venezuela, even though those countries are our enemies”, February 9th, 2011,
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/23/ted-poe/ted-poe-decries-us-aid-venezuela-cuba/]
In a House floor speech on Feb. 9, 2011, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, took aim at American aid to foreign countries. Poe
has introduced a bill to require separate votes on aiding specific countries, thus ending the practice of bundling foreign aid into a single bill.
"Maybe it’s time to reconsider our foreign aid that we send to countries throughout the world," Poe said in the floor speech,
which has attracted attention in conservative circles on the Internet. "There are about 192 foreign countries in the world, … and we give foreign
aid to over 150 of them." Poe
proceeded to name some examples of countries where many Americans
might be uncomfortable sending taxpayer money, including Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and China. But two of the
nation’s in Poe’s speech caught our eye -- Venezuela and Cuba. Critics of Venezuela’s leader, Hugo Chavez, call him a dictator. Meanwhile,
Cuba has been a communist country for decades, led by Fidel Castro and now his brother Raul. In its widely
followed rankings, the group Freedom House rates Venezuela toward the bottom of the nations it classifies as "partly
free," while Cuba sits at the lower end of its "not free" scale. And both nations have strained relations with the United States. So Poe
suggested these as two examples of what’s wrong with U.S. foreign aid. "We give money to Venezuela. Why do
we give money to Chavez and Venezuela? He hates the United States. He defies our president, makes fun of our nation. We don’t need to give
Why do we give money to Cuba ? Americans can’t even go to
Cuba. It’s off-limits. It’s a communist country. But we’re dumping money over there." We looked at
him any foreign aid. We give $20 million to Cuba.
budget documents for foreign aid and talked to experts in the field, and here’s what we found. Poe is correct that U.S. foreign aid flows into
both countries. In fiscal year 2010, the Venezuela account showed $6 million, while the Cuba account showed $20 million. For fiscal year 2012,
the administration has requested a little less for Venezuela -- $5 million -- and the same $20 million amount for Cuba. To give a sense of
context, the 2010 funds allocated for Venezuela amounted to less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the total U.S. foreign-aid budget, and the figure
for Cuba was about 4/100 of 1 percent of the U.S. foreign aid budget. The percentage of the entire federal budget is even more minuscule. Still,
even if the amount is small, taxpayer money is taxpayer money, so Poe has a point. However, Poe also said in plain language that "we give
money to Chavez." And while he didn’t say it in as explicit a fashion, Poe implied that the U.S. sends aid to the Cuban regime. This is where it
gets more complicated. The funding for both nations comes from the Economic Support Fund, which, according to the State Department,
"supports U.S. foreign policy objectives by providing economic assistance to allies and countries in transition to democracy. Programs funded
through this account promote stability and U.S. security interests in strategic regions of the world." Let’s take Cuba first. A spokesman for the
U.S. Agency for International Development confirmed that no U.S. aid goes to the Cuban government. In an explanation of
its proposed budget, the administration writes that "Cuba is the only non-democratically elected government in the Western Hemisphere and
one of the most politically repressed countries in the world. In view of these challenges,
U.S. assistance for Cuba aims to
empower Cuban civil society to advocate for greater democratic freedoms and respect for
human dignity." The $20 million designated for Cuba "focuses on strengthening independent
Cuban civil society organizations, including associations and labor groups. … To advance the cause of
human rights in Cuba, U.S. assistance provides humanitarian assistance to political prisoners and their
families … The United States supports nascent pro-democracy groups, the use of technology, and new information-sharing opportunities."
A 2006 review by the Government Accountability Office noted that the aid is such a threat to the regime that it has to be kept under tight wraps
on the island. "Given the Cuban government’s repressive policies and opposition to U.S. democracy assistance, grantees employed a range of
discreet delivery methods," GAO reported. In other words, the
money being sent to Cuba is designed to foster
democracy in what is currently an undemocratic country -- not to support the government. Poe’s failure to note that distinction as he
attacks aid to "Cuba" strikes us as misleading.
Ext. Cuba Aid/Democracy
Cuban democracy assistance programs are corrupt and opaque – Congress has been very
critical of them
Collins 10
[Michael Collins is the program associate for the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy, “Cuba: Democracy Promotion
Programs under Fire as Fallout from Spy Arrest Continues”, May 12th, 2010, http://upsidedownworld.org/main/cuba-archives-43/2488-cubademocracy-promotion-programs-under-fire-as-fallout-from-spy-arrest-continues]
Since the early 90s the
United States has funded several programs that are designed ostensibly to promote
democracy in Cuba. All are managed by USAID. Gross's arrest has shone a spotlight on these programs, which
have been questioned over the past few years for issues of corruption and transparency . Many
USAID programs in Cuba are run through the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI). A congressional report noted in 2009 that, "Unlike many
foreign assistance programs, Transition Initiative programs are often initiated on short notice and are not always accurately detailed in budget
justification documents. The annual appropriations provisions for OTI require that the office give only five days' notice to Congress of new TI
programs, and even ongoing programs are not reported at the same level of detail as other foreign assistance programs." A 2006 report
by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) offered stinging criticism of USAID for the lack of oversight in
its Cuba aid program. According to the report, "Nearly all of the $74 million spent on contracts to promote
democracy in Cuba over the past decade has been distributed without competitive bidding or oversight in a
program that opened the door to waste and fraud ." Some of the profligacy cited includes the purchase of a gas chainsaw,
computer gaming equipment and software (including Nintendo Gameboys and Sony Playstations), a mountain bike, leather coats, cashmere
sweaters, crabmeat, and Godiva chocolates. A Miami Herald article from the same year pointed out that "most of the USAID money has
remained in Miami or Washington—creating an anti-Castro economy that finances a broad array of activities." The corruption that
exists in the Cuba democracy promotion programs came to a head in 2008, when Howard Berman, the chairman
of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, placed a hold on the $45 million due to be allocated to Cuban
programs that year. Berman wrote a memo to the assistant secretary for Legislative Affairs, questioning the "four-fold increase" in funding
for Cuban democracy promotion programs given the fraudulent abuse and lack of adequate oversight reported by the GAO in 2006 and the
media. He
requested the freeze be maintained until USAID responded to a list of questions
regarding the reported irregularities. Berman wanted answers on where the $74 million awarded for Cuba democracy
promotion programs mentioned in the GAO report had gone. He also requested follow-up information and measures regarding the case of
Felipe Sixto from the Washington-based Center for a Free Cuba (CFC). Sixto was discovered to have embezzled between $500,000 and $700,000
from the grantee's total award of $7.3 million. Sixto, who was a special assistant for intergovernmental affairs during the George W. Bush
administration, was given thirty months in jail. Berman later unfroze the withheld funds saying that he had been given assurances by USAID and
the State Department that it was "working to improve the program."
Cuba Energy 1NC
Energy cooperation with Cuba drains capital
Nerurkar and Sullivan 11
[Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development:
Background and U.S. Policy Considerations”, November 28th, 2011, 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
Ext. Cuba Energy
Congress HATES any cooperation with Cuba over oil drilling – several bills have been brought
to sanction companies that even try
Nerurkar and Sullivan 11
[Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development:
Background and U.S. Policy Considerations”, November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf]
Interest in Cuba’s offshore oil development has continued in the 112th Congress as foreign oil companies have moved forward with plans to
begin exploratory drilling. To date, five
legislative initiatives have been introduced taking different
approaches, and two congressional hearings have been held examining the issue. H.R. 372 (Buchanan), introduced January 26,
2011, would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
deny oil and gas leases and permits “to persons who engage in activities with the government
of any foreign country that is subject to any sanction or an embargo” by the U.S. government.
The intent of the legislation is to provide a disincentive to companies involved, or
contemplating becoming involved, in Cuba’s oil development,
although the scope of the legislation is much
broader and could affect other oil companies, including U.S. companies, not involved in Cuba. Because the bill does not define “sanction,” the
term could be used to refer to such U.S. restrictions as export controls or limits on foreign assistance. With this use of the term, many countries
worldwide could be construed as being subject to a U.S. sanction, and as a result, any energy company that engages in activities with one of
these countries could be denied an oil and gas lease in the United States under the proposed legislation. S. 405 (Bill Nelson), the Gulf Stream
Protection Act of 2011, introduced February 17, 2011, would require a company that is conducting oil or gas operations off the coasts of Cuba
to submit an oil response plan for their Cuba operations and demonstrate sufficient resources to respond to a worst case scenario if the
company wanted to lease drilling rights in the United States. The bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out an oil spill risk
analysis and planning process for the development and implementation of oil spill response plans for nondomestic oil spills in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Secretary of the Interior would be required, among other things, to include recommendations for Congress on a joint contingency
plan with the countries of Mexico, Cuba, and the Bahamas to ensure an adequate response to oil spills located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
H.R. 2047 (Ros-Lehtinen), the Caribbean Coral Reef Protection Act of 2011 (identical to a bill introduced in the 111th Congress and noted
above), was introduced May 26, 2011, and
would impose visa restrictions on foreign nationals and
economic sanctions on companies that help facilitate the development of Cuba’s offshore
petroleum resources . The bill would exclude from the United States aliens who invest $1 million or more that contributes to the
enhancement of the ability of Cuba to develop its offshore oil resources. It would also require the imposition of
sanctions (two or more from a menu of listed sanctions) if the President determined that a person had made
an investment of $1 million on or after January 10, 2005, that contributed to Cuba’s offshore oil
development.
Obama has to use his PC
Orth 11
(Derek Orth, J.D. expected May 2012, Rutgers School of Law (Newark, N.J.); Managing Articles Editor for the Rutgers Computer and Technology
Law Journal, 2011 University of Oregon, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 509, Lexis, 2011)
The Deepwater
Horizon was constructed in 2001 and was "capable of operating in water up to 8,000 feet deep and able to drill down
to 30,000 feet." n6 The disaster occurred while Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton) was
mounting production casing and [*512] cement on a 5,000 feet deep exploratory well in the Macondo Prospect.
Ironically, integrity tests were due to be performed on the Macondo well at the time the explosion occurred, after which the well would have
been capped until BP was prepared to begin extraction operations. n7 Tragically,
the fiery explosion that occurred
onboard the Deepwater Horizon threw BP's plans into disarray, resulting in eleven deaths, n8
millions of barrels of spewing oil, n9 and immense damage to the Gulf Coast. n10 The subsequent
proliferation of monetary claims, lawsuits, and legislation n11 has raised numerous issues that
stand to forever alter the regulatory structure of the offshore oil industry n12 as well as the liability
schemes of international oil companies operating in the United States' coastal waters. n13 A
bill's passage through Congress is
fraught with danger at every turn . In general, most bills are submitted by individual members of
Congress, examined and voted upon by specialized committees, presented to both the House
and Senate for approval, and, finally, submitted to the President for his signature . Thus, a wellmeaning and complex bill can often only gain approval through an expenditure of serious
political capital by at least one party or the occurrence of an event that exerts public pressure
on both political parties to react expediently and deal with the crisis.
Plan can only hurt Obama – only opposition to the plan—kills democrat support
Hobson ‘12
Margaret Kriz Hobson 12, E&E reporter, April 18, http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1
Obama's development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill
President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but
were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing
OFFSHORE DRILLING:
11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history, Obama's "all of the above" energy policy includes offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his
aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the moratorium on offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the
western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin
exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is also
paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil
and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill
Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new
oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection
and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and
Obama's offshore
oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital . The environmental
industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon,
community hates the drilling proposals . The Republicans and oil industry officials complain
that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by the
president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what
Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other
alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup
poll indicated that
American voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes
energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that
Obama's offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most
conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no
political climate,
place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato said. "He's
obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will
work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal.
After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama
has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil
exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The
White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional
moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming
bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011,
GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil
drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures
have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil
and gas plan floated by former President George W. Bush during his last days in office. That proposal would have offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions
off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison, Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the
West Coast and northern East Coast.
No turns---liberals hate the plan and conservatives won’t give Obama credit for it
Walsh ‘11
Bryan, TIME Senior editor, November 9, “Why Obama’s Offshore Drilling Plan Isn’t Making Anyone Happy,”
http://science.time.com/2011/11/09/why-obamas-offshore-drilling-plan-isnt-making-anyone-happy/#ixzz26snhDbbI
Nonetheless, Obama has set
a target of reducing U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025, and greater domestic oil
production is going to have to be a part of that—including oil from the Arctic. Unfortunately for the President, no one’s
likely to cheer him . Conservatives and the oil industry won’t be happy until just about every square
foot of the country is available for drilling—though it is worth noting that oil production offshore has actually increased under
Obama—and environmentalists
aren’t going to rally to support any sort of expanded drilling . With
energy, as with so many other issues for Obama, it’s lonely at the center .
Cuba Engagement 1NC
The plan drains capital
Birns and Mills ‘13
(Larry, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Frederick B., COHA Senior Research Fellow, 01/30, “Best Time for U.S.– Cuba
Rapprochement Is Now,” http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/)
Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been introduced by Havana: state control
over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the
“group of 75” Cuban dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by Havana, but when
it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the
day. One
reason for this inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a
change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue
that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression
continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more
dramatic reforms or regime change. It is true that the reformist tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a
one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of nonviolent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban
dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for
more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of
tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island,
the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in
Cuba, not in Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department should remove the country
from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State
Department under pressure from Hill hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: “This position is highly problematic,
as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting
wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the
United States ” (Nov. 15, 2012, Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist attacks
against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as the close monitoring of these organizations by
the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino,
Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a Miami court in 2001 and
subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests
for a change of venue out of Miami, which at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere
that arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had infiltrated extremist anti-Castro
organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an
important humanitarian gesture to let them go home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when
it comes to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. There
would probably be a
political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation
with Havana, but if Obama’s election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive dividend, surely such a dividend ought to
include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since
2009, Washington has lifted some of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send remittances
to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and
sitting in a number of congressional committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act
of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much
traction, especially with ultra-hardliner Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her
counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of the anti-Castro Cuban American
community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a prodemocracy and humanist position is not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by détente. An end to the embargo has been
long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started.
Ext. Cuba Engagement
The Cuba lobby hates the plan – they think the US should leverage the plan for changes
abroad
The Register 4-21
[“The Cuban chill”, April 21st, 2013, http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29740770-78/cuba-lobby-policy-china-political.html.csp,]
Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally
pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick
of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and
even presidents in line behind
a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported
by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided
with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the
presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. Like the China
Lobby, the
Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic
members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a self-interested industry
nourished by the flow of “democracy promotion” money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed
predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to
advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman
administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over
Central America policy. At the Cuba Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to
Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation, to lead the radio’s oversight board. President George
H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at the
suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997.
“No individual had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York
Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In
1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on
Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members of Congress:
challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert
Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobby’s political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the
embargo. Today,
the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which
hands out more campaign dollars than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million since 1996. In
Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and,
occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and
assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s documented the climate
of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby,
the Cuba
Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy . The congressional wing
of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career
civil servants who don’t toe the line. One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests
Section in Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant
secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate
peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be
assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later,
Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful
1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic
mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby
supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s
administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western
Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of
Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as
communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bush’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge
that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other
intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to
have him fired. When
Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with
Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the
senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vehemently opposes
any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and
his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410 billion omnibus
appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the
requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased
restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had
to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S.
policy toward Cuba.
Reforming Cuba policy will be a fight
Think Progress 4-9
[“How the GOP Response to Beyoncé’s Cuba Trip Highlights Broken Policy”, April 9th, 2013,
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/09/1838661/rubio-beyonce-cuba/]
Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving the goals the United States set out. On
taking office, President Obama
sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions the previous administration
placed on Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances from Cubans in the U.S. to their families back home and
reducing travel restrictions on Americans with immediate family in Cuba. Every step towards reforming Cuba
policy, however, has been met with kicking and screaming , mostly from the GOP with some
Democrats joining in. While the human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern,
campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies. A 2009 report from Public
Campaign highlighted the nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, along
with a “network of hard-line Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since 2004. In
the report, those candidates who received funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the aftermath of the gift
The plan’s perceived as a concession to Cuba – congress prefers the hardline
NY Times 10
[“U.S. Said to Plan Easing Rules for Travel to Cuba”, August 16th, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/world/americas/17cuba.html?_r=3&hp&]
The Obama administration is planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba , the latest
step aimed at encouraging more contact between people in both countries, while leaving intact the decades-old embargo against the island’s
Communist government, according to Congressional and administration officials. The officials, who asked not to be identified because they had
not been authorized to discuss the policy before it was announced, said it was meant to loosen restrictions on academic, religious and cultural
groups that were adopted under President George W. Bush, and return to the “people to people” policies followed under President Bill Clinton.
Those policies, officials said, fostered
robust exchanges between the United States and Cuba, allowing
groups — including universities, sports teams, museums and chambers of commerce — to share expertise as well as life
experiences. Policy analysts said the intended changes would mark a significant shift in Cuba policy. In
early 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances only for Americans with relatives on the island. Congressional aides
cautioned that some administration officials still saw
the proposals as too politically volatile
to announce until after
the coming midterm elections, and they said revisions could still be made. But others said the policy, which does not need legislative approval,
would be announced before Congress returned from its break in mid-September, partly to avoid a
outspoken groups within the Cuban American lobby
Jersey — that
political backlash from
— backed by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New
oppose any softening in Washington’s position toward Havana. Those favoring the change
said that with a growing number of polls showing that Cuban-Americans’ attitudes toward Cuba had softened as well, the administration did
not expect much of a backlash. “They have made the calculation that if you put a smarter Cuba policy on the table, it will not harm us in the
election cycle,” said one Democratic Congressional aide who has been working with the administration on the policy. “That, I think, is what
animates this.” Mr. Menendez, in a statement, objected to the anticipated changes.
“This is not the time to ease pressure
on the Castro regime,” he said, referring to President Raúl Castro of Cuba, who took office in 2006 after his brother, Fidel, fell ill.
Mr. Menendez added that promoting travel would give Havana a “much needed infusion of dollars that
will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression.”
Cuba Trade 1NC
Increasing trade with Cuba’s a fight
NYT 12
[The New York Times. “Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo”, November 19th, 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]¶
And Cuba has a long history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a State Department contractor
who has spent nearly three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone equipment to Jewish groups in Havana. 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 new allowances for
investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses. 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 e-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.”
Ext. Cuba Trade
Plan guarantees congressional backlash
Hanson and lee ‘13
(Stephanie, associate director and coordinating editor at CFR.org, Brianna, Senior Production Editor, 01/31, “U.S.-Cuba Relations,”
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113)
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.
More evidence – tremendous support for the embargo – anything that contradicts it gets
roasted
US-Cuba Politics 5-14
[“United States Cuba Relations – Why U.S. Cuba Policy Does Not Change: Asymmetrical Absurdity”, May 14th, 2013,
http://www.uscubapolitics.com/2013/05/united-states-cuba-relations-why-us.html]
Over the last decade we have seen many attempts to change U.S. Cuba policy beginning with lifting the
travel ban. All have failed . Most recently, we have seen the efforts to remove Cuba from the Terror List, a designation that Cuba does
not deserve and only serves to keep costs higher between the two countries, also fail. Conversely,
we have seen the hand of
the pro-embargo hardliners grow bigger and stronger . Legislation to expand Cuba travel is
consistently blocked or thwarted in Congress. Funding for clandestine “Democracy” programs like the ones that got Alan
Gross into a Cuban prison, still continue to be funded. The pro-embargo voting bloc raises money and elected six
Members of Congress to be their vanguards on the floors of Congress. Their capacity to even
reach into the White House, the Executive Branch, and establish themselves in gateway leadership
positions in the Congress all speak to a well concerted political effort. Government officials
and policy makers have to tow the hard line through the veiled and actual threats of holding up
Presidential appointments or congressional funding. Intelligence and reason have taken a back slide to
raw political power . Meet the consequences of distorted politics.
AT//GOP Likes the Plan
The ones that matter hate it
The Hill ‘12
[“Cuban-American senators hit brick wall with Obama administration on Cuba policy”, June 7th, 2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/globalaffairs/americas/231487-cuban-american-senators-hit-a-brick-wall-with-obama-administration-on-cuba-policy]
The Senate's two Cuban-Americans spent Thursday morning talking past the Obama administration's top official for the Americas on the issue
of U.S. policy toward Cuba. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were the only two senators who showed up for
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subpanel hearing on freedom in Cuba. They called
the administration's relaxing of
travel restrictions to Cuba “naive” and bashed the State Department's decision to grant visas to highprofile Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro's daughter Mariela. “The Cuban people are no less
deserving of America's support than the millions who were imprisoned and forgotten in Soviet
gulags,” Menendez said. “I am compelled to ask again today — as I have before — why is there such an obvious double
standard when it comes to Cuba?” Rubio said Castro government officials are master
manipulators of U.S. policy and public opinion. The two senators favor a hard-line stance against
Cuba
until regime change takes place. Critics of that policy argue that more than 50 years of U.S. sanctions have only enabled Castro
brothers Fidel and Raul to consolidate their power while impoverishing the Cuban people.
They don’t
Griswold ‘5
[director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (Daniel, 10/12, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba,”
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba]
For all those reasons, pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In
the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to
Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each
time efforts in Congress to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and
the Republican leadership . Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the general
American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern
Florida. By a fluke of the electoral college, Republican presidents feel obligated to please this
small special interest at the expense of our broader national interest.
Mexico Neg
Mexico Link UQ
US engagement is decreasing
Priest 5-1
[Dana. Latin American Reporter for the Washington Post. “U.S. role to decrease as Mexico’s drug-war strategy shifts” The Washington Post,
5/1/13 ln//GBS-JV]
For the past seven years, Mexico
and the United States have forged an unparalleled alliance against Mexico’s
drug cartels, one based on sharing sensitive intelligence, U.S. training and joint operational planning.¶ But much of that hard-earned
cooperation may be in jeopardy .¶ President Obama heads off Thursday on a three-day visit to Mexico to cement relations
with the newly elected president, Enrique Peña Nieto, with vows of neighborly kinship and future cooperation.¶ Obama’s visit comes
as the fight over border security and immigration overhaul has begun to consume Congress.¶ The
December inauguration of Peña Nieto brought the nationalistic Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) back to power after 13 years, and
with it a whiff of resentment over the deep U.S. involvement in Mexico’s fight against narcotraffickers.¶ The new administration has shifted priorities away from the U.S.-backed strategy of
arresting kingpins, which sparked an unprecedented level of violence among the cartels, and toward an emphasis on prevention and
keeping Mexico’s streets safe and calm, Mexican authorities said.
Hold any of their link uniqueness claims to a high threshold – US actions never reflect
diplomatic rhetoric
Padgett 5-27
[Timothy. Latin America Reporter for TIME “Why China Is Behind Fresh U.S. Moves In Latin America” WLRN – South Florida 5/27/13
http://wlrn.org/post/why-china-behind-fresh-us-moves-latin-america//GBS-JV]
There are of course skeptics. I asked Robert Pastor, a
former White House national security advisor for Latin
America and now an international relations professor at American University in Washington, D.C., if he thinks the U.S. is doing
enough to keep itself relevant in the Americas.¶ “ No it’s not,” he says. “President Obama’s trip (to Mexico and
Central America) is
a good first step, but he needs to do a lot more to open up and show America’s
interest in re-engaging
with the rest of South America.Ӧ Pastor has a point: for
decades, Latin America has
heard a lot of rhetoric from the U.S. about engagement -- the kind Biden offered the Council of
the Americas in Washington recently, when he declared that the hemisphere “matters more (to the U.S.)
today because it has more potential than any time in American history.”
Recent attempts at engagement have failed
Zissis ‘12
[Carin. Mexico Analyst for the Council of the Americas. “Mexico’s Peña Nieto Visits Washington to Refocus Relations” 11/27/12 http://www.ascoa.org/articles/mexico%E2%80%99s-pe%C3%B1a-nieto-visits-washington-refocus-relations//GBS-JV]
But it appears
the American public may not have read the good news . A November 20 Vianovo and
GSD&M survey found that half of Americans have an unfavorable view of Mexico, with “drugs”
being
the word most frequently
associated
with it. As many as 59
percent of those surveyed viewed Mexico as a
source of problems compared to just 14 percent considering it a good partner. This perception persists, even as
signs indicate a turning tide in terms of the drug-related violence that marked the six-year term of outgoing President
Felipe Calderón. An AnimalPolitico analysis (translated into English by InSight Crime) reports that 20 of Mexico’s 32 states saw fewer homicides
between January and October in 2012 compared to the same period last year. Areas associated with high rates of violence saw notable drops,
with homicides decreasing by 32 percent in Chihuahua, 25 percent in Nuevo Leon, and 23 percent in Sinaloa. Last month, Ciudad Juarez logged
fewer homicides than Chicago. “[A]re we still in a security crisis?” asks the article’s author, Mexican security expert Alejandro Hope. “I would
say no: crime and violence continue (and will continue for a while) at unacceptable levels, but
it can no longer be so easily
argued that the situation is escalating out of control.”
More evidence – even recent attempts at improved relations will fail – too many barriers
Farnsworth 5-8
[Eric. Leader of the Washington Office of the Council of the Americas. He was the Clinton Administration’s Senior Adviser to the White House
Special Envoy for the Americas. “Obama’s Mexico Trip Yielded Progress, Missed Opportunities” 5/8/13
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12934/obama-s-mexico-trip-yielded-progress-missed-opportunities//GBS-JV]
At the same time, a
number of obstacles to growth must be addressed if the bilateral relationship is
to reach its full potential. Many of these are domestic issues that each nation should resolve for
its own self-interest but that would nonetheless meaningfully improve the bilateral economic relationship. Among these are,
from Mexico’s side, reforms in fiscal, energy and competition policy, as well as the continuing
implementation of labor and education reforms. Working with Mexico’s other two main political parties, Pena Nieto’s
Institutional Revolution Party (PRI) has successfully begun the reform process. But the Mexican president’s honeymoon
period is coming to an end, and the most difficult issues remain unresolved.¶ From the U.S.
perspective, comprehensive immigration reform would boost the economy by regularizing, and therefore
capitalizing on, immigrant workers already in the United States contributing to economic production. The United States would
also do well to quickly pass the transboundary hydrocarbons agreement with Mexico, which
would open up opportunities for cooperation with Mexican state energy company Pemex in the
Gulf of Mexico.
More evidence – instances of increased cooperation are meaningless in the context of our DA
Farnsworth 5-8
[Eric. Leader of the Washington Office of the Council of the Americas. He was the Clinton Administration’s Senior Adviser to the White House
Special Envoy for the Americas. “Obama’s Mexico Trip Yielded Progress, Missed Opportunities” 5/8/13
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12934/obama-s-mexico-trip-yielded-progress-missed-opportunities//GBS-JV]
The president’s visit to Mexico was timely and symbolically important. It was designed to shift the
narrative about U.S.-Mexico relations, and several concrete initiatives were announced. But the trip seemingly
did little to promote or capture a larger ambition for the relationship . Both sides will need to think bigger
to take the relationship to the next level.
The turn to economics is not substantive – the security focus will return and there’s no
coherent economic agenda
Fossett ‘13
[Katelyn, “In U.S.-Mexico Relations, a Shift from Security to Economy,” Interpress Service News, www.ipsnews.net/2013/04/in-u-s-mexicorelations-a-shift-from-security-to-economy///GBS-JV]
Development’s Achilles heel¶ Still, for a country like Mexico that is still struggling with issues of citizen security and rampant crime, many
suggest that economic
growth would have to start from the bottom, with more robust social programmes and
Arnson,
director of the Latin America programme at the Wilson Center, calls Latin America “far behind”
in developing policies that might leverage inclusive growth.¶ “There is not a sense of shared
responsibility … when your social policy is remittance, when your lack of social policy is permitted,” she told reporters on Friday. The
safety nets, before the international community becomes too optimistic about economic and trade booms.¶ Cynthia
region, she said, needs “a widespread recognition of the role the private sector needs to play in paying taxes, improving government … [and]
institutions.Ӧ In
a telephone interview with IPS, she noted that the U.S. relationship with Central
America is likely to remain more focused on security concerns.¶ “There is a growing consensus in the
development community that sustainable growth can’t and will not happen unless levels of violence are brought under control,” she told IPS.¶
The World Bank recently called citizen insecurity the “Achilles’ heel of development” in Latin America.¶ Members
of the U.S.
Congress and advocacy groups here are also wary of turning a blind eye to human rights
concerns in Mexico.¶ “The dire human rights situation in Mexico is not going to solve itself,” Maureen Meyer, a senior associate for
Mexico and Central America with the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), an advocacy group, said in a statement.¶ “As the
bilateral agenda evolves, it is critical that the U.S. and Mexican governments continue to focus
on how best to support and defend human rights in Mexico.Ӧ In a press release issued last week, WOLA
expressed agreement with a letter from 23 members of Congress to Secretary of State John Kerry that stressed that “[t]he human rights crisis
will not improve until there are stronger legal protections, increased human rights training for Mexico’s security forces, and more government
agents held responsible for the human rights violations they commit.Ӧ Even
as the focus of U.S.-Mexico relations turns
to economics, there is no broad agreement on how exactly a shift toward trade relations will
strengthen the “economic competitiveness” of both countries.¶ “Part of the challenge is that we have this term,
but we have a laundry list of issues that could fit into that term ,” the Mexico Institute’s Chris Wilson said.¶
“What we still don’t have is a coherent agenda or a way in which the leadership from the top
level can engage the public or business community or civil society … and create something more [meaningful],”
he told IPS.
Some collaboration might be inevitable, but the increase in economic engagement facilitated
by the plan is distinct
Stratfor ‘13
[Stratfor Global Intelligence. “ Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit” 5/2/13 http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexicorelations-and-obamas-visit //GBS-JV]
Domestic political factors will determine the success of the pending overhauls. But the labor
reform could improve bilateral commerce and investment with the United States, as would a
successful liberalization of the country's energy sector in the coming years. Mexico is already the
United States' third-largest trading partner, and economic coordination between the two countries has become a routine
matter at the ministerial level, but there is still a need to ease bureaucratic trade and investment
barriers .
Mexico Democracy 1NC
The plan causes a fight because it’s linked to Merida
Seelke ‘13
[Clare Ribando Seelke - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Mexico and the 112th Congress”, January 29th, 2013,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf]
There have been ongoing concerns about the human rights records of Mexico’s federal, state,
and municipal police. For the past several years, State Department’s human rights reports covering Mexico have
cited credible reports of police involvement in extrajudicial killings, kidnappings for ransom, and
torture.83 While abuses are most common at the municipal and state level, where corruption and police collaboration with criminal groups
often occurs, federal forces—including the Federal Police—have also committed serious abuses. Individuals are most
vulnerable to police abuses after they have been arbitrarily detained and before they are transferred to the custody of prosecutors, or while
they are being held in preventive detention. Some 43% of Mexican inmates are reportedly in pre-trial detention.84 The Calderón government
sought to combat police corruption and human rights abuses through increased vetting of federal forces; the creation of a national police
registry to prevent corrupt police from being re-hired; the use of internal affairs units; and the provision of human rights training. In 2012, the
government also announced new protocols on the use of force and how detentions are to be handled that were designed to prevent abuses. A
January 2009 public security law codified vetting requirements and professional standards for state police to be met by 2013, but progress
toward meeting those standards has been uneven. With a few exceptions, efforts
to reform municipal police forces have
lagged behind. There has also been increasing concern that the Mexican military, which is less accountable to civilian authorities than
the police, is committing more human rights abuses since it is has been tasked with carrying out public security functions. A November 2011
Human Rights Watch (HRW) report maintains that cases of torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings have increased
significantly in states where federal authorities have been deployed to fight organized crime.85 According to Mexico’s Human Rights
Commission (CNDH), the number of complaints of human rights abuses by Mexico’s National Defense Secretariat (SEDENA) increased from 182
in 2006 to a peak of 1800 in 2009 before falling slightly to 1,695 in 2011. The Trans-Border Institute has found that the number of abuses by
SEDENA forces that have been investigated and documented by CNDH has also declined since 2008-2009, particularly in areas where large-scale
deployments have been scaled back.86 In contrast, complaints of abuses against the Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR) reported to CNDH
increased by 150% from 2010 to 2011 as its forces became more heavily involved in anti-DTO efforts.87 While troubling, only a small
percentage of those allegations have resulted in the CNDH issuing recommendations for corrective action to SEDENA or SEMAR, which those
agencies say they have largely accepted and acted upon.88 A June 2011 constitutional amendment gave CNDH the authority to force entities
that refuse to respond to its recommendations to appear before the Mexican Congress. In addition to expressing concerns about current
human rights abuses, Mexican and international human rights
groups have criticized the Mexican government for
failing to hold military and police officials accountable for past abuses .89 In addition to taking steps to
reform the police and judiciary, the Calderón government took some steps to comply with rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(IACHR) that cases of military abuses against civilians should be tried in civilian courts. While a few dozen cases90 were transferred to civilian
jurisdiction and former President Calderón asked SEDENA and SEMAR to work with the Attorney General to accelerate transfers, most cases
were still processed in the military justice system.91 Military prosecutors have opened thousands of investigations into allegations of human
rights abuses as a result of complaints filed with the CNDH, with few having resulted in convictions.92 A reform of Article 57 of the military
justice code was submitted by then-President Calderón in October 2010 mandating that at least certain human rights violations be investigated
and prosecuted in civilian courts. A more comprehensive proposal that required that all cases of alleged military human rights violations be
transferred to the civilian justice system was approved by the Mexican Senate’s Justice Commission in April 2012; however, the bill was
subsequently blocked from coming to a vote. In September 2012, another proposal to reform Article 57 was presented in the Mexican Senate,
but not enacted. Enacting a reform of Article 57 of the military justice code may become more urgent now for the Peña Nieto Administration
now that Mexico’s Supreme Court is in the process of establishing binding legal precedent for determining jurisdiction in cases involving alleged
military human rights violations against civilians. Human rights defenders and journalists have been particularly vulnerable to abuses by
organized crime, sometimes acting in collusion with corrupt government authorities. Recently, several prominent human rights defenders have
been harassed, attacked, and even killed, including members of the high-profile Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity led by Javier
Sicilia. Increasing
violent crimes targeting journalists, combined with high levels of impunity for
the perpetrators of those crimes, have made Mexico the most dangerous country in the
Western Hemisphere for journalists. Crimes against journalists range from harassment, to extortion, to kidnapping and murder. The
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has documented 58 murders of journalists and at least 10 cases of journalists disappearing in Mexico
since 2000. Threats from organized crime groups have made journalists and editors fearful of covering crime-related stories, and in some areas
coverage of the DTOs’ activities have been shut down.93 The Calderón government and the Mexican Congress took some steps to better
protect human rights defenders and journalists, but many human rights organizations have called upon the Peña Nieto Administration to do
more. The Calderón government established a special prosecutor within the Attorney General’s Office to attend to crimes against freedom of
expression and created mechanisms to provide increased protection for journalists and human rights defenders. Those mechanisms have yet to
be effectively implemented. The Mexican Congress enacted a law to make crimes against journalists a federal offense and a law to require the
federal government to provide protection to journalists and human rights defenders who are “at risk” of being victimized and to their families.
Another law approved by the Congress in 2012, but not promulgated by the Calderón government, would require the state to track victims of
organized crime and provide assistance to victims and their families. Human rights organizations expressed satisfaction after President Peña
Nieto signed that law, commonly referred to as the “victims’ law,” in January 2013, but said that the real test of his government’s commitment
to human rights will be in how that and other laws are implemented. Human Rights Conditions on U.S. Assistance to Mexico In 2008, Congress
debated whether human rights conditions should be placed on Mérida assistance beyond the requirements in §620J of the Foreign Assistance
Act (FAA) of 1961. That section was re-designated as §620M and amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-74). It
states that an individual or unit of a foreign country’s security forces is prohibited from receiving assistance if the Secretary of State receives
“credible evidence” that an individual or unit has committed “a gross violation of human rights.” The FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act
(P.L. 110-252), which provided the first tranche of Mérida funding, had less stringent human rights conditions than had been proposed earlier,
largely due to Mexico’s concerns that some of the conditions would violate its national sovereignty. The conditions required that 15% of INCLE
and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) assistance be withheld until the Secretary of State reports in writing that Mexico is taking action in four
human rights areas: 1. improving transparency and accountability of federal police forces; 2. establishing a mechanism for regular consultations
among relevant Mexican government authorities, Mexican human rights organizations, and other relevant Mexican civil society organizations,
to make consultations concerning implementation of the Mérida Initiative in accordance with Mexican and international law; 3. ensuring that
civilian prosecutors and judicial authorities are investigating and prosecuting, in accordance with Mexican and international law, members of
the federal police and military forces who have been credibly alleged to have committed violations of human rights, and the federal police and
military forces are fully cooperating with the investigations; and 4. enforcing the prohibition, in accordance with Mexican and international law,
on the use of testimony obtained through torture or other ill-treatment. Similar human rights conditions were included in FY2009-FY2011
appropriations measures that funded the Mérida Initiative.95 However, the first two conditions are not included in the 15% withholding
requirement in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74). As previously mentioned, Congress
has yet to pass a
final FY2013 appropriations measure. It remains to be seen whether an omnibus bill would
include the conditions on aid to Mexico that are in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version
of the FY2013 foreign operations ppropriations measure S. 3241 (S.Rept. 112-172). Those conditions would retain the
condition related to torture, as well as require the State Department to report that Mexico has reformed its military justice code and is
requiring police and military officials to immediately transfer detainees to civilian judicial authorities. Thus far, the State Department has
submitted three 15% progress reports on Mexico to congressional appropriators (in August 2009, September 2010, and August 2012) that have
met the statutory requirements for FY2008-FY2012 Mérida funds that had been on hold to be released. Nevertheless, the State Department
has twice elected to hold back some funding pending further progress in key areas of
concern.
In the September 2010 report, for example, the State Department elected to
hold back $26 million in FY2010
supplemental funds as a matter of policy until further progress was made in the areas of transparency
and combating impunity.96 Those funds were not obligated until the fall of 2011. In the August 2012 report, the State
Department again decided to hold back all of the FY2012 funding that would have been subject to the
conditions (roughly $18 million) as a matter of policy until it can work with Mexican authorities to determine
steps to address key human rights challenges. Those include: improving the ability of Mexico’s civilian institutions to
investigate and prosecute cases of human rights abuses; enhancing enforcement of prohibitions against torture and other mistreatment; and
strengthening protection for human rights defenders.97
Mexico Engagement 1NC
Economic engagement with Mexico’s politically divisive
Wilson ‘13
Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International. Center for Scholars (Christopher E., January, “A U.S.-Mexico Economic
Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region,” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)
At a time when Mexico is poised to experience robust economic growth, a manufacturing renaissance is underway in North America and
bilateral trade is booming, the United States and Mexico have an important choice to make: sit back and reap
the moderate and perhaps temporal benefits coming naturally from the evolving global context , or implement a robust agenda to improve the
competitiveness of North America for the long term . Given
that job creation and economic growth in both the
United States and Mexico are at stake, t he choice should be simple, but a limited
understanding about the magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.-Mexico economic
relationship among the public and many policymakers has made serious action to support
regional exporters more politically divisive than it ought to be.
Ext. Mexico Engagement Link
NAFTA proves the link – trade gets linked to a broader fights about jobs
Villarreal and Fergusson ‘13
Specialists in International Trade and Finance (M. Angeles, Ian F., 02/21, “NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf)
NAFTA was controversial when first proposed , mostly because it was the first FTA involving
two wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate surrounding
the agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement would help generate
thousands of jobs and reduce income disparit y in the region, while opponents warned that the
agreement would cause huge job losses in the United States as companies moved production to
Mexico to lower costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted
by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with
Canada and Mexico account for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries
adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies.
Pushing expanded free trade measures with Mexico angers democrats
Perez-Rocha 12
[Manuel Pérez Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C, “Don't Expand NAFTA”, July 26th, 2012,
http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta]
With Canada and Mexico joining the TPP, the agreement is looking more and more like a substitute for the FTAA. So it is not
surprising that opposition to the TPP is growing as quickly as it did against that former attempt to expand the neoliberal
model throughout the Western hemisphere. The intense secrecy of the TPP negotiations is not helping the Obama administration make its
case. In their statement, North
American unions “call on our governments to work with us to include in
the TPP provisions to ensure strong worker protection s, a healthy environment, safe food and products, and the
ability to regulate financial and other markets to avoid future global economic crises.” But the truth is that only big business
is partaking in consultations, with 600 lobbyists having exclusive passwords to online versions of the negotiating text. 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.
Mexico Energy 1NC
US-Mexico energy cooperation’s controversial
CFR ‘12
standing committee of the United States Senate (12/21, “OIL, MEXICO, AND THE TRANSBOUNDARY AGREEMENT,”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112SPRT77567/html/CPRT-112SPRT77567.htm)
The TBA further contains requirements of data sharing and notification of likely reserves
between the United States and Mexico, opening the opportunity for increased government-togovernment collaboration on strategic energy policy choices. Mexico and the United States are
relatively less advanced in effective communication and linkages of our energy systems than we
are in less politically-controversial economic areas. Improved ties can improve understanding and galvanize
cooperation in often unexpected ways. In the immediate term, closer oil sector communication will be beneficial in case of accidents in the Gulf
of Mexico or in case of significant disruptions to global oil supplies.
Venezuela Neg
Venezuela Link UQ
No US-Venezuela engagement – America’s staying out of the transition
Fox News 5-5
[“Obama Says The U.S. Will Not Get Tangled In Venezuela's Politics”, May 5th, 2013,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/05/obama-says-us-will-not-get-tangled-in-venezuela-politics/]
President Barack Obama said the U.S. has not and will not get tangled up in Venezuela's
political conflict. Commenting in an interview with Spanish-language network Telemundo that's set to air Sunday, Obama said the
U.S. hasn't tried "in any way" to interfere with the recent election of Nicolas Maduro as Venezuela's president.
On Saturday Venezuela's government accused Washington and the Obama administration of being behind violence that has followed its recent
presidential election. A foreign ministry statement said that Obama's "fallacious, intemperate and interventionist declaration" will lead toward
deteriorating relations between the countries and "confirms to the world the policy of aggression his government maintains against our
country." The statement read by Foreign Minister Elias Jaua on state television referred to comments the U.S. president made to Spanishlanguage television network Univision during his trip to Mexico and Costa Rica. In the interview that aired Friday, Obama
wouldn't
say if the United States recognizes Nicolas Maduro as Venezuela's new president following elections
that have been disputed by the opposition. When asked, he replied that it's up to the people of Venezuela to
choose their leaders in legitimate elections.
Venezuela 1NC
Congress hates cooperation with Venezuela
Sullivan ‘13
Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
U.S. Policy 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 De partment of State has
prohibited the sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of
cooperation on antiterrorism efforts.
Ext. Venezuela
More evidence – the plan would be perceived as an end-run on a bunch of reforms Congress
wants before it engages Venezuela – they’d backlash
Sullivan ‘13
Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
Legislative Initiatives As
in past years, there were concerns in the 112 th Congress regarding the
state of Venezuela’s democracy and human rights situation and its deepening relations with
Iran, and these concerns will likely continue in the 113 th Congress. The 112 th Congress
approved H.R. 3783 (P.L. 112- 220), which requires the Administration to conduct an
assessment and present “a strategy to address Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity in
the Western Hemisphere.” Other initiatives that were not approved include: H.R. 2542, which would have withheld some
assistance to the Organization of American States unless that b ody took action to invoke the Inter-American Democratic Charter regarding the
status of democracy in Venezuela; H.R. 2583, which included a provision prohibiting aid to the government of Venezuela; and H.Res. 247, which
would have called on the Secretary of State to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism.
GOP hates the plan
Ros-Lehtinen 13
[Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican, is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.
“ROS-LEHTINEN: Venezuela after Chavez: What comes next?”, March 14th, 2013,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/venezuela-after-chavez-what-comes-next/]
Last year, it was
reported that the Obama administration was seeking to exchange ambassadors in
an attempt to normalize relations between the countries. The U.S. State Department’s
approach was extremely premature , and it, unfortunately, legitimized Mr. Maduro without even
questioning whether the Venezuelan Constitution was being upheld. The Obama administration
continued to send mixed messages and to undermine the opposition by sending a delegation to attend
Chavez’s funeral services last week, alongside enemies of the United States, such as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Words
matter, but actions matter more, and this decision not only sends mixed signals to the people of Venezuela, but
reiterates the failed policy of attempting to re-establish diplomatic relations. It is in our best interest if
political and economic reforms come to Venezuela, but all signs currently point to the contrary. As the leader of the Chavista
movement, Mr. Maduro could potentially be worse for the Venezuelan people and for U.S.
national security interests. Mr. Maduro still controls all branches of government, stifles free speech and was indoctrinated with
socialist ideology. He has traveled to Tehran and has strong ties with Iran, supports the Assad regime in Syria and has become a lap dog for
Cuba’s Castro brothers.
AT//Chavez Death = Engagement’s Popular
Chavez’ death didn’t create an impetus for cooperation – Congress still hates Venezuela
Schultz 13
The International (Kylie, 03/17, “The Rocky U.S.-Venezuela Relationship: What Both Countries Could Learn,”
http://www.theinternational.org/articles/370-the-rocky-us-venezuela-relationship-wh)
While the United States sent a representative, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the
Obama administration itself offered no
condolences. “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,” said a statement released by the White
House. “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.” Criticized by many Chavez supporters for its unsympathetic and, some claim, contemptible tone,
the White House statement and the reactions it has elicited are representative of the divide
between the United States and Venezuela which emerged during Chavez’s presidency. The
influence and standing of the United States in Latin America has decreased in recent years as
domestic inequality and political polarization in America rise . There seem but few signs that
Chavez’s death will spark a shift in U.S.-Venezuelan relations. As Venezuela enters into the post-Chavez era with
a struggling economy, high inflation, and some of the worst crime rates in the world, why do both countries continue to demonize one
another?