NDI 2013 – 6WS – MEXICO VISAS
AFFIRMATIVE
**1AC Advantages**
1AC – Organics Advantage
CONTETION ( ): ORGANICS
Labor shortages coming now---this causes mechanized crops to take
precedence over organics
Regelbrugge 12 – Craig is the co-chair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform. (“Regelbrugge: The Farm
Labor Crisis: Imagined, or Real?” September 26, 2012, http://www.cnbc.com/id/49182232, Callahan)
In several recent columns, CNBC.com senior editor John Carney has dismissed any notion of a farm labor crisis, claiming that
record farm profits suggest no such crisis exists. The senior editor’s all too common error is to grossly oversimplify American
agriculture and draw the wrong conclusions as a result. Carney needs to spend more time down on the farm — literally. And not just
any farm. Maybe he should start with a Washington state asparagus farm. Growers there plowed under 15 percent
of the crop this year because of a shortage of pickers. Abandoning a field is a big deal because you don’t
plant asparagus each year. It grows from long-lived roots that produce a crop each spring. That’s just one example of
the two different worlds of crop agriculture. The first involves commodities such as corn, soybeans, wheat
and rice, which are typically grown on large-scale farms with highly mechanized processes. These
crops require minimal hand labor: A mechanical planter puts the seeds into the soil, and a mechanical harvester reaps the
grain. Such crops have also historically enjoyed safety nets including government subsidies, price supports, crop insurance and
disaster relief. More recently, they have benefited from major new subsidies for crop-to-energy programs, as with corn-based
ethanol. As a result — to paraphrase “Oklahoma!” — corn prices are high as an elephant’s eye, and it looks like they’re climbing clear
up to the sky! But back on the ground, we also have crops that cannot be mechanized completely, or, in some
cases, at all. Think apples, strawberries, blackberries, watermelons and peaches . These delicate fruits must be
hand-picked to avoid bruises and blemishes that might make them unpalatable to consumers. (Read More:California Farm Labor
Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever') The care and harvest of these crops depends upon the skilled and trained eyes
and hands of farmworkers, many of whom moved here from other countries. These fruit, vegetable,
nursery and greenhouse crops are grown in a free and increasingly competitive global market. They do not
receive federal subsidies or price supports, and insurance or disaster relief safety nets are more limited. For perspective on Carney’s
economic broad-brush painting, I turned to respected economist Stephen Bronars. Using the same USDA datathat Carney
referenced, Bronars points out that just four agricultural commodities — corn, cattle, hogs and soybeans — accounted for almost half
of all U.S. farm cash receipts in 2011. Receipts for those four commodities alone are up 33.5 percent from 2008 to 2011. Income for
all other crops and commodities is up a modest 6.15 percent. To use a different lens, those four commodities are responsible for 81
percent of the increase in farm cash receipts. Carney mentions apples in Washington state. Though China now produces half the
world’s apple crop, Washington still produces about sixty percent of America’s homegrown crop. But things aren’t all sugar- and
cinnamon-spiced for apple orchard owners. As the apple harvest nears, the apple farmer is fully leveraged. Lines of
credit are fully extended. All the production costs except for harvest have been incurred. The grower is on
a tightrope; his financial fate hangs on the trees. If Mother Nature cooperates, markets are good and enough harvest
workers show up, it all works out. If any one of those variables goes negative, it can quickly mean a loss for the whole year. So when
a respected apple grower reports he is short 500 harvest workers, it’s a crisis. If the weather holds, maybe it
works out. If not, it can end in disaster. In his latest columnon the agricultural industry, Carney dismisses that there is a problem in
Georgia, which enacted a state immigration law that led to a labor disaster. Again, he mistakenly equates rising income from
mechanized crops and livestock with success across all of agriculture, ignoring the evidence that Georgia growers of seven
perishable, hand-picked crops such as blackberries and peppers have already lost an estimated $150 million, or 24 percent of the
farm gate value for those seven crops, due to labor drought that followed the law’s passage. (Read More: Who's Picking Your Food?)
The estimated negative impact on Georgia’s economy overall was $391 millionand the loss of 3,260 jobs. Why shouldn’t all
American farmers just grow corn, wheat and soybeans — the machine-harvested crops? First, we would
find ourselves in a new and unsettling “food-insecure” age where we turn to countries such as Chile and
China to fill our produce aisles and the dairy case. A diplomatic crisis, or worse, and we start going hungry. (Read
More:USDA Plans Regional Meetings to Address Drought) Second, communities from Vidalia, Ga., to Visalia, Calif., would see their
local economies shrivel on the vine. After all, the high-value, labor-intensive stuff, from apples to lettuce to
watermelons, brings many times more dollars into the community. Farmers buy supplies, services and equipment,
and farmworkers spend money at local shops, grocery stores and Laundromats. Farm income on the whole is not a proxy for the
existence of a farm labor crisis. American farmers who hire labor are making management decisions to scale back, or substitute
crops. Foreign producers are increasing their market share. Dr. Ronald Knutson of Texas A&M University, testifiedbefore a Senate
Judiciary subcommittee in October, 2011 on this issue stating, “Farm labor immigration policy will have a major
impact on whether the fruit and vegetables used to improve the health of Americans will be produced in
the United States or in foreign countries.” The agricultural industry is as American as the pies it enables, and it has great
potential. But, a dysfunctional farm labor system is its Achilles heel. Growers want to expand, to plant new
varieties, to invest in farm worker housing and new equipment. But without a common sense labor
solution, our apples will be Chinese. Solutions are within reach. The labor instability in agriculture reflects some
of the most broken aspects of our current immigration policies. Congress should create a practical,
common-sense process for farm workers that actually works and holds everyone accountable. A solution is in
the national interest. It will benefit every American who enjoys fresh, affordable American produce, milk, and meat.
Lack of labor causes failed mechanization and farm consolidation
Calvin and Martin 10 – Linda Calvin, Agricultural Economist at the USDA, Economic Research Service, and Philip
Martin, professor in the Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of California-Davis. (“The U.S. Produce
Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy”, USDA, November 2010,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/135123/err106.pdf)
Interest in mechanization rises and falls with the price and availability of labor. When labor is relatively
scarce and wages rise, producers seek laborsaving innovations (Hayami and Ruttan, 1985). Growers, grower
organizations, machinery manufacturers, and the public sector have invested in research to develop labor
aids and mechanical harvesters. Individual growers may do their own R&D if they think they can cut labor
costs and make a profit. A grower may pay a machinery manufacturer to develop a machine . Growers could
use any machinery they develop on their own operations and even sell the machinery to their competitors. Some commodity groups
include large growers who can support private mechanization R&D, but many growers are too small to do so. Grower organizations
have funded mechanization research with member fees on each box of produce sold. In some cases, the investment in R&D may have
some near-term payoff, particularly when a private firm has a promising prototype. In other cases, the R&D may be more basic with
no immediate payoff. Private machinery manufacturers pursue mechanization if expected benefits exceed
expected costs. Economists are concerned that research costs can be high for fruit and vegetables, making
some crops potential “technological orphans” because they pose special challenges to successful
mechanization, but attract few private resources (Alston and Pardey, 2008). For example, the market for
many fruit and vegetable mechanical harvesters is relatively small. The United States had over 93 million acres of field corn in 2007
but only 298,800 acres of lettuce. Conducting research to mechanize harvesting involves fixed costs that must be spread over a
smaller market in the case of lettuce. Despite this challenge, there are many examples of successful innovations by
private firms. Innovations in mechanization for one commodity can often be applied to other
commodities. There is also a worldwide market for farm machinery, which provides potential for
additional sales. Some of the machines used by U.S. producers are imported, and U.S. innovations are also exported to
producers in other countries. Today, private machinery manufacturers, augmented by funds from individual growers, grower
organizations, and Federal and State governments, conduct most agricultural mechanization research. Private-sector expenditures
on general agricultural research have exceeded public sector expenditures since the early 1980s, and the gap is widening
(Schimmelpfennig and Heisey, 2009). Government investment in R&D is economically justified when private investors are unable to
provide a socially optimal level of research. Most growers benefit from public mechanization research, although smaller growers may
be at a disadvantage if a harvester is more economical for larger growers. There are, however, broader potential social benefits to
public R&D that the Government might consider when deciding whether to invest, including any positive impact on fruit and
vegetable consumption, the value of a strong domestic fruit and vegetable industry for national security, and employment goals—
particularly when an industry may be the major employer in a region. Another potential public benefit to consider is that successful
mechanization could reduce the reliance of the fruit and vegetable industry on unauthorized workers and reduce the lure of easyentry agricultural jobs. When the Government invests in R&D, it also has to consider potential social costs. The elimination of jobs is
an important social cost, particularly at times of high unemployment. Jobless workers can have ripple effects on communities and
local businesses that house, feed, and provide services to farmworkers. On the other hand, the machine operators and
mechanics who replace hand harvesters usually earn higher wages; a small number of workers displaced by
mechanization may find higher paying jobs working in the mechanized harvest. The skills, however, required for workers in
the mechanical harvest system are not necessarily the same as those required in the hand-harvest
system.6 Public support of fruit and vegetable mechanization reached its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, a period when farm labor
costs were rising rapidly. Agricultural engineers in university and Government research institutions worked with growers and
private machinery manufacturers to develop labor aids to increase worker productivity and mechanical harvesters to reduce labor
requirements (Martin and Olmstead, 1985). Efforts to mechanize fruit and vegetable production stalled after 1980
because there was a large supply of labor available, which held down wages. In addition, the substantial, Federaland State-supported mechanical research system for fresh fruit and vegetables was mostly dismantled during the 1980s, leaving
such research primarily to the private sector (Martin and Olmstead, 1985). Now there is renewed interest in agricultural
mechanization associated with the loss, or potential loss, of unauthorized foreign workers. The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 created the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Specialty Crop Research Initiative
(SCRI), providing $230 million for fiscal years 2009-12 to support research on five issues critical to the future of the U.S. fruit and
vegetable industry, including “improved mechanization.” This is the first major Federal investment in mechanization research for
fruit and vegetables since the early 1980s. Research funded under this initiative requires 100 percent non-Federal matching funds.
Adoption of Mechanical Harvesters Even if a mechanical harvester is available, there are economic obstacles to its adoption. Many
growers prefer manual harvesting because quality is generally better and yields are higher. Moreover, switching to mechanical
harvesting is often expensive and risky, requiring a major transformation of the farm’s operations, such as replanting crops to
accommodate the harvester, using new plant varieties, and developing new packing processes. There are continuous and
discontinuous adjustments to the cost of agricultural labor. An industry may adjust gradually, with a few new growers every year
using labor aids or mechanical harvesters that slowly reduce the industry’s demand for labor. In some cases, machine and hand
harvesting systems may exist side by side. Dramatic changes may also occur. At some stage, the price of labor may reach a
critical point where mechanization is the only realistic option to harvest a commodity, or a new machine
may suddenly make mechanization more appealing and growers convert to the new technology quickly,
causing the demand for labor to fall sharply. Large-scale adoption of a new technology can change an industry’s structure.
The fresh produce industry is generally concentrated—the largest growers supply the vast majority of production. Depending on the
type of machinery available, mechanization may accelerate the trend toward fewer and larger producers. If only
a large mechanical harvester is available, larger growers are the most likely to invest in these expensive
machines, since a large, fixed investment can be spread over more acreage. An alternative to buying specialized
machinery is custom harvesting, such as when a third party buys machinery and harvests crops for multiple growers. Some growers
worry that if they do not purchase their own machines, harvesting may not occur at the optimal time. In other cases, harvesters may
be available in a range of configurations appropriate for farms of different sizes. Once growers invest in specialized machinery for a
particular crop, they may reduce the number of commodities produced on their farms.
Mechanization causes unsustainable industrialization and kills small farms
Ikerd 2 – John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri, Columbia. (“Small Farms: The Foundation for LongRun Food Security”, November 13, 2002, http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/IllSmall.html, Callahan)
Until recently, the specialization, standardization, and consolidation of farming had been
driven by the
decisions of individual, family farmers. Farmers freely chose to adopt the new mechanical and chemical
technologies, many of which were developed through publicly supported research, because they seemed to
promise increased profits. These technologies invariably promised greater production efficiency, which would reduce
cost per unit of production, leaving the farmer with a wider profit margin . Increased efficiency generally
meant that each farmer could produce more than before, in fact, needed to produce more to justify the new
technological investment and to realize the full benefit of the new technology. However, the “early adopters” were the only farmers to
realize increased profits. As more and more farmers adopted a new technology, a new kind of machine or agrichemical, total production invariably increased, because each farmer now was compelled to produce more. The new
technologies allowed farmers to reduce costs per unit, but only if they produced more units. With
increased production, market prices invariably fell, leaving even the innovators no better off than before.
The later adopters rarely had a chance to recoup their investment before prices fell and profits were gone. In cases where the
government supported commodity prices, land prices rose instead, with the same net effect on profits. Eventually, technological
adoption was motivated by survival rather than profits, and those farmers who adopted too late didn’t
survive. Some farmers had to fail so others could expand – could farm more land or produce more livestock – in order
to realize the full benefits of the new technologies. In fact, prices invariably stayed low enough long enough to force enough farmers
out of business to accommodate the new industrial technologies. And, after each “technological adjustment” was complete, there was
always another round of technology waiting for adoption. Chronic crisis and continuing farm failures have been a
necessary consequence of agricultural industrialization. The current “corporatization” of agriculture is but the final
stage of the industrialization process. As the new technologies have required larger and larger operations to justify the new
investments, capital requirements have exceeded the credit capacity of all but the largest of individual
farmers. Many farmers have formed family corporations to enhance their ability to raise investment capital. Increasingly, however,
only the “publicly owned” corporations are able to meet the agricultural capital requirements of an
increasingly industrial agriculture. Economists now proclaim corporate contracts as farmers’ only means of gaining access
to the technology, capital, and markets they will need to be competitive in the 21st century. Most of the land and basic
production facilities are still owned by individual farmers and family corporations, but production
increasingly is carried out under direction of giant agribusiness corporations.
Specifically, labor is vital 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.
Small farms prevent 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 prevalent in Africa, Asia and Latin America—in the post-peak oil era that humanity is entering—
comprise an ecological asset for humankind and planetary survival. In fact, in an era of escalating fuel
and food costs, climate change, environmental degradation, GMO pollution and corporate- dominated
food systems, small, biodiverse, agroecologically managed farms in the Global South are the only viable form
of agriculture that will feed the world under the new ecological and economic scenario. ¶ There are at last five
reasons why it is in the interest of Northern consumers to support the cause and struggle of small farmers in the South:¶ 1. Small
farmers are key for the world’s 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 GatesRockefeller 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 greenhouse gases — 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.
Increased labor determines the future prosperity of organic farms
Mandelbaum 12 – Richard Mandelbaum is policy coordinator for CATA, el Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas
(Farmworker Support Committee). (“Organic Farms and Immigration Policy”, 7/17/2012,
http://tnfarchives.nofa.org/?q=article/organic-farms-and-immigration-policy, Callahan)
In recent years organic farms in the Northeast – large and small - are increasingly relying on immigrant workers.
This mirrors a national trend. There are multiple reasons for this: Workers from Mexico and other parts of Latin
America are often more used to and more willing to engage in the hard, physical labor involved in farm
work, and also more willing to work for the wages being offered. In addition, migrant workers - usually men who
have had to leave their families behind – are often hoping to earn as much money in as little time as possible, in order to send it back
home. As a result, farmworkers often want to work as many hours as they can, which is often not true of local
residents looking for temporary work. Estimates vary but anywhere from 50% to up to 80% of the agricultural workforce
has an undocumented immigration status. As a result, organic farmers are increasingly realizing that U.S.
immigration policy has a direct impact on their operations, as well as on the personal relationships they have formed
with their workers. Immigration policy, in fact, shapes our food system as much as many provisions of the Farm Bill do,
but has not received the same kind of political attention from the organic and sustainable agriculture
community. Meanwhile, immigration has become a political football in Congress and the Presidential campaign. Anti-immigrant
sentiment has skyrocketed – a far cry from 1987, when the Reagan Administration passed an amnesty for undocumented
immigrants. Political fear mongering has spuriously manipulated the public debate over immigration into a supposed national
security issue. With all the challenges facing the nation and the world, and amidst the deadlock in Washington, one of the few
initiatives to move forward has been to begin building a wall between our country and a peaceful, friendly neighbor.
Mexico is crucial---most important source of US farm labor
Martin and Taylor 13 – Philip Martin is a Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC-Davis and Chair
of the University of California’s Comparative Immigration and Integration Program. J Edward Taylor is a Profess of Agricultural and
Resource Economics and Director of the Center on Rural Economics of the Americas and the Pacific Rim at UC-Davis. (“Ripe With
Change: Evolving Farm Labor Markets in the United States, Mexico, and Central America”, The Regional Migration Study Group,
February 2013, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/RMSG-Agriculture.pdf, Callahan)
The demand for hired farm labor is complex. In each country it depends on individual farmer decisions about what to
produce and how to produce it. These decisions, in turn, are influenced by factors that include the demand for farm commodities
and the cost of farm labor. The source of farm labor is domestic in Central America, overwhelmingly domestic but with some
Central American immigrants in the mix in Mexico, and overwhelmingly Mexican in the United States. The
global demand for labor-intensive fruits and nuts, vegetables and melons, and horticultural special ties
from flowers to mushrooms (known as FVH commodities) is expected to continue to increase due to
population growth and changes in food consumption patterns. This demand can be satisfied by
production in North America or imports from outside the region (see Appendix Figure A-2, for growth in US imports
and exports of fresh produce). The methods used to produce FVH commodities in North America depend,
among other things, on wages. For example, if farm workers continue to be available to US farmers at
wages that are roughly half of the $20/hour average in the US economy, US FVH production will continue
to rely on low-wage and low- skilled workers. The production of some FVH commodities has become more mechanized
(e.g., wine and raisin grapes are increasingly machine-harvested and -pruned). Other crops, such as strawberries, con tinue to rely
on labor-intensive methods of production (in the United States, strawberry farmers employ many indigenous workers from southern
Mexico, for example). Agriculture is unlike most other key sectors of the North American economy in that its
comparative advantage has rested on having access to abundant low-skilled labor instead of on the
accumulation of human capital (education and skills). The human capital of US farm operators is rising in proportion to
trends in US education levels, but the human capital of US farm workers is rising in proportion to Mexican
education levels. The gap between US farm operators under 50 and Mexican-born hired workers is typically 8 to 16 years —
wider than during the 1942-64 Bracero era, when the education gap was 6 to 10 years.’ Skill requirements are rising fastest for the
nonfarm firms that provide services to farmers, ranging from finance and equipment to pesticides, chemicals, labor, and other
inputs. Except for farm labor contractors, most of the workers hired by these nonfarm firms were never farm workers. Most farm
workers find it hard to make the transition from farm work to skilled nonfarm work, even though some farm worker jobs have been
converted to nonfarm jobs, as when broccoli and melons are packed in the field.2 Mexico is the major supplier of
hired labor to US farms, and Guatemala has become a supplier of farm labor to Mexico; thus, Mexico is in the
transitional phase of being both a farm labor exporter and importer. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador have the opportunity to develop export-oriented farming systems that build on their comparative advantage, namely, offseason production of high-value and labor-intensive commodities for the United States and other export markets. Extended seasons,
such as when Mexican tomatoes and table grapes are grown, increase exports and the jobs that support them (and sometimes
compete with US production). The production of these crops is increasing, and new data from rural Mexico suggest that
expanding export-oriented agriculture in Mexico may be competing with US farms for a diminishing
supply of farm labor. Importers sensitive to the risks of farm labor abuse and pesticide exposure, among other issues, can exert
upward pressure on wages and working conditions in both Mexico and the United States.
Continued reliance on industrial mechanized ag results in catastrophic
warming and wetland destruction
Cummins 10 – Ronnie is the International Director of the Organic Consumers Association. (“Industrial Agriculture and
Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10”, Organic Consumer’s Association, October 7, 2010,
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21747.cfm)
Although transportation, industry, and energy producers are obviously major fossil fuel users and greenhouse gas polluters, not
enough people understand that the worst U.S. and global greenhouse gas emitter is "Food Incorporated ,"
transnational industrial food and farming, of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming,
including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions (EPA's ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to 12%, while some climate scientists feel
the figure could be as high as 50% or more). Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and non-sustainable cattle grazing including cutting down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal
feed and biofuels - are also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction,
which generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. In other words the direct (food, fiber, and
biofuels production, food processing, food distribution) and indirect damage (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) of
industrial agriculture, GMOs, and the food industry are the major cause of global warming . Unless we take
down Monsanto and Food Inc. and make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we and our
children are doomed to reside in Climate Hell. Overall 78% of climate destabilizing greenhouse gases come from
CO2, while the remainder come from methane, nitrous oxide, and black carbon or soot. To stabilize the climate we will need to
drastically reduce all of these greenhouse gas emissions, not just CO2, and sequester twice as much carbon matter in the soil
(through organic farming and ranching, and forest and wetlands restoration) as we are doing presently. Currently GMO and
industrial/factory farms (energy and chemical-intensive) farms emit at least 25% of the carbon dioxide (mostly
from tractors, trucks, combines, transportation, cooling, freezing, and heating); 40% of the methane (mostly from massive
herds of animals belching and farting, and manure ponds); and 96% of nitrous oxide (mostly from synthetic fertilizer
manufacture and use, the millions of tons of animal manure from factory-farmed cattle herds, pig and poultry flocks, and millions of
tons of sewage sludge spread on farms). Black carbon or soot comes primarily from older diesel engines, slash and
burn agriculture, and wood cook stoves. Per ton, methane is 21 times more damaging, and nitrous oxide 310
times more damaging, as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, when measured over a one hundred year period. Damage is
even worse if you look at the impact on global warming over the next crucial 20-year period. Many climate scientists admit that
they have previously drastically underestimated the dangers of the non-CO2 GHGs, including methane,
soot, and nitrous oxide, which are responsible for at least 22% of global warming.
Wetlands are key to the hydrological cycle---extinction
Ramsar Convention 96, “Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Wetlands and Biodiversity, Executive Summary”,
http://www.ramsar.org/about/about_biodiversity.htm, ACC: 12.20.08, p. online
Wetlands - including (inter alia) rivers, lakes, marshes, estuaries, lagoons, mangroves, seagrass beds, and peatlands - are
among the most precious natural resources on Earth. These highly varied ecosystems are natural areas where water
accumulates for at least part of the year. Driven by the hydrological cycle, water is continuously being recycled
through the land, sea and atmosphere in a process which ensures the maintenance of ecological functions.
Wetlands support high levels of biological diversity: they are, after tropical rainforests, amongst the richest ecosystems
on this planet, providing essential life support for much of humanity, as well as for other species. Coastal wetlands,
which may include estuaries, seagrass beds and mangroves, are among the most productive, while coral reefs contain some of the
highest known levels of biodiversity (nearly one-third of all known fish species live on coral reefs). Other wetlands also offer
sanctuary to a wide variety of plants, invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, as well as to millions of both
migratory and sedentary waterbirds. Wetlands are not only sites of exceptional biodiversity, they are also of enormous social and
economic value, in both traditional and contemporary societies. Since ancient times, people have lived along water courses,
benefiting from the wide range of goods and services available from wetlands. The development of many of the great civilisations
was largely based on their access to, and management of, wetland resources. Wetlands are an integral part of the
hydrological cycle, playing a key role in the provision and maintenance of water quality and quantity as
the basis of all life on earth. They are often interconnected with other wetlands, and they frequently constitute rich and
diverse transition zones between aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems such as forests and grasslands.
Ag sector emissions are critical to preventing runaway warming
Scialabba 10 – Nadia is from the Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (“Organic agriculture and climate change”, February 2, 2010, Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems 25.2, http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/275960/al185e.pdf, Callahan)
According to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from the agricultural sector account for 10–12% or 5.1–6.1 Gt of the total anthropogenic annual
emissions of CO2-equivalents1 . However, this accounting includes only direct agricultural emissions;
emissions due to the production of agricultural inputs such as nitrogen fertilizers, synthetic pesticides and
fossil fuels used for agricultural machinery and irrigation are not calculated. Furthermore, land changes in
carbon stocks caused by some agricultural practices are not taken into account, e.g., clearing of primary
forests. Emissions by deforestation due to land conversion to agriculture, which account for an additional
12%2 of the global GHG emissions, can be additionally allocated to agriculture. Thus, agriculture
production practices emit at least one-quarter of global anthropogenic GHG emissions and, if food
handling and processing activities were to be accounted for, the total share of emissions from the
agriculture and food sector would be at least one-third of total emissions. Considering the high contribution of
agriculture to anthropogenic GHG emissions, the choice of food production practices can be a problem or a
solution in addressing climate change.
A move towards organic ag mitigates future emissions---prevents warming
Scialabba 10 – Nadia is from the Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (“Organic agriculture and climate change”, February 2, 2010, Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems 25.2, http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/275960/al185e.pdf, Callahan)
Organic agricultural systems have an inherent potential to both reduce GHG emissions and to enhance
carbon sequestration in the soil (Table 1). An important potential contribution of organically managed
systems is the careful management of nutrients, and hence the reduction of N2 O emissions from soils,
which are the most relevant single source of direct GHG emissions from agriculture. More research is needed to
quantify and improve the effects of organic paddy rice production and to develop strategies to reduce methane emissions from
enteric fermentation (e.g., by promoting double-use breeds). Indirect GHG emissions are reduced in organic systems
by avoidance of mineral fertilizers. With the current organic consumers’ demand, further emission reductions are
expected when organic standards include specific climate standards that consider, inter alia, reduced
energy consumption in the organic food chain (e.g., limitations on greenhouse heating/cooling, processing and
packaging, food miles combined with life cycle assessment). The advantage of organic systems is that they are driven by
aware consumers and that they already carry a guarantee system of verification and labeling which is
consonant with climate labeling113 . The highest mitigation potential of organic agriculture lies in carbon
sequestration in soils and in reduced clearing of primary ecosystems. The total amount of mitigation is difficult to
quantify, because it is highly dependent on local environmental conditions and management practices. Should all agricultural
systems be managed organically, the omission of mineral fertilizer production and application is estimated to
reduce the agricultural GHG emissions by about 20% — 10% caused by reduced N2 O emissions and
about 10% by lower energy demand. These avoided emissions are supplemented by an emission
compensation potential through carbon sequestration in croplands and grasslands of about 40–72% of
the current annual agricultural GHG emissions76. However, further research is needed to confirm these figures, as longterm scientific studies are limited and do not apply to different kinds of soils, climates and practices. To date, most of the research on
the mitigation potential of agricultural practices has been carried out in developed countries; dedicated investigations are needed to
assess and understand the mitigation potential in tropical and subtropical areas and under the predominant management practices
of developing countries. More importantly, the adaptation aspects of organic agricultural practices must be the focus of public
policies and research. One of the main effects of climate change is an increase of uncertainties, both for weather events and global
food markets. Organic agriculture has a strong potential for building resilience in the face of climate
variability (Table 2). The total abstention from synthetic inputs in organic agriculture has been a strong
incentive to develop agricultural management practices that optimize the natural production potential of
specific agro-ecosystems, based on traditional knowledge and modern research. These strategies can be used to enhance
agricultural communities that have no access to purchased inputs, which is the case of the majority of the rural poor. The main
organic strategies are diversification and an increase of soil organic matter, which both could enhance
resilience against extreme weather events and are recommended by the IPCC. These strategies have, in
particular, a high potential to enhance the productivity of degraded soils, especially in marginal areas, while
enhancing soil carbon sequestration. The adaptive approach inherent to organic agriculture offers
simultaneous climate mitigation benefits. Finally, certified organic products cater for higher income options for producers
and hence a market-based incentive for environmental stewardship. The scaling-up of organic agriculture would
promote and support climatefriendly farming practices worldwide. However, investments in research and
development of organic agriculture are needed to better unlock its potential and application on a large scale.
The US is key to global ag policy
WFP 10 [World Food Prize, “Chicago Council Wins Grant to Expand Global Agricultural Development Initiative,” Dec 23,
2010, pg. http://www.worldfoodprize.org/index.cfm?nodeID=24667&action=display&newsID=11003]
A number of policy developments indicate that the United States is beginning to recognize the transformational role
agriculture can play in addressing the challenge of global poverty: President Obama called for a doubling of U.S. support for
agricultural development in 2010 at the G-20 summit in April 2009; the U.S. Administration rolled out its initial strategic and
implementation thinking on the Feed the Future initiative in May 2010; and both the House and Senate have considered
legislation to enhance support for agricultural development. However, to ensure these advances are realized in a way
that can have a tangible impact on global poverty during a time of economic uncertainty, further policy innovation,
sustained political and financial support, and accountability of U.S. policy for agricultural development
and food security is needed. “U.S. leadership is key to ensuring agricultural development receives the
long-term policy attention and resources needed to reduce global poverty and hunger over the long term,” said
Glickman. “The next three years will be critical in determining whether the new U.S. impetus for leadership
in agricultural development and food security will become a prominent, effective, and lasting feature of
U.S. development policy.” Over the last two years, food security has risen to the top of the agenda of global
issues that need urgent national and international attention. Prompted by the food price crisis of 2008, the increase
in the number of people living in abject poverty rose to over 1 billion in 2009, and the need to nearly double food production to meet
global demand by 2050, world leaders are giving new attention to agricultural development in poor regions
and the sufficiency and sustainability of the world’s food supply . “Agricultural development is the essential first step
to alleviate extreme poverty and hunger in developing nations,” said Bertini. “We have the knowledge, tools and resources necessary
to solve global hunger, but what is needed is sustained momentum in U.S. policy toward supporting agriculture as a
poverty alleviation tool.”
Warming causes extinction
Costello 11 – Anthony, Institute for Global Health, University College London, Mark Maslin, Department of Geography, University College
London, Hugh Montgomery, Institute for Human Health and Performance, University College London, Anne M. Johnson, Institute for Global Health,
University College London, Paul Ekins, Energy Institute, University College London [“Global health and climate change: moving from denial and
catastrophic fatalism to positive action” May 2011 vol. 369 no. 1942 1866-1882 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society]
Advocacy about the health consequences will ensure that climate change is a high priority. The United Nations Convention on Climate Change was set
up in 1992 to ensure that nations worked together to minimize the adverse effects, but McMichael and Neira noted that, in preparation for the
Copenhagen conference in December 2009, only four of 47 nations mentioned human health as a consideration [1]. With
business as usual,
global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will threaten mass populations through
increased transmission of some infections, heat stress, food and water insecurity, increased deaths from
more frequent and extreme climate events, threats to shelter and security, and through population
migration [2]. On the one hand it is necessary in the media to counter climate change sceptics and denialists, but on the
other it is also important not to allow climate catastrophists, who tell us it is all too late, to deflect us from
pragmatic and positive action. Catastrophic scenarios are possible in the longer term, and effective action will be
formidably difficult, but evidence suggests that we do have the tools, the time and the resources to bring about the
changes needed for climate stability. 2. Climate change evidence and denial Given the current body of evidence, it is
surprising that global warming and its causal relationship with atmospheric GHG pollution is disputed
any more than the relationship between acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, or lung cancer and cigarette smoking. The basic principles that determine
the Earth’s temperature are, of course, relatively simple. Some of the short-wave solar radiation that strikes the Earth is reflected back into space and
some is absorbed by the land and emitted as long-wave radiation (heat). Some of the long-wave radiation is trapped in the atmosphere by ‘greenhouse
gases’, which include water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. Without GHGs the Earth would be on average 33◦C colder. Over
the last 150
years, since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been adding more carbon dioxide and methane into
the atmosphere. The result is that the Earth’s atmosphere, ocean and land are indeed warming—due to
increased atmospheric ‘greenhouse gas’ concentrations [3]. Gleick et al. [4], from the US National Academy of Sciences, wrote a
letter to Science stating ‘There
is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are
changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend’. The most
recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [5], amounting to nearly 3000 pages of detailed review and analysis of
published research, also declares that the
scientific uncertainties of global warming are essentially resolved. This report states
is clear evidence for a 0.75◦C rise in global temperatures and 22 cm rise in sea level during the
twentieth century. The IPCC synthesis also predicts that global temperatures could rise further by between 1.1◦C and 6.4◦C by
2100, and sea level could rise by between 28 and 79 cm, or more if the melting of Greenland and Antarctica accelerates. In addition, weather
patterns will become less predictable and the occurrence of extreme climate events, such as storms,
floods, heat waves and droughts, will increase. There is also strong evidence for ocean acidification driven
by more carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans [6]. Given the current failure of international negotiations to address carbon
that there
emission reductions, and that atmospheric warming lags behind rises in CO2 concentration, there is concern that global surface temperature will rise
above the supposedly ‘safe limit’ of 2◦C within this century. Each doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration alone is expected to produce
1.9–4.5◦C of warming at equilibrium [7]. Of course, climate modelling is an extremely complex process, and uncertainty with projections relating to
future emissions trajectories means that the time scale and magnitude of future climate change cannot be predicted with certainty [8]. These
uncertainties are magnified when future climate predictions are used to estimate potential impacts. For example, the environmental impacts of climate
change are also uncertain, but could underestimate such impacts because they detrimentally interact with habitat loss, pollution and loss of biodiversity
due to other causes. There is also the additional problem that switching from biome to biome may not be directly reversible. For example, rainforest
recycles a huge amount of water so it can survive a significant amount of aridification before it burns and is replaced by savannah. But the region then
has to get much wetter before rainforest can return, as there is greatly reduced water cycling in savannah [9]. In the policy arena, further uncertainty
surrounds the desire for international agreements on emission cuts, and the possible routes to such agreement and implementation. The feasible speed
of technological innovation in carbon capture and provision of renewable/low-carbon energy resources is also uncertain. Denying
the causes
or the current weight of evidence for anthropogenic climate change is irrational , just as the existence of ‘uncertainties’
should not be used to deny the need for proportionate action, when such uncertainties could underestimate the risks and impact
of climate change. There is no reason for inaction and there are many ways we can use our current knowledge of climate change to improve
health provision for current and future generations. 3. Catastrophism At the other end of the scale are doom-mongers who predict catastrophic
population collapse and the end of civilization. In the early nineteenth century, the French palaeontologist Georges Cuvier first addressed
catastrophism and explained patterns of extinction observed in the fossil record through catastrophic natural events [10]. We know now of five major
extinctions: the Ordovician–Silurian extinction (439 million years ago), the Late Devonian extinction (about 364 million years ago), the Permian–
Triassic extinction (about 251 million years ago), the End Triassic extinction (roughly 199 million to 214 million years ago) and the Cretaceous–
Tertiary extinction (about 65 million years ago). These mass extinctions were caused by a combination of plate tectonics, supervolcanism and asteroid
impacts. The understanding of the mass extinctions led Gould & Eldredge [11] to update Darwin’s theory of evolution with their own theory of
punctuated equilibrium. Many scientists have suggested that the current human-induced extinction rates could be as fast as those during these mass
extinctions [12,13]. For example, one study predicted that 58 per cent of species may be committed to extinction by 2050 due to climate change alone
human extinction may not be a remote risk
effects that could make the world largely uninhabitable by
[14], though this paper has been criticized [15,16]. Some people have even suggested that
[17–19]. Sherwood & Huber [7] point to continued heating
humans and mammals within 300 years. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature (used because it reflects both the ambient
temperature and relative humidity of the site), is surprisingly similar across diverse climates and never exceeds 31◦C. They suggest that if it rose to
35◦C, which never happens now but would at a warming of 7◦C, hyperthermia
in humans and other mammals would occur as
dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible, therefore making many environments uninhabitable.
Warming’s real and anthropogenic---reject skeptics
Prothero 12 [Donald R. Prothero, Professor of Geology at Occidental College and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of
Technology, 3-1-2012, "How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused," Skeptic, 17.2, EBSCO]
How do we know that global warming is real and primarilyhuman caused? There are numerous lines of
evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased at an
unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. Mann et al.
(1999)compiled the past 900 years' worth of temperature data from tree rings, ice cores, corals ,
and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands
out like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward
at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the
past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the
Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Litde Ice Age in the 1700s and 1800s. But the magnitude and rapidity of the
warming represented by the last 200 years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More revealing, the timingof this
warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution , when humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
by burning an unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil. 2. Melting Polar Ice Caps The polar icecaps are thinningand breaking up at an alarming rate. In
2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap
the entire ice sheet is breaking up
has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),[ 4] but now
so fast that by 2030 (and
possibly sooner) less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer.[ 5] As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up
The Antarctic is
thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf -- over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick -- broke up in
just a few months, a story -typical of nearly all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen Bshelf had survived all the previous ice ages and
interglacialwarming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 years -- yet it and nearly all
theother thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic arevanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. 3. Melting
Glaciers Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates ever documented . Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the
there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting beneath their feet.
Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon -- yet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think
about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering. The
permafrost that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to the North
as it thaws, the permafrost releases huge amounts of
greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen
record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on
record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant
Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but
populations are being devastated all over the globe as their environments change.[ 6] Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that
once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. 4. Sea Level Rise All that melted ice
the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more
over the past 3000 years
eventually ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in the geologic past. At present,
ten times the rate
than
of 0.1-0.2 mm/year that has occurred
. Geological data show that the sea level was virtually
unchanged over the past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and
that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities,
such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which
barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.[ 7] Even a small sea level
rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more
damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of the world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the
world's river deltas) would be drowned. Most of the world's population lives in low-elevation coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C.,
If the glacial ice caps melted
Miami, and Shanghai. All of those cities would be partially or completely under water with such a sea level rise.
all
completely (as
they have several times before during past greenhouse episodes in the geologic past), sea level would rise by 65 m (215 feet)! The entire Mississippi Valley would flood, so you
a sea level rise would drown nearlyevery coastal region under hundreds of feet of water,
New York City London Paris
could dock an ocean liner in Cairo, Illinois. Such
and inundate
,
and
. All that would remain would be the tall landmarks such as the Empire State Building, Big Ben, and the Eiffel
Tower. You could tie your boats to these pinnacles, but the rest of these drowned cities would lie deep underwater. Climate Change Critic's Arguments and Scientists'
Despite the overwhelming evidence there are many people who remain skeptical. One reason is that they have been
fed distortions and misstatements by the global warming denialists who cloud or confuse the issue. Let's examine some of these claims in detail: * " It's
just natural climatic variability." No, it is not. As I detailed in my 2009 book, Greenhouse of the Dinosaurs, geologists and
paleoclimatologists know a lot about past greenhouseworlds, and the icehouse planet that has existed for the past 33 million years. We
Rebuttals
have a good understanding of how and why the Antarctic ice sheet first appeared at that time, and how the Arctic froze over about 3.5 million years ago, beginning the 24 glacial
and interglacial episodes of the "Ice Ages" that have occurred since then.
We know howvariations in the earth's orbit (the Milankovitch
controlsthe amount of solar radiation
cycles)
the earth receives, triggering the shifts between glacial and interglacial periods. Our current warm
interglacial has already lasted 10,000 years, the duration of most previous interglacials, so if it were not for global warming, we would be headed into the next glacial in the next
our pumping greenhouse gases into our atmosphere after they were long trapped in the earth's crust has pushed the
planet into a "super-interglacial," already warmer than any previous warming period. We can see the "big picture" of climate
variabilitymost clearly in ice cores from the EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica), which show the details of the last 650,000 years of
glacial-inters glacial cycles (Fig. 2). At no time during any previous interglacial did the carbon dioxide levels exceed 300
ppm, even at their very warmest. Our atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are already close to 400 ppm today. The atmosphere is headed to 600 ppm within a few decades,
even if we stopped releasing greenhouse gases immediately. This is decidedly not within the normal range of "climatic variability ," but
clearly unprecedented in human history. Anyone who says this is "normal variability" has never seen the huge amount of paleoclimatic data that show otherwise. * "It's just
another warming episode, like the Medieval Warm Period, or the Holocene Climatic Optimum or the end of the Little Ice Age."Untrue. There
were numerous small fluctuations of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years of the Holocene. But in the case of the Medieval
Warm Period (about 950-1250 A.D.), the temperatures increased only 1°C, much less than we have seen in the current episode of global warming (Fig. 1).
1000 years or so. Instead,
This episode was also only a local warming in the North Atlantic and northern Europe. Global temperatures over this interval did not warm at all, and actually cooled by more
than 1°C. Likewise, the warmest period of the last 10,000 years was the Holocene Climatic Optimum ( 5,000-9,000 B.C.E.) when warmer and wetter conditions in Eurasia
contributed to the rise of the first great civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and China. This was largely a Northern Hemisphere-Eurasian phenomenon, with
2-3°C warming in the Arctic and northern Europe. But there was almost no warming in the tropics, and cooling or no change in the Southern Hemisphere.[ 8] From a
Eurocentric viewpoint, these warming events seemed important, but on a global scale the effect was negligible. In addition, neither of these warming episodes is related to
increasing greenhouse gases. The Holocene Climatic Optimum, in fact, is predicted by the Milankovitch cycles, since at that time the axial tilt of the earth was 24°, its steepest
value, meaning the Northern Hemisphere got more solar radiation than normal -- but the Southern Hemisphere less, so the two balanced. By contrast, not only is the warming
observed in the last 200 years much greater than during these previous episodes, but it is also global and bipolar, so it is not a purely local effect. The warming that ended the
Little Ice Age (from the mid-1700s to the late 1800s) was due to increased solar radiation prior to 1940. Since 1940, however, the amount of solar radiation has been dropping,
It's just the sun, or cosmic rays, or volcanic
activity or methane." Nope, sorry. The amount of heat that the sun provides has been decreasing since 1940,[ 10]
just the opposite of the critics' claims (Fig. 3). There is no evidence of an increase in cosmic ray particles during the past century.[
11] Noris there any clear evidence that large-scale volcanic events(such as the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, which changed
global climate for about a year) have any long-term effects that would explain 200 years of warming and carbon dioxide increase. Volcanoes erupt only 0.3 billion
tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, but humans emit over 29 billion tonnes a year,[ 12] roughly 100 times as much. Clearly, we have a bigger effect. Methane is a
more powerfulgreenhouse gas, but there is 200 times more carbon dioxide than methane, so carbon dioxide is still the most important agent.[
13]Every other alternative has been looked at and can be ruled out. The only clear-cut relationship is between human-caused carbon
dioxide increase and global warming. * "The climate records since 1995 (or 1998) show cooling." That's simply untrue. The only way to
support this argument is to cherry-pick the data.[ 14] Over the short term, there was a slight cooling trend from 1998-2000, but only because
1998 was a record-breaking El Nino year, so the next few years look cooler by comparison (Fig. 4). But since 2002, the overalllong-term trend of warming is
unequivocal. All of the 16 hottest years ever recorded on a global scale have occurred in the last 20 years. They are (in order of
so the only candidate remaining for the post-1940 warming is carbon dioxide.[ 9] "
hottest first): 2010, 2009, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 2008, 1995, 1999, 1990, and 2000.[ 15] In other words, every year since 2000 has been on
the Top Ten hottest years list. The rest of the top 16 include 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Only 1996 failed to make the list (because of the short-term cooling mentioned
already). * "We had record snows in the winter of 2009-2010, and also in 2010-2011." So what? This is nothing more than the difference between weather (short-term seasonal
changes) and climate (the long-term average of weather over decades and centuries and longer). Our local weather tells us nothing about another continent, or the global
average; it is only a local effect, determined by short-term atmospheric and oceano-graphic conditions.[ 16] In fact, warmer global temperatures mean more moisture in the
atmosphere, which increases the intensity of normal winter snowstorms. In this particular case, the climate change critics forget that the early winter of November-December
2009 was actually very mild and warm, and then only later in January and February did it get cold and snow heavily. That warm spell in early winter helped bring more moisture
into the system, so that when cold weather occurred, the snows were worse. In addition, the snows were unusually heavy only in North America; the rest of the world had
different weather, and the global climate was warmer than average. Also, the summer of 2010 was the hottest on record, breaking the previous record set in 2009. * "Carbon
dioxide is good for plants, so the world will be better off." Who do they think they're kidding? The Competitive Enterprise Institute (funded by oil and coal companies and
conservative foundations[ 17]) has run a series of shockingly stupid ads concluding with the tag line "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life." Anyone who knows the
basic science of earth's atmosphere can spot the gross inaccuracies in this ad.[ 18] True, plants take in carbon dioxide that animals exhale, as they have for millions of years. But
the whole point of the global warming evidence (as shown from ice cores) is that the delicate natural balance of carbon dioxide has been thrown off balance by our production of
too much of it, way in excess of what plants or the oceans can handle. As a consequence, the oceans are warming[ 19, 20] and absorbing excess carbon dioxide making them
more acidic. Already we are seeing a shocking decline in coral reefs ("bleaching") and extinctions in many marine ecosystems that can't handle too much of a good thing.
Meanwhile, humans are busy cutting down huge areas of temperate and tropical forests, which not only means there are fewer plants to absorb the gas, but the slash and burn
practices are releasing more carbon dioxide than plants can keep up with. There is much debate as to whether increased carbon dioxide might help agriculture in some parts of
the world, but that has to be measured against the fact that other traditional "breadbasket" regions (such as the American Great Plains) are expected to get too hot to be as
productive as they are today. The latest research[ 21] actually shows that increased carbon dioxide inhibits the absorption of nitrogen into plants, so plants (at least those that we
depend upon today) are not going to flourish in a greenhouse world. It is difficult to know if those who tell the public otherwise are ignorant of basic atmospheric science and
global geochemistry, or if they are being cynically disingenuous. * "I agree that climate is changing, but I'm skeptical that humans are the main cause, so we shouldn't do
anything." This is just fence sitting. A lot of reasonable skeptics deplore the right wing's rejection of the reality of climate change, but still want to be skeptical about the cause. If
they want proof, they can examine the huge array of data that points directly to human caused global warming.[ 22] We can directly measure the amount of carbon dioxide
Throughcarbon isotope analysis, we can
show that this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is coming directly from our burning of fossil fuels, not from natural
sources. We can also measure the drop in oxygen as it combines with the increased carbon levels to produce carbon dioxide. We have satellites in space that
are measuring the heat released from the planet and can actually see the atmosphere getting warmer. The most crucial
evidence emerged only within the past few years: climate models of the greenhouse effect predict that there should be cooling in the
stratosphere(the upper layer of the atmosphere above 10 km or 6 miles in elevation), but warming in the troposphere (the bottom layer below 10 km
or 6 miles), and that's exactly what our space probes havemeasured. Finally, we can rule out any other suspects (see above): solar heat is decreasing
humans are producing, and it tracks exactly with the amount of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
since 1940, not increasing, and there are no measurable increases in cosmic rays, methane, volcanic gases, or any other potential cause. Face it -- it's our problem. Why Do
People Continue to Question the Reality of Climate Change? Thanks to all the noise and confusion over climate change, the general public has only a vague idea of what the
the scientific
community is virtually unanimous on what the data demonstrate about anthropogenic global warming. This has been true for over a
decade. When science historian Naomi Oreskes[ 24] surveyed all peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and
2003 in the world's leading scientific journal, Science, she found that there were 980 supporting the idea of human-induced global warming and none
opposing it. In 2009, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman[ 25] surveyed all the climate scientists who were familiar with the data. They found that 9599% agreed that global warming is real and human caused. In 2010, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study
that showed that 98% of the scientists who actually do research in climate change are in agreement over anthropogenic
global warming.[ 26] Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change as
well. This is a rare degree of agreement within such an independent and cantankerous group as the world's top scientists. This is the
same degree of scientificconsensus that scientists have achieved over most major ideas, including gravity, evolution, and relativity.
debate is really about, and only about half of Americans think global warming is real or that we are to blame.[ 23] As in the evolution/creationism debate,
These and only a few other topics in science can claim this degree of agreement among nearly all the world's leading scientists, especially among everyone who is close to the
scientific data and knows the problem intimately. If it were not such a controversial topic politically, there would be almost no interest in debating it since the evidence is so
why is there still any debate at
all? The answer has been revealed by a number of investigations by diligent reporters who got past the PR machinery denying global warming, and
uncovered the money trail. Originally, there were no real "dissenters" to the idea of global warming by scientists who are actually involved with climate research.
Instead, the forces with vested interests in denying global climate change (the energy companies, and the "free-market"
advocates) followed the strategy of tobacco companies: create a smokescreen of confusion and prevent the American
public from recognizing scientific consensus. As the famous memo[ 27] from the tobacco lobbyists said "Doubt is our product." The denialists generated an
anti-science movement entirely out of thin air and PR. The evidence for this PR conspiracy has been well documented in numerous sources. For
example, Oreskes and Conway revealed from memos leaked to the press that in April 1998 the right-wing Marshall Institute, SEPP (Fred Seitz's lobby that aids
tobacco companies and polluters), and ExxonMobil , met in secret at the American Petroleum Institute's headquarters in Washington, D.C. There they planned
a $20 millioncampaign to get "respected scientists" to cast doubt on climate change, get major PR efforts going, and lobby Congress that global warming isn't real
and is not a threat. The right-wing institutes and the energy lobby beat the bushes to find scientists -- any scientists -- who might
disagree with the scientific consensus. As investigative journalists and scientists have documented over and over again,[ 28] the denialist
conspiracy essentially paid for the testimony of anyone who could be useful to them. The day that the 2007 IPCC report
was released (Feb. 2, 2007), the British newspaper The Guardian reported that the conservative AmericanEnterprise Institute (funded largely by oil
companies and conservative think tanks) had offered $10,000 plus travelexpenses to scientists who would write
negatively about the IPCC report.[ 29] In February 2012, leaks of documents from the denialist Heartland Institute revealed
that they were trying to influence science education, suppress the work of scientists, and had paid off many prominent climate
deniers, such as Anthony Watts, all in an effort to circumvent the scientific consensus by doing an "end run" of PR and political pressure. Other leaks have
shown 9 out of 10 major climate deniers are paid by ExxonMobil.[ 30] We are accustomed to hired-gun "experts" paid by lawyers to muddy up
the evidence in the case they are fighting, but this is extraordinary -- buying scientists outright to act as shills for organizations trying to deny scientific reality. With
this kind of money, however, you can always find a fringe scientist or crank or someone with no relevant
credentials who will do what they're paid to do. Fishing around to find anyone with some science background who will agree with you and dispute a scientific consensus is
clear-cut. If the climate science community speaks with one voice (as in the 2007 IPCC report, and every report since then),
a tactic employed by the creationists to sound "scientific". The NCSE created a satirical "Project Steve,"[ 31] which demonstrated that there were more scientists who accept
evolution named "Steve" than the total number of "scientists who dispute evolution". It may generate lots of PR and a smokescreen to confuse the public, but it doesn't change
the fact that
scientists who actually do research in climate change are unanimous in their insistence that anthropogenic global warming is a real
scientists
work
for little pay
threat. Most
I know and respect
very hard
, yet they still cannot be paid to endorse some scientific idea they know to be false. The
climate deniers have a lot of other things in common with creationists and other anti-science movements. They too like to quote someone out of context ("quote mining"),
finding a short phrase in the work of legitimate scientists that seems to support their position. But when you read the full quote in context, it is obvious that they have used the
quote inappropriately. The original author meant something that does not support their goals. The "Climategate scandal" is a classic case of this. It started with a few stolen
emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. If you read the complete text of the actual emails[ 32] and comprehend the scientific shorthand of
climate scientists who are talking casually to each other, it is clear that there was no great "conspiracy" or that they were faking data. All six subsequent investigations have
cleared Philip Jones and the other scientists of the University of East Anglia of any wrongdoing or conspiracy.[ 33] Even if there had been some conspiracy on the part of these
there is no reason to believe that the entire climate science community is secretly working
together to generate false information and mislead the public. If there's one thing that is clear about
science, it's aboutcompetition and criticism, not conspiracy and collusion. Mostlabs are competing with each other, not
conspiring together. If one lab publishes a result that is not clearly defensible, other labs will quickly correct it. As
James Lawrence Powell wrote: Scientists…show no evidence of being more interested in politics or ideology than the average
few scientists,
American. Does it make sense to believe that tens of thousands of scientists would be so deeply and secretly committed to bringing down capitalism and the American way of life
that they would spend years beyond their undergraduate degrees working to receive master's and Ph.D. degrees, then go to work in a government laboratory or university, plying
the deep oceans, forbidding deserts, icy poles, and torrid jungles, all for far less money than they could have made in industry, all the while biding their time like a Russian
sleeper agent in an old spy novel? Scientists tend to be independent and resist authority. That is why you are apt to find them in the laboratory or in the field, as far as possible
from the prying eyes of a supervisor. Anyone who believes he could organize thousands of scientists into a conspiracy has never attended a single faculty meeting.[ 34] There are
many more traits that the climate deniers share with the creationists and Holocaust deniers and others who distort the truth. They pick on small disagreements between
different labs as if scientists can't get their story straight, when in reality there is always a fair amount of give and take between competing labs as they try to get the answer right
before the other lab can do so. The key point here is that when all these competing labs around the world have reached a consensus and get the same answer, there is no longer
any reason to doubt their common conclusion. The anti-scientists of climate denialism will also point to small errors by individuals in an effort to argue that the entire enterprise
cannot be trusted. It is true that scientists are human, and do make mistakes, but the great power of the scientific method is that peer review weeds these out, so that when
scientists speak with consensus, there is no doubt that their data are checked carefully Finally, a powerful line of evidence that this is a purely political controversy, rather than a
scientific debate, is that the membership lists of the creationists and the climate deniers are highly overlapping. Both anti-scientific dogmas are fed to their overlapping
audiences through right-wing media such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Just take a look at the "intelligent-design" cre-ationism website for the Discovery
Institute. Most of the daily news items lately have nothing to do with creationism at all, but are focused on climate denial and other right-wing causes.[ 35] If the data about
global climate change are indeed valid and robust, any qualified scientist should be able to look at them and see if the prevailing scientific interpretation holds up. Indeed, such a
Muller re-examined all the temperature data from the NOAA, East
started out as a skeptic of the temperature data,
and was funded by the Koch brothers and other oil company sources, he carefully checked and re-checkedthe research himself. When
test took place. Starting in 2010, a group led by U.C. Berkeley physicist Richard
Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit, and the Goddard Institute of Space Science sources. Even though Muller
the GOP leaders called him to testify before the House Science and Technology Committee in spring 2011, they were expecting him to discredit the temperature data.
Muller shocked his GOP sponsors by demonstrating his scientific integrity and telling the truth: the temperature increase
is real, and the scientists who have demonstrated that the climate is changing are right (Fig. 5). In the fall of 2011, his study was published, and the conclusions were clear:
Instead,
global warming is real, even to a right-wing skeptical scientist. Unlike the hired-gun scientists who play political games, Muller did what a true scientist should do: if the data go
against your biases and preconceptions, then do the right thing and admit it -- even if you've been paid by sponsors who want to discredit global warming. Muller is a shining
example of a scientist whose integrity and honesty came first, and did not sell out to the highest bidder.[ 36] * Science and Anti-Science The conclusion is clear: there's science,
and then there's the anti-science of global warming denial. As we have seen, there is a nearly unanimous consensus among climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming
is real and that we must do something about it. Yet the smokescreen, bluster and lies of the deniers has created enough doubt so that only half of the American public is
convinced the problem requires action. Ironically, the U.S. is almost alone in questioning its scientific reality. International polls taken of 33,000 people in 33 nations in 2006
and 2007 show that 90% of their citizens regard climate change as a serious problem[ 37] and 80% realize that humans are the cause of it.[ 38] Just as in the case of creationism,
the U.S. is out of step with much of the rest of the world in accepting scientific reality. It is not just the liberals and environmentalists who are taking climate change seriously.
Historically conservative institutions (big corporations such as General Electric and many others such as insurance companies and the military) are already planning on how to
deal with global warming. Many of my friends high in the oil companies tell me of the efforts by those companies to get into other forms of energy, because they know that cheap
oil will be running out soon and that the effects of burning oil will make their business less popular. BP officially stands for "British Petroleum," but in one of their ad campaigns
about 5 years ago, it stood for "Beyond Petroleum."[ 39] Although they still spend relatively little of their total budgets on alternative forms of energy, the oil companies still see
the handwriting on the wall about the eventual exhaustion of oil -- and they are acting like any company that wants to survive by getting into a new business when the old one is
dying. The Pentagon (normally not a left-wing institution) is also making contingency plans for how to fight wars in an era of global climate change, and analyzing what kinds of
strategic threats might occur when climate change alters the kinds of enemies we might be fighting, and water becomes a scarce commodity. The New York Times reported[ 40]
that in December 2008, the National Defense University outlined plans for military strategy in a greenhouse world. To the Pentagon, the big issue is global chaos and the
potential of even nuclear conflict. The world must "prepare for the inevitable effects of abrupt climate change -- which will likely come [the only question is when] regardless of
human activity." Insurance companies have no political axe to grind. If anything, they tend to be on the conservative side. They are simply in the business of assessing risk in a
realistic fashion so they can accurately gauge their future insurance policies and what to charge for them. Yet they are all investing heavily in research on the disasters and risks
posed by climatic change. In 2005, a study commissioned by the re-insurer Swiss Re said, "Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and ecosystems and
these impacts will have economic consequences."[ 41] Some people may still try to deny scientific reality, but big businesses like oil and insurance and conservative institutions
like the military cannot afford to be blinded or deluded by ideology. They must plan for the real world that we will be seeing in the next few decades. They do not want to be
caught unprepared and harmed by global climatic change when it threatens their survival. Neither can we as a society.
Independently, CO2 emissions cause extinction
Romm 12 (Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, “Science: Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens
Humanity’s Ability to Feed Itself,” 3/2/2012, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatenshumanity-ability-to-feed-itself/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogre)
The world’s oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did during
four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a
new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time
period. “What we’re doing today really stands out,” said lead author Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory. “We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped out—new species evolved to replace those that died off. But
if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about—coral
reefs, oysters, salmon.” Paleoceanographer James Zachos with a core of sediment from some 56 million years ago That’s the news release from
a major 21-author Science paper, “The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification” (subs. req’d). We knew from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that
the oceans are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of
marine species occurred. But this study looked back over 300 million and found that “the unprecedented
rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place” has put marine life at risk in a frighteningly unique way: …
the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a combination and
magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth
history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change. That
is to say, it’s not just that acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century” as a 2010
Geological Society study put it. We are also warming the ocean and decreasing dissolved oxygen
concentration. That is a recipe for mass extinction. A 2009 Nature Geoscience study found that ocean dead zones
“devoid of fish and seafood” are poised to expand and “remain for thousands of years.“ And remember, we just
learned from a 2012 new Nature Climate Change study that carbon dioxide is “driving fish crazy” and threatening their
survival. Here’s more on the new study: The oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the gas reacts with seawater
to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor. But if CO2 goes into the oceans too
quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shellbuilding.
1AC – Agriculture Advantage
CONTENTION ( ): AGRICULTURE
The agriculture industry is collapsing because of worker shortages—H2As
don’t solve
Pugh 12 – Tony is a writer for McClatchy Newspapers. (“Farms a casualty of immigration war”, July 02, 2012,
http://www.fosterquan.com/news/farms_casualty7022012.pdf, Callahan)
On more than 10,000 acres of drained swampland in western New York, Maureen Torrey‟s family farm grows an assortment of vegetables in the dark,
nutrient-rich soil known as “Elba Muck.” Like
other farms in the area, Torrey Farms, Inc. of Elba, N.Y., depends on seasonal
labor, mainly undocumented field hands from Mexico, to pick, package and ship their cabbage, cucumbers, squash, green beans and onions
throughout the nation. With the peak harvest season at hand, Torrey‟s concerns about a labor shortage are growing. A crackdown on illegal
immigration, more job opportunities in Mexico and rising fees charged by smugglers are reducing the number of immigrants who cross the U.S. border
each year to help make up more than 60 percent of U.S. farm workers. The American
Farm Bureau Federation projects $5
billion to $9 billion in annual produce industry losses because of the labor shortages that have become
commonplace for Torrey. “Five years ago, we had 10 (applicants) for every job we had on our farm,” said
Torrey, who handles sales and finances for the family business. “ In the last year that wasn‟ t the case. We hired anybody that
showed up for field work. It‟ ll be interesting to see how many people we have knocking on the door this
year.” With the cherry harvest underway in south central Washington state, the Sage Bluff farm-worker housing compound in Malaga, Wash., is only
half full, nowhere near the 270 farm workers it can accommodate. “I would say we‟re significantly short,” said Jesse Lane, housing manager
for the Washington Growers League, which runs Sage Bluff. “I had a grower contact me who said he only had 20 pickers and he
needed over a hundred.” In California, farmers are reporting 30 percent to 40 percent labor shortages, said Bryan Little, director of labor
affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation. He said some cherry growers have left acres unpicked because they don‟t have enough workers.
“Generally, what I hear is that if you need 10 crews to harvest 40 acres of strawberries, you only have seven. If you need a crew of 10 people, then you
only have six or seven. It varies, depending on where you are in the state.” The
problem is particularly hard on small
farms that need work crews for only a few days. Even though 60 percent of hired farm labor work on farms with annual sales of
less than $1 million, most field pickers would rather work for weeks or months at a time at larger farms , said Manuel
Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno, Calif. “They‟ re not going to leave their full-time growers to work
for a day or two on the small farms, so a lot of fruit isn‟t getting picked,” Cunha said. “The shortage is tight and
it‟s getting tighter.” Border patrol agents no longer pose the biggest risk for Mexican workers who cross the U.S. border, Cunha said. Drug
cartels and human traffickers now prey on immigrants, forcing them to transport drugs and kidnapping their relatives to make sure they comply. FEAR
FACTOR “They are told, „you will carry this or you‟re gone,‟ ” Cunha said. “It‟s no more „would you like to try this?‟ ” Traffickers and smugglers have
also entered the labor contracting industry, forcing groups of undocumented immigrants to work certain jobs against their will and then stealing or
skimming from their paychecks. To avoid them, many
undocumented workers simply stay in America after the harvest
season. “Workers won‟ t go home and the workers that do go home will not come back because they‟ re
afraid,” Cunha said. The problems have exacerbated shortages of migrant workers all across the nation. With
comprehensive immigration reform by Congress unlikely in a heated election year, many say the answer is to overhaul the H2A federal guest worker program so visiting farm workers could stay in America and work toward legal immigration status. The H-2A program allows
employers to hire temporary foreign workers to fill seasonal labor shortages if there‟s a lack of available domestic workers. But a recent survey by the
NCAE found 72 percent of program users said that the guest workers arrive an average of 22 days after they‟re needed, making the program too slow
and cumbersome for the time-sensitive harvestseason. That‟s why growers largely avoid the program, which provided a high of just 64,000 visas in
2008.
Mexican guest workers are key---other replacements fail
Wainer 11 – Andrew Wainer is immigration policy analyst for Bread for the World Institute. (“Farm Workers and
Immigration Policy”, December 2011, http://www.bread.org/institute/papers/farm-workers-and-immigration.pdf, Callahan)
John Steinbeck’s 1939 novel The Grapes of Wrath described the harsh working conditions of migrant farm workers from the
Midwest. More than 70 years later, agricultural work in the United States is still often harsh and wages are low. but the composition
of the farm labor force has changed. There are no more Okies. Instead, farm workers come from places like the Mexican states of
Guanajuato and Michoacán. Almost three-fourths of farm workers are immigrants and about half are unauthorized (see Figures 1
and 2). Spanish is the lingua franca of farm labor; 71percent of farm workers identify it as their primary language.1 U.S.
agriculture has long been a point of entry into the labor market for immigrants, and the agriculture sector
has been dependent on immigrant labor for more than a century. In the 1880s, 75 percent of seasonal farm
workers in California were Chinese. In 1882, in response to pressure from working-class whites, Congress passed the first of a series
of anti-Asian immigration laws that barred the entry of laborers from China. Field labor positions were subsequently filled by new
waves of Asian immigrants: first Japanese and Filipinos, then laborers from british India. On the East Coast, French Canadians,
Caribbean Islanders, and European immigrants, in addition to low-income native whites and African Americans,were part of the
agricultural work force.2 With the passage of legislation restricting immigration from Asia, farmers increasingly relied on a source of
field labor that caused them much less grief. Mexico was a nearby source of workers, eager to escape poverty in
their home country and often already familiar with farm work. The proximity of Mexico made it easier to expel these
workers than Asians or Europeans. During World War II, in response to reported labor shortages, the U.S. government made efforts
to recruit Mexican farm workers. These efforts included a bilateral agricultural guest worker program which set the stage for the
emigration of millions of Mexican agricultural workers(authorized and unauthorized) to the United States, both during and after the
war (see box 1, page 4).3 “The Most Economically Disadvantaged Working Group in the United States”4 About half of all U.S. hired
farm workers are unauthorized immigrants.5 Although immigrant farm workers have Higher incomes in the
United States than at home, they don’t always escape poverty as they had hoped.6 Hired farm work is among the
lowest-paid work in the country.7 In 2006, the median earnings of these workers—$350 per week—were lower than those of security
guards, janitors, maids, and construction workers. Only dishwashers were found to have a lower weekly median income (see Figure
3).8 The poverty rate of farm worker families has decreased Over the past 15 years, but it is still more than twice that of all wage and
salary employees combined, and it’s higher than that of any other generaloccupation.9 A study commissioned by the Pennsylvania
State Assembly found that 70 percent of the state’s migrant farm workers live inpoverty.10A2008 survey in Washington state
demonstrated the impact of poverty: 6 percent of farm workers reported being homeless—living in their cars orsheds.11 In
California, farm communities “have among the highest rates of poverty and unemployment in the state.”12 A study of Latino farm
workers in North Carolina found that their level of food insecurity was four times higher than the general U.S. population. Nearly
half—47 percent— of the Latino farm worker households in the study were food insecure; this proportion rose to 56 percent among
households with children.13 A second cause of poverty—in addition to low wages—is the seasonal nature of some farmwork.
Families’ average annual earnings decrease when laborers cannot find work throughout the year. In fact, farm workers’ earnings
average out to only about $11,000 a year. Unauthorized legal status, low wages, and an inconsistent, sometimes unpredictable work
schedule add up to a precarious economic state.14 In central Florida, where hurricanes and freezes can wipe out crops overnight,
food insecurity is a threat. In 2010, for example, a series of freezes destroyed the pepper, strawberry, and tomato crops that farm
workers are needed for. “People are working a couple hours a day in some communities,” said bert Perry, a community organizer for
the National Farm Worker Ministry in Florida. Escalated immigration-law enforcement has injected fear into an already difficult
economic situation. “There [in Mexico] we lived poor, but we lived peacefully,” said a Mexican farm worker in Florida. “Here we live
poor, but also in desperation.” Fear sometimes deters farm workers from accessing nutrition and other federal programs they qualify
for. In spite of their high poverty rates, 57 percent of all hired farm workers—a group that includes authorized as well as
unauthorized workers—report receiving no public support.15 Unauthorized farm workers, in particular, often rely on private
organizations as their main source of support in emergencies.16 The Elusive Citizen Field Laborer U.S.-born workers do not
have much interest in farm labor, and it is not hard to understand why. Farm work is one of the most
hazardous occupations in the United States.17 Workers face exposure to pesticides and the risk of heat exhaustion, heat
stroke, and/or repetitive stress injury. Most farm workers do not receive benefits, but some states with large numbers of
farm workers, including California, Oregon, and Washington, provide wage and hour protections, as well as
mandatory rest and meal periods over and above those mandated by federal law .18 Growers have a long
history of successful advocacy for access to foreign agricultural labor. In the past, they have asserted—incorrectly—
that without foreign workers U.S. agriculture would face disaster. Anti-immigration activists and some elected officials dispute the
argument that U.S. citizens will not work as field laborers. Today there is, in fact, ample evidence that U.S.-born citizens will
not replace foreign-born farm laborers. “There have been a number of efforts to recruit non-migrant
workers… and it has been very difficult to recruit and retain [them],” says Nancy Foster, president of the U.S. Apple
Association. “Native workers do not show up for these jobs.”19 In 2006, the Washington State apple industry launched a campaign
to recruit U.S.-born field workers. State and county agencies set up advertising, recruitment, and training programs for 1,700 job
vacancies. In the end, only 40 workers were placed.20 Mike Gempler, executive director of the Washington Growers League, who
helped run the recruitment program, said that the barriers to recruitment were simply part of the nature of farm work. “The
domestic workforce…found work that was inside, less physical, out of the sun. And [work]that wasn’t
season also they didn’t have to look for another job when the apples were off the tree … [with]seasonal work you
are always hustling to find the next job…that’s a stressor.” Following the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation, which required work as a
condition of the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)secured the passage
of a program to place California’s welfare recipients in farm jobs in the Central Valley. State and county work force agencies and
growers’ associations collaborated to identify agricultural zones where welfare recipients could be channeled. but only a handful of
potential participants were successfully recruited for farm labor.21 Manuel Cunha of the Nisei Growers League in California was
involved in this recruitment drive. He explained, “There was a huge training program with the universities and the
junior colleges to train these people [welfare recipients]in agriculture. Of 137,000 eligible workers, 503
applied and three actually went to work.” Cunha echoed Gempler’s comments on the barriers to recruiting citizens for farm
work: “We are not going to train people in agriculture because it’s seasonal and because it’s too hard . In
short, there is no evidence that removing immigrants from farm labor would create job vacancies that
unemployed citizens would fill .If immigrant farm workers were no longer available, growers would likely
try to mechanize their crops or abandon labor-intensive agriculture, leaving the United States to fill the
food gap with additional agricultural imports.
A global food crisis is on the horizon---stagnating production and growing
populations
Fisher 12 – Max Fisher is the Post's foreign affairs blogger. Before joining the Post, he edited international coverage for
TheAtlantic.com. (“Study: Global crop production shows some signs of stagnating”, December 24, 2012, graphs removed,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/24/is-production-of-key-global-crops-stagnating/, Callahan)
After decades of rapidly growing global agricultural output, production
of four of the world’s most important crops could be
stagnating or even slowing in some regions, according to a new study published in Nature, a top scientific journal. The study, by
the University of Minnesota’s Deepak Ray and four others, examined
millions of census reports from the last half century to
gather their data. The authors are careful to point out that crop production is still increasing in parts of the world; it is by no means a categorical
decline. The report’s abstract reads summarizes, “Although yields continue to increase in many areas, we find that across
24–39% of maize-, rice-, wheat- and soybean-growing areas, yields either never improve, stagnate or
collapse.” That’s about a quarter to a third of global production of four of our most important crops. This is potentially a very big
deal. World populations are still growing. So is the global middle class, members of which tend to
consume more meat and dairy per person, which means more crops per person. That’s been happening for
a while, and it’s been fine as long as food production has kept pace. But the pace of crop production
growth appears to be slowing in some really important regions, particularly in parts of India and China – and, yes,
the U.S. How did this happen? Study co-author Jonathan Foley, talking to Science Daily, suggests one possible explanation. “This finding is
particularly troubling because it suggests that we have preferentially focused our crop improvement efforts on feeding animals and cars, as we have
largely ignored investments in wheat and rice, crops that feed people and are the basis of food security in
much of the world,” he said. Yikes. What do the data show us? The authors kindly shared some charts and maps illustrating their data. As Ray
told Science Daily, it “both sounds the alert for where we must shift our course if we are to feed a growing
population in the decades to come, and points to positive examples to emulate .” Here, first, is what the data look like
for changes in wheat production. The green indicates rising production (and, again, keep in mind that some growth is necessary to keep pace with
population increases), orange for stagnating production, and red for a decrease. You’ll notice lots of orange (as well as some green splotches) in Asia.
Here are similar maps for rice and soybeans. The map for maize (corn) appears at the top of the page. Again, look closely at quick-growing Asia, where
you’ll see both good and bad news, although ideally they would be all green: And here are some sample findings from the study’s data, showing what it
looks when a crop stagnates growth, collapses, never improved, or is still growing. Take a look at the sample locations – places like Argentina and
Morocco are in there, but so are Arkansas, Texas, and Minnesota – and you’ll remember that sustainable crop production really is a global problem.
America’s population might not be growing as quickly as India’s or China’s, but it is growing, and its consumption habits tend to require more crops per
person. That’s because we need crops not just to feed ourselves but to fuel our cars and to support our enormous demand for meat and dairy, which
require substantial crop outputs. As Asian societies become not just larger but increasingly wealthy, the
stress on the world’s food
supply is expected to increase. If crops are to keep pace, we’ll need more of the world following the examples of places like Big Stone
County, Minnesota, which has seen consistent growth in wheat production. People have been predicting a Malthusian crisis, in which population
growth outstrips the world’s ability to feed and house everyone, for centuries. The predictions have all been wrong. Let’s hope it stays that way.
Current US approaches are insufficient---ramping up supply is necessary to
avoid price shocks
Goldenberg 12 – Suzanne Goldenberg is the US environment correspondent of the Guardian and is based in Washington
DC. (“US Drought Could Spell Another Global Food Crisis”, July 24, 2012, Mother Jones,
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/07/us-drought-global-food-crisis, Callahan)
America is the world's largest producer of corn , dominating the market. Corn is
also connected to
many food items—as feed for dairy cows or for hogs and beef cattle, as a component in processed food—
expanding the impact of those price rises. That means the effects of the drought will travel far beyond the
Midwestern states baking under triple-digit temperatures, said Robert Thompson, a food security expert at the
Chicago Council of Global Affairs. "What happens to the US supply has an immense impact around the
world. If the price of corn rises high enough, it also pulls up the price of wheat," he said. He went on: "I think
we are in for a very serious situation worldwide." Some analysts are predicting a repetition of the 2008
protests that swept across Africa and the Middle East, including countries like Egypt, because of food prices. In 2008, the food shock
was due to rising prices for rice and wheat. This time, it's because of corn and soybeans, and there were no signs of shortfall in rice or
wheat production. But the full effects of the American drought will likely take several months to emerge. Its
severity will be determined by a number of additional risk factors. Global grain stocks have reached a new low, with the
US and other countries running down their reserves. "There are no reserves of these foods in the US
anymore," said Sophia Murphy, a fellow at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. That means there is no room for
maneuver for countries forced to import grains. Thompson also warned that countries could make matters worse by
stockpiling—putting further pressure on prices. That was the pattern during the 2008 food crisis when Russia, Ukraine, India, and
Argentina all cut off grain exports. It was unclear as well whether America's demand for ethanol would further limit the amount of
corn on the world market. About 40 percent of America's corn is used for ethanol—which helps drive up the price of corn, analysts
say. But there were some reports that American ethanol plants were in shutdown across the Midwest, because high corn prices made
production uneconomic. "What's difficult is that we see a drought happen today but people really are going to be
feeling that six months from now, possibly a year from now," said Marie Brill, a policy analyst at ActionAid. But she
said it was already clear the reduced supply and high prices of corn and soybeans were set to cause serious
hardship—especially among poor people in poor countries which depend on imported grain. Countries that are net
importers of corn could be hit the hardest, including South Korea, Japan, Peru, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Columbia.
Much of East Africa will be badly affected, she said. Even those African countries that produce their own corn will suffer because
they are locked into the higher global prices, she said. West Africa is already in food crisis. "If supply is as awful as the US
government is predicting we're going to see another round of high prices and another increase in hunger,"
Murphy said.
A guest worker program restores US ag production to sustainable levels
Gowdy and Conyers 13 – Trey Gowdy is a US representative from South Carolina. John Conyers is a representative
from Michigan. (“AGRICULTURAL LABOR: FROM H-2A TO A WORKABLE AGRICULTURAL GUESTWORKER PROGRAM”,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY, February 26, 2013,
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/113th/113-3_79584.PDF, Callahan)
For those crops that are labor-intensive, especially at harvest time, hard labor is critical. One grower might
need only one or two hired workers to help plant, tend and harvest several hundred acres of wheat. However, another might need
hundreds of seasonal workers to harvest hundreds of acres of fruits or vegetables, and a dairy or a food processor might need
hundreds of workers year round. It is universally agreed that at least half of our seasonal agricultural labor supply is
made up of workers without legal residency status. This figure is probably much more than half, and could
comprise upwards of 1 million unauthorized workers. As Congress considers yet again immigration reform, we must decide whether
and under what circumstances and conditions growers can continue to rely on these workers. We all seek a future without reliance
on unauthorized workers. But to accomplish that, we need a guestworker program to provide growers with
the labor they need, indeed all of us need. What about the current H-2A agricultural worker program? This
program is numerically capped, and initial expectations were that growers would use hundreds of thousands of H-2A workers
each year. Yet, the State Department only issues about 50,000 visas a year. So why is it so under-utilized? What I am going to do
today is ask the farmers, because in the eyes of many, the program itself is designed to fail. It is cumbersome. It is full of red tape.
Growers have to pay wages far above the locally prevailing wage, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with growers who
use illegal labor. Growers are subject to onerous rules, such as the 50 percent rule, which requires them to hire any domestic worker
who shows up even after the H- 2A worker has arrived from overseas. Growers can’t get workers in time to meet needs
dictated by the weather. And finally, growers are constantly subject to litigation by those who don’t think the H- 2A program
should even exist. What growers need is a fair and workable guestworker program. They need a program that
gives them access to the workers they need, when they need them, at a fair wage and with reasonable
conditions, and they need a partner in the Federal Government, not what is often perceived as an adversary. A
reformed guestworker program will work better for growers and for workers. If growers can’t use a
program because it is too cumbersome, none of its worker protections will benefit actual workers. If a
program is fair to both growers and workers, it will be widely used and workers will benefit from its protections. I look forward to
hearing today’s witnesses and learning how they would reform our agricultural guestworker system. I now would recognize the past
Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, for your comments about our first
hearing of the Immigration Subcommittee. I am glad we are here to talk about our country’s agricultural labor needs, and I welcome
the four distinguished witnesses that are with us today. We talk about how our agriculture industry depends on
the migrant labor. Right now, half or more of the 2 million farmworkers picking our crops and harvesting our fruits and
vegetables, I am sorry to say, are undocumented immigrants. I think this is unsustainable, and I think that the entire Committee is
motivated to try to do something about this. I feel that we all have the common goal of solving this problem, and I believe the
discussion with the witnesses before us can help bring us closer to the solution. I want to begin by talking about what we mean when
we talk about our agricultural labor needs. We know that these are hard jobs. We know it is back-breaking work. In many ways, it is
also skilled work. Maybe you don’t need a Ph.D. in engineering, but I doubt most engineers would be very good at cutting lettuce in
exactly the right way to bring it to market. We also know that there are Americans and immigrants with work
authorizations who perform this work, and there are not nearly enough of them to get the job done. This is
important to Members of Congress from districts that produce the hand-picked produce that we all enjoy.
Their local economies are built upon a, frankly, untenable situation . They depend on the labor of undocumented
immigrants, which means they depend on our willingness to tolerate that unacceptable situation. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture reports that every on-the- farm job supports 3.1 upstream and downstream jobs in processing,
trucking, distribution. These jobs are generally held by American workers, so the destruction of
agriculture and the offshoring of all these farm jobs means the loss of millions of other jobs in
communities across the country. It is important to us. So the question that we are faced with is what do we do? Last
Congress, we heard over and over that the solution is to reform the H-2A program for temporary seasonal agricultural workers, or to
create an entirely new program to accomplish that same goal. This Committee never considered proposals to allow all of our current
undocumented workers who work year after year at the same farms, provide skilled, dependable labor that benefits us all, to earn
permanent legal status. These are people who have families, have been paying taxes, are good people, and are already doing the work
that benefits us all. Does it make sense to anyone that we should deport all of our current workers and replace
them with half a million new temporary workers who can only stay for 10 months and must come and go
back every year? It would take billions of dollars to deport the farmworkers we already have, something
that we know can never happen, and we would require growers across the country to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars bringing in new farmworkers.
Mexico is crucial---most important source of US farm labor
Martin and Taylor 13 – Philip Martin is a Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC-Davis and Chair
of the University of California’s Comparative Immigration and Integration Program. J Edward Taylor is a Profess of Agricultural and
Resource Economics and Director of the Center on Rural Economics of the Americas and the Pacific Rim at UC-Davis. (“Ripe With
Change: Evolving Farm Labor Markets in the United States, Mexico, and Central America”, The Regional Migration Study Group,
February 2013, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/RMSG-Agriculture.pdf, Callahan)
The demand for hired farm labor is complex. In each country it depends on individual farmer decisions about what to
produce and how to produce it. These decisions, in turn, are influenced by factors that include the demand for farm commodities
and the cost of farm labor. The source of farm labor is domestic in Central America, overwhelmingly domestic but with some
Central American immigrants in the mix in Mexico, and overwhelmingly Mexican in the United States. The
global demand for labor-intensive fruits and nuts, vegetables and melons, and horticultural special ties
from flowers to mushrooms (known as FVH commodities) is expected to continue to increase due to
population growth and changes in food consumption patterns. This demand can be satisfied by
production in North America or imports from outside the region (see Appendix Figure A-2, for growth in US imports
and exports of fresh produce). The methods used to produce FVH commodities in North America depend,
among other things, on wages. For example, if farm workers continue to be available to US farmers at
wages that are roughly half of the $20/hour average in the US economy, US FVH production will continue
to rely on low-wage and low- skilled workers. The production of some FVH commodities has become more mechanized
(e.g., wine and raisin grapes are increasingly machine-harvested and -pruned). Other crops, such as strawberries, con tinue to rely
on labor-intensive methods of production (in the United States, strawberry farmers employ many indigenous workers from southern
Mexico, for example). Agriculture is unlike most other key sectors of the North American economy in that its
comparative advantage has rested on having access to abundant low-skilled labor instead of on the
accumulation of human capital (education and skills). The human capital of US farm operators is rising in proportion to
trends in US education levels, but the human capital of US farm workers is rising in proportion to Mexican
education levels. The gap between US farm operators under 50 and Mexican-born hired workers is typically 8 to 16 years —
wider than during the 1942-64 Bracero era, when the education gap was 6 to 10 years.’ Skill requirements are rising fastest for the
nonfarm firms that provide services to farmers, ranging from finance and equipment to pesticides, chemicals, labor, and other
inputs. Except for farm labor contractors, most of the workers hired by these nonfarm firms were never farm workers. Most farm
workers find it hard to make the transition from farm work to skilled nonfarm work, even though some farm worker jobs have been
converted to nonfarm jobs, as when broccoli and melons are packed in the field.2 Mexico is the major supplier of
hired labor to US farms, and Guatemala has become a supplier of farm labor to Mexico; thus, Mexico is in the
transitional phase of being both a farm labor exporter and importer. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador have the opportunity to develop export-oriented farming systems that build on their comparative advantage, namely, offseason production of high-value and labor-intensive commodities for the United States and other export markets. Extended seasons,
such as when Mexican tomatoes and table grapes are grown, increase exports and the jobs that support them (and sometimes
compete with US production). The production of these crops is increasing, and new data from rural Mexico suggest that
expanding export-oriented agriculture in Mexico may be competing with US farms for a diminishing
supply of farm labor. Importers sensitive to the risks of farm labor abuse and pesticide exposure, among other issues, can exert
upward pressure on wages and working conditions in both Mexico and the United States.
SCENARIO A: FOOD SECURITY
Global food wars are approaching---increased US supply is vital
Klare 12 – Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. (“The Hunger Wars in Our Future,”
Huffington Post, 8-7-2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-hunger-wars-in-our-fu_b_1751968.html)
The Great Drought of 2012 has yet to come to an end, but we already know that its consequences will be severe. With more than one-half of America’s
counties designated as drought disaster areas, the
2012 harvest of corn, soybeans, and other food staples is guaranteed
to fall far short of predictions. This, in turn, will boost food prices domestically and abroad, causing
increased misery for farmers and low-income Americans and far greater hardship for poor people in
countries that rely on imported U.S. grains.¶ This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences: if history is any guide,
rising food prices of this sort will also lead to widespread social unrest and violent conflict.¶ Food -- affordable
food -- is essential to human survival and well-being. Take that away, and people become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the
United States, food represents only about 13 percent of the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will
probably not prove overly taxing for most middle- and upper-income families. It could, however, produce considerable hardship for poor and
unemployed Americans with limited resources. “You are talking about a real bite out of family budgets,” commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural
economist at Omaha’s Creighton University. This could add to the discontent already evident in depressed and high-unemployment areas, perhaps
prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent politicians and other forms of dissent and unrest.¶ It is in the international arena, however, that
the Great Drought is likely to have its most devastating effects. Because so
many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S.
to supplement their own harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops elsewhere as
well, food supplies are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet. “What happens to the U.S.
supply has immense impact around the world,” says Robert Thompson, a food expert at the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn and soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of
all grains, including wheat, is likely to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough food to feed their
families.¶ The Hunger Games, 2007-2011¶ What happens next is, of course, impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn ugly.
In 2007-2008, when
rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100 percent or more, sharply higher
prices -- especially for bread -- sparked “food riots” in more than two dozen countries, including
Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Yemen. In Haiti, the rioting became so
violent and public confidence in the government’s ability to address the problem dropped so precipitously
that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the country’s prime minister, Jacques-Édouard Alexis. In other countries,
angry protestors clashed with army and police forces, leaving scores dead.¶ Those price increases of 2007-2008 were
largely attributed to the soaring cost of oil, which made food production more expensive. (Oil’s use is widespread in farming operations, irrigation, food
delivery, and pesticide manufacture.) At the same time, increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being diverted from food crops to the
cultivation of plants used in making biofuels.¶ The next price spike in 2010-11 was, however, closely associated with climate change. An intense drought
gripped much of eastern Russia during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that breadbasket region by one-fifth and prompting Moscow
to ban all wheat exports. Drought
also hurt China’s grain harvest, while intense flooding destroyed much of
Australia’s wheat crop. Together with other extreme-weather-related effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by
more than 50 percent and the price of most food staples by 32 percent .¶ Once again, a surge in food prices
resulted in widespread social unrest, this time concentrated in North Africa and the Middle East. The
earliest protests arose over the cost of staples in Algeria and then Tunisia, where -- no coincidence -- the precipitating
event was a young food vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, setting himself on fire to protest government harassment. Anger over rising food and
fuel prices combined with long-simmering resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what became known as
the Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a cause of unrest in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. Other factors,
notably anger at entrenched autocratic regimes, may have proved more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian
Parenti, wrote, “The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part, to the price of that loaf of bread.” ¶ As for the current drought, analysts
are
already warning of instability in Africa, where corn is a major staple, and of increased popular unrest in
China, where food prices are expected to rise at a time of growing hardship for that country’s vast pool of
low-income, migratory workers and poor peasants. Higher food prices in the U.S. and China could also
lead to reduced consumer spending on other goods, further contributing to the slowdown in the global
economy and producing yet more worldwide misery, with unpredictable social consequences.¶ The Hunger
Games, 2012-??¶ If this was just one bad harvest, occurring in only one country, the world would undoubtedly absorb the ensuing hardship and expect
to bounce back in the years to come. Unfortunately, it’s becoming evident that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a single heartland
nation, but rather an inevitable consequence of global warming which is only going to intensify. As a result, we
can expect not just more
bad years of extreme heat, but worse years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United States, but
globally for the indefinite future.¶ Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on global
warming. Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can be demonstrated in certain cases. In one recent study focused on
extreme weather events in 2011, for instance, climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Great Britain’s
National Weather Service concluded that human-induced climate change has made intense heat waves of the kind experienced in Texas in 2011 more
likely than ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, it reported that global warming had ensured that the
incidence of that Texas heat wave was 20 times more likely than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm temperatures like those
experienced in Britain last November were said to be 62 times as likely because of global warming. ¶ It is still too early to apply the methodology used by
these scientists to calculating the effect of global warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but we can assume the
level of correlation will be high. And what can we expect in the future, as the warming gains momentum? ¶ When we think about climate change (if we
think about it at all), we envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels. Among other things,
this will result in damaged infrastructure and diminished food supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of warming in the physical world, not the
social world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our daily well-being and survival. The
purely physical effects of climate
change will, no doubt, prove catastrophic. But the social effects including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass
starvation, state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war,
could prove even more disruptive and deadly.¶ In her immensely successful young-adult novel The Hunger Games (and the movie
that followed), Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian, resource-scarce, post-apocalyptic future where once-rebellious “districts”
in an impoverished North America must supply two teenagers each year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for all but one of
the youthful contestants. These “hunger games” are intended as recompense for the damage inflicted on the victorious capitol of Panem by the
rebellious districts during an insurrection. Without specifically mentioning global warming, Collins makes it clear that climate change was significantly
responsible for the hunger that shadows the North American continent in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial contestants are about to be selected,
the mayor of District 12’s principal city describes “the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of
the land [and] the brutal war for what little sustenance remained.Ӧ In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence on which
such a world might be organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of those hunger games, do not doubt that some version of them will
hunger wars of many sorts will fill our future. These could include any combination or
riots that led to the 2008 collapse of Haiti’s government, the pitched battles between massed
protesters and security forces that engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab Spring developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed
croplands and water sources that have made Darfur a recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable distribution of
agricultural land that continues to fuel the insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites of India.¶ Combine such conflicts with another
come into existence -- that, in fact,
permutation of the deadly
likelihood: that persistent drought and hunger will force millions of people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns
and expanding slums surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those already living there. One such eruption, with grisly results, occurred in
Johannesburg’s shantytowns in 2008 when desperately poor and hungry migrants from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some
cases burned to death by poor South Africans. One terrified Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station from the raging mobs, said she fled her country
because “there is no work and no food.” And count
on something else: millions more in the coming decades, pressed by
disasters ranging from drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to migrate to other countries,
provoking even greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the possibilities that lie in our hungergames future.¶ At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still ongoing Great Drought: dying crops,
shrunken harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye out for the social and political effects that undoubtedly won’t
begin to show up here or globally until later this year or 2013. Better than any academic study, these will offer us a hint of
what we can expect in the coming decades from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent droughts, recurring food shortages, and
billions of famished, desperate people.
These wars go nuclear
Cribb 10 (Julian, Julian Cribb is a science communicator, journalist and editor of several newspapers and books. His
published work includes over 7,000 newspaper articles, 1,000 broadcasts, and three books and has received 32 awards for science,
medical, agricultural and business journalism. He was Director, National Awareness, for Australia's science agency, CSIRO,
foundation president of the Australian Science Communicators, and originated the CGIAR's Future Harvest strategy. He has worked
as a newspaper editor, science editor for "The Australian "and head of public affairs for CSIRO. He runs his own science
communication consultancy, “The coming famine: the global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it,” p. 26)
This is the most likely means by which the
coming famine will affect all citizens of Earth, both through the direct
consequences of refugee floods for receiving countries and through the effect on global food prices and the
cost to public revenues of redressing the problem. Coupled with this is the risk of wars breaking out over local
disputes about food, land, and water and the dangers that the major military powers may be sucked into these vortices,
that smaller nations newly nuclear-armed may become embroiled, and that shock waves propagated by these
conflicts will jar the global economy and disrupt trade, sending food prices into a fresh spiral. Indeed, an
increasingly credible scenario for World War III is not so much a confrontation of superpowers and their allies as a festering,
self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts driven by the widening gap between food and energy supplies and
peoples' need to secure them.
SCENARIO B: FOOD PRICES
Price spikes cause global instability—collapses Russia and China
Lynn 13 – Matthew Lynn is a financial journalist based in London. (“Food prices may be catalyst for 2013 revolutions”,
January 26, 2013, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/food-prices-may-be-catalyst-for-2013-revolutions-2013-01-16, Callahan)
LONDON (MarketWatch) — What
is the trigger for a revolution? Sometimes it a brutal act of repression. Sometimes it a lost war, or a
often than not, it is soaring food prices. The easiest prediction to
make for 2013 is that everything we eat will once again rise sharply in price . So where will the revolutions start this year? Keep
natural catastrophe, that exposes the failings of a regime. But more
an eye on Algeria and Greece — and if you want to feel very nervous, Russia and China. And if you are smart, keep your money out of those countries as
well. The
link between the cost of feeding your family and political turmoil is too well-established to be
ignored. We saw it most recently with the Arab Spring of 2011. The uprisings that deposed the autocracies of the Middle
East had their roots in food inflation. Most of the Middle East countries import 50% or more of their food, making them acutely
vulnerable to rising commodity prices. In Egypt the food inflation rate hit 19% in early 2011. For President Hosni Mubarak that was game over. The
regime was finished. It goes back much further than that, however. Failed harvests in France in 1788 and 1789 meant that the cost of bread soared.
From taking 50% of the average working man’s wages it went up to 88%. The result? The French Revolution. The economists Helge Berger and Mark
Spoerer have pinned the European revolutions of 1848 on the soaring price of wheat. Likewise, a shortage of food and soaring prices led to strikes in
Petrograd in 1917 — and sparked the Russian Revolution. So there isn’t any question that food inflation can create revolts. There are other factors at
play as well, of course. The Swiss don’t take to the barricades when the price of fondue goes through the roof. It usually takes a repressive regime, a
rising middle class, a lot of unemployment and an aging leader who has gotten out of touch to complete the picture. But soaring
food prices
are often the spark: once that is lit, the flames take hold. Nor can it be disputed that food is rising in price right
now. The U.S. is set to have a poor harvest this year because of a widespread drought. So will Russia and
the Ukraine, both massive wheat producers. Europe, not a particularly major agricultural power, had the opposite problem. Too much rain, even
by drizzly British standards, has wreaked havoc on basic crops such as potatoes. The price of chips is now going through the roof right across Europe. In
France, for example, potato prices have gone from $40 a ton to $330, an eight-fold increase. Other major food markets are just as bad. Corn and
soybean prices already hit record highs last year, and, even if they have fallen back a little in recent weeks, they could easily start climbing again in the
summer. The United Nations food agency has already warned that 2013
is likely to see dangerous rises in food prices. That comes
surge in global population and the increasing wealth of
many developing nations — richer people eat more, and they eat more meat as well, which increases
demand for animal feed — means the long term trend in food is upwards. Against that backdrop, it doesn’t take
much tightening of supply to send prices rocketing. So if you figure that rising food prices create revolts, and prices will rocket
this year, then where might we see political turmoil? It is a question that matters to investors, because a revolution means a collapse in
stock-markets. Just take a look at Egypt in 2011 — the Cairo index plunged from 7,200 to 3,600 as the regime fell. If the revolt is big enough,
markets may tumble globally. Algeria is one obvious candidate. It was the one country that didn’t get caught up in the Arab Spring. But it
against the backdrop of an increasing long-term shortage of food. A
has many of the same issues as Libya and Egypt. Don’t be surprised to see demonstrations on the streets there. Morocco may well get caught up in the
turmoil. And food shortages may spell the end for President Bashar Assad in Syria. Greece is the second possibility. Unemployment is
now at 27%. Many people are on the breadline — and bread is about to get a lot costlier. There are increasing reports of people having to rely on food
handout in Athens and other major cities. Taxes are constantly being pushed higher to meet the deficit targets and wages are still being cut and jobs
slashed. More expensive food could easily be the spark for an extremist party to seize power and take the country out of the euro. More
worrying
still, Russia. There have already been protests against the autocratic rule of Vladimir Putin. Rising grain
prices have toppled Russian leaders in the past — Putin could follow the czars into oblivion. It is
the Russian grain harvest that has been especially badly hit, and this is still a country where poverty is
widespread. Putin has stayed in power thanks to rising living standards. If they drop, his regime will be
under pressure. Or, most seriously of all, China. It has grown much richer, but there are millions and
millions of people who have moved to the new cities — if they start to go hungry that could prompt a wave
of rebellions. Cold weather is playing havoc with food supplies there. Usually, it could import more food if it needed it. But
this year that won’t be possible — or at least only at huge cost. Minor revolts in the Middle East don’t have the potential to
knock more than local markets. Egypt was the major stock market in the region, and that has already been through a regime change. But a Greek exit
from the euro, or a
Russian or Chinese political rebellion, would massively destabilize the global economy — and
may be the most likely cause of
turmoil in the markets this year.
send equity, bond and currency markets into turmoil. Whichever nation it is, it looks like food
Russian collapse causes nuclear war
Filger 9 – Sheldon, author and blogger for the Huffington Post, “Russian Economy Faces Disastrous
Free Fall Contraction” http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/356
In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely
encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that
led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nation’s history, are
unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russia’s economic crisis will endanger the nation’s
political stability, achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes
and protests are occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling
demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites
are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a desperate
attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out of the
question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the
Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context.
Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two
nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the
world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at
nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and
destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obama’s
national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of
the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already
concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its
facilitating political instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible
for guarding the nation’s nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate
personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic
crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear
arsenal remain? It may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least
dangerous consequence.
Reduced production means China enters political crisis
Shea 12 – Irish Economics, Finance and Investment writer. (Paul, “The US Has a Very Important Resource which China
Doesn’t: Food”, ValueWalk, May 29, 2012, http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/05/the-us-has-a-very-important-resource-whichchina-doesnt-food/, Callahan)
As China’s economy grows, so too will its demand for food. It’s own ability to supply that food has become
lessened, and China’s sensitivity to world commodity prices, one of the primary drivers behind the 2010 problem, still
effects them. China is one of the world’s largest importers of food and is soon to become the largest. It
imports huge amounts of soy beans and pork as well as grain in times of need. If China faces a drought it will need to come to
knocking on America’s door for food. The country already depends on the US for many products and the US is not immune from the
country’s spending spree abroad. In 2008 COFCO began buying shares in America’s largest pork supplier Smithfield Foods Ltd. (NYSE:SFD). Global
food prices, apart from shocks in the late 2000s and early 2010s, have been at a low for some time. That day is over, and
China, with the most mouths to feed, will be the most important link in the global food chain. As we’ve seen, China is
starting to make that chain more complicated by the day. China’s impact on the world of food trade
becomes much more serious as forecasts for the market don’t look particularly optimistic. A rising world
population combined with probable rising oil prices and global warming’s effect in destroying arable land will all effect the world’s food markets and
none of them will lower the price. China
depends on sovereign support as well as support from its own trading
companies to ensure food security. If food security is not maintained there is no telling what might
happen in the country’s poorer district where wages are low and local food supply is key. Any crisis in food
will be exasperated by the country’s crisis in demographics. According to the Chinese census of 2010 almost 120 males were
born for every hundred females. The country is still young with almost 20% of the population under 14. A surplus of young men is not
good for a country’s stability. On top of this are the other economic problems China mace face in the coming years that could reduce
income without having a negative effect on food prices. The property bubble the country now faces is primary among these. China is vulnerable
to a crisis in food production and the rest of the world is vulnerable to a Chinese crisis. The country’s
assets around the world might trigger crises in Sub Saharan countries where China owns enough land. It
would trigger a hike in food prices around the world including the West. The West is not immune to food crises. In 2008
when oil pressures caused a spike in food prices there were riots around the world. Some of those countries, like Mexico, are a little too close to home to
ignore. Higher food prices didn’t make the world recession easier on the millions unemployed in the West either. Food
is a problem. If
China runs out of food, the world’s economies could head for absolute chaos. This is an issue that will
not go away and one that may very well cause a real political crisis inside China in the not too distant
future. A political crisis in China would throw the world into absolute chaos. Whether we like it or not China’s problems
are now the world’s problems. We have to deal with them at least as fervently as we deal with our own.
That results in an internal war that causes lash-out
Kane and Serewicz 1 [Thomas. Security Studies from Hull. And Lawrence – Foreign Policy Analyst “China's Hunger:
The Consequences of a Rising Demand for Food and Energy” Parameters, Fall 2001]
Despite China's problems with its food supply, the Chinese do not appear to be in danger of widespread starvation. Nevertheless, one
cannot rule
out the prospect entirely, especially if the earth's climate actually is getting warmer. The consequences of general famine in a country
with over a billion people clearly would be catastrophic. The effects of oil shortages and industrial stagnation would be less lurid, but
economic collapse would endanger China's political stability whether that collapse came with a bang or a whimper. PRC
society has become dangerously fractured. As the coastal cities grow richer and more cosmopolitan while the rural inland provinces grow poorer, the
political interests of the two regions become ever less compatible. Increasing the prospects for division yet further, Deng Xiaoping's administrative
reforms have strengthened regional potentates at the expense of central authority. As Kent Calder observes, In part, this change [erosion of power at
the center] is a conscious devolution, initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1991 to outflank conservative opponents of economic reforms in Beijing
nomenclature. But devolution has fed on itself, spurred by the natural desire of local authorities in the affluent and increasingly powerful coastal
provinces to appropriate more and more of the fruits of growth to themselves alone.[ 49] Other social and economic developments deepen the rifts in
Chinese society. The one-child policy, for instance, is disrupting traditional family life, with unknowable consequences for Chinese mores and social
cohesion.[ 50] As families resort to abortion or infanticide to ensure that their one child is a son, the population may come to include an unprecedented
preponderance of young, single men. If common gender prejudices have any basis in fact, these males are unlikely to be a source of social stability.
Under these circumstances, China
is vulnerable to unrest of many kinds. Unemployment or severe hardship, not to mention actual
starvation, could easily trigger popular uprisings. Provincial leaders might be tempted to secede, perhaps
openly or perhaps by quietly ceasing to obey Beijing's directives. China's leaders, in turn, might adopt drastic measures to
forestall such developments. If faced with internal strife, supporters of China's existing regime may return to a more overt form of
communist dictatorship. The PRC has, after all, oscillated between experimentation and orthodoxy continually throughout its existence. Spectacular
examples include Mao's Hundred Flowers campaign and the return to conventional Marxism-Leninism after the leftist experiments of the Cultural
Revolution, but the process continued throughout the 1980s, when the Chinese referred to it as the "fang-shou cycle." (Fang means to loosen one's grip;
Civil unrest in the PRC would
disrupt trade relationships, send refugees flowing across borders, and force outside powers to consider
intervention. If different countries chose to intervene on different sides, China's struggle could lead to
major war. In a less apocalyptic but still grim scenario, China's government might try to ward off its
demise by attacking adjacent countries.
shou means to tighten it.)[ 51] If order broke down, the Chinese would not be the only people to suffer.
Extinction
Hunkovic 9, American Military University, 09 [Lee J, 2009, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a
Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf]
A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict
and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict,
including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war,
as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the U nited States
and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility
exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and
Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and
deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a fullscale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it.
However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other
countries will not be considered in this study.
1AC – Remittances Advantage
CONTENTION ( ): REMITTANCES
Remittances are declining and will devastate the Mexican economy
Villagran 13 (Lauren Villagran has written for the Associated Press, Dallas Morning News and
Christian Science Monitor. She holds a degree from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern
University. “Slow U.S. growth, zero immigration hurt remittances to Mexico” February 27, 2013.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/global-observer/slow-us-growth-zero-immigration-hurt-remittancesto-mexico/9904) VP
The U.S. recession, then slow U.S. economic growth over the past two years, plus tighter border security
and anti-immigrant laws at the state level have conspired to either drive immigrants back to Mexico or
convince people here to sit tight. Deportations have increased as well. Meanwhile, drug violence along the border and
cartels’ targeting of migrants has also deterred immigration north. Together those trends have put a dent in the
dollars Mexicans wire home.¶ Both remittances and foreign direct investment are well off the highs reached before the
recession, $26 billion in 2007 and $27 billion in 2008, respectively.¶ The cash sent back to Mexican families totaled just $22.4
billion in 2012, down 1.6 percent in dollar terms from the previous year (partly due to an appreciating peso), or up less
than 1 percent in pesos adjusted for inflation. By comparison, foreign direct investment last year isn’t likely to reach the $20 billion
mark, compared with $20.4 billion a year earlier.¶ In Latin America’s second-largest economy, income from remittances ranks just
below what Mexico earns from petroleum, tourism and the automotive industry –- yet remittances account for only 2.3 percent of
the GDP.¶ “The effect of remittances is felt mainly in the homes that receive them,” said Juan Luis Ordaz Diaz, senior
economist with BBVA Bancomer. “They’re a salary for those homes –- probably larger than the salary they would receive
here.”¶ In other words, according to Ordaz Diaz, remittances don’t have the power to sway the Mexican economy on their own.
Their real impact on the Mexican economy comes in terms of consumption , he said. Nearly 1.4 million families in
Mexico depend heavily on what their relatives earn in the U.S.; the average remittance is about $290 per month.¶ While the number
of families heavily dependent on remittances comprise only about 1 percent of the Mexican population, some regional
economies do depend disproportionately on income from remesas . (These tend to be states such as Michoacan,
Oaxaca, Guerrero, and others that send the highest number of immigrants north.) A drop in the cash sent home can
seriously injure a state’s economy.¶ Although Mexico’s economy recovered from the recent recession far more rapidly
than that of its northern neighbor, the country’s economies are inextricably tied, and sluggish growth in the U.S. inevitably holds
Mexico back.¶ As the U.S. economy improves, so should remittances –- eventually. BBVA Bancomer expects remittances in
2013 to remain flat.
Bracero’s bilateral agreement facilitates increased remittances
DuVall 2 (Lindsay, Honors Scholar Seminar Chicago-Kent School of Law, THE GUEST WORKER
PROGRAM Earned Legalization & Reform: The Best
Solution, http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic%20Programs/Honors%20Scholars/2002/Li
ndsay-DuVall-paper.pdf, Spring 2002) MM
Bilateral Agreements between the U.S. and Mexico Under the current H-2A program, U.S. employers are given
complete discretion as to where and how they recruit their workers.[139] This allows them to select the “best” workers
and nurtures a system where bribes lead to jobs. By involving Mexico with the guest worker program through
bilateral agreements, the two countries can regulate and facilitate recruitment, remittances,[140] IRAfunds from wages, and the return of workers to Mexico.
Reform fails---only the plan’s overhaul successfully boosts remittances
Koh and Ting 13 (Allen and Nathaniel, students at the Franklin W.Olin College of Engineering,
transcribing a debate between a US and Mexican diplomat over migrant workers, "US/Mexico Labor
Migration and the Agricultural Industry" AHS Capstone Projects, April 1 2013,
digitalcommons.olin.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=ahs_capstone_2013 NP)
Pathways such as DACA only provide pathways to specific groups, such as minors.¶ While this is a step in the right direction, there
must be a more comprehensive solution.¶ Currently, the US issues H-2A visas for temporary workers in
the agricultural industry, which¶ allows immigrants to work for their sponsor employer in the US for up to
a year. This process,¶ however, takes time, restricts workers to one employer, and is expensive for employers
as there are various regulations such as providing acceptable living conditions and higher wages.¶ Employers
have little incentive to go through this visa process when there are undocumented¶ workers readily available.
From an economic standpoint, it would be beneficial for the US to¶ allow a more effective type of temporary or seasonal immigration
policy. As discussed in the¶ debate between the US and Mexican diplomats, free trade of labor should boost the US ¶ economy;
however, we do not believe that the US and Mexico are at a point where completely¶ taking down the border is feasible due to other
issues regarding border protection such as drug¶ trafficking. Therefore we propose an alternative form of this idea.¶ Perhaps there
should be certain months, those in which the agricultural industry needs¶ laborers, when the borders to temporary workers should
be open. Opening up the border for¶ certain months will allow more freedom for immigrant workers
to move across the border and also move freely between companies and even industries. Immigrant
workers can therefore take full advantage of the demands of the labor market , increasing
productivity and the US¶ economy. In turn, the Mexican immigrants will be able to receive US wages
and be able to send¶ more remittance income to Mexico, increasing Mexico’s economy as well.
Additionally, this will¶ address many of the overlooked human rights concerns of Mexican immigrant workers.
[ ] Temporary workers increase remittances and create a brain gain
boosting their homeland economies
Motomura 13 (Hiroshi Motomura, UCLA School of Law, influential scholar and teacher of
immigration and citizenship law. “Designing Temporary Worker Programs” University of Chicago Law
Review, February 12,
http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/80_1/10%20Motomura%20
SYMP.pdf) VP
From a third perspective, temporary worker programs respond to economic development pressures outside the United ¶ States. This
relationship goes both ways; temporary workers can ¶ influence international economic development , and vice
versa. ¶ For example, temporary workers (and other emigrants) typically ¶ send remittances back to their countries
of origin, where the ¶ funds are essential to the economy. Remittances not only buoy ¶ the national economy in
general but also offset the absence of ¶ available credit, helping to build houses, educate children, start ¶ and
grow small businesses, and more.52¶ Emigration, including emigration of temporary workers, is ¶ also a safety valve for
what might otherwise emerge in the sending country as economic or political discontent and unrest.53 As ¶ with remittances, a key
part of analyzing this safety valve is ¶ comparing temporary workers with unauthorized migrants, ¶ though confident conclusions are
elusive. Unauthorized migrants may represent more of a political safety valve than lawful ¶ temporary workers, who may find it
easier to travel back and ¶ forth and thus to stay active in their countries of origin. Frequent travel may reinforce a
worker’s sense of impermanence in ¶ the United States, perhaps strengthening remittance flows and ¶
other forms of home-country engagement. ¶ If temporary workers maintain ties, they may be
wellpositioned to address problems in their countries of origin beyond sending remittances . From an
international economic development perspective, an important question is whether temporary worker programs allow workers to
make nonmonetary ¶ contributions based on their US experiences. Temporary workers may return to their countries of
origin with enhanced experience, ranging from language to occupational skills to entrepreneurial knowhow. By sending back human capital, temporary ¶ worker programs can offset shortcomings of education,
training, ¶ and experience levels in the population of sending countries. 54
Remittances have a multiplier effect throughout the Mexican economy
Canas et al 12 (Jesus Canas, business economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; Roberto
Coronado, Assistant Vice President in Charge Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; Pia M. Orrenius, Assistant
Vice President and Senior Economist Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; and Madeline Zavodny, professor of
economics at Agnes Scott College. “The Vulnerability of Mexican Temporary Workers in the United States
with H-2 Visas” from Migration and Remittances from Mexico: Trends, Impacts, and New Challenges
edited by Alfredo Cuecuecha and Carla Pederzini, 2012.) VP
Because remittances have become a major source of income for many developing countries, there is a large, and
growing economics literature on the¶ determinants and effects of remittances. Most of these studies concentrate on¶ the economic impacts that such
flows have on receiving or home countries.¶ For
Mexico, a, growing body of research examines the effect of
remittances¶ on poverty, schooling, labor force participation, inequality, and the financial ¶ sector. We begin by
briefly summarizing the expected economic effects of¶ remittances from a theoretical point of view and then what empirical research¶
reveals about the effects of remittances in Mexico.¶ From a theoretical standpoint, remittances can have both positive and negative
economic consequences. Households that receive remittances are made ¶ better off because they have higher
income, which boosts either their consumption or savings or both. These households may be able to make
investments¶ that they previously could not, including sending children to school.¶ Both of these effects should spur economic
development. Investment helps¶ secure households future income stream while higher consumption usually.¶ generates
multiplier effects throughout the economy that help all households,¶ not just those receiving
remittances.
Remittances help Mexican small business investment
Airola 8 (Jim Airola, Defense Resources Management Institute Naval Postgraduate School. 2008.
“Labor Supply in Response to Remittance Income: The Case of Mexico.” The
Journal of Developing Areas 41 (2) (April 1): 69–78. doi:10.2307/40376176.
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Centers/DRMI/docs/DRMI%20Working%20Paper%2005-09.pdf) VP
A number of studies have analyzed the flow of remittance income, its persistence, the ¶ motivations for remitting (Lucas and Stark,
1985), and the impact of remittances on ¶ national income. Woodruff and Zenteno(2001) analyze whether remittances are
relied on ¶ for small firms to access capital. Using a survey of small urban firms, they estimate that remittances are
responsible for almost 20% of the capital invested in microenterprises in urban Mexico.
Thus they conclude that remittances play an important role in mitigating ¶ capital constraints in small business
development in the Mexican context. However, ¶ Amuedo-Durantes and Pozo(2003), in the case of the Dominican Republic
where ¶ remittance income accounts for an even larger share of GDP than in Mexico, find no ¶ evidence that remittances promote
small business ownership.
Small business is a driver of the Mexican economy – investment is the only
barrier
Etoniru 13 (Nneka Etoniru, Americas Society/Council of the Americas. “Mexico 2013 Blog: Backing
Small Business in Mexico” April 1, 2013. http://www.as-coa.org/blogs/mexico-2013-blog-backing-smallbusiness-mexico) VP
Shortly after taking office, President Enrique Peña Nieto’s government recognized the role of small business in
Mexico’s economy by creating a government agency dedicated to entrepreneurship. The website of the new
National Institute of the Entrepreneur (INADEM) points out that micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises
represent 99.8 percent of all jobs and 72 percent of employment in Mexico. After inking the decree to get
INADEM off the ground, Peña Nieto declared that small businesses “constitute the heart of the nation's
economic activity and are one of its greatest assets.Ӧ Mexico already stood well positioned for new enterprises in Latin
America; it ranked in the top five regionally both in terms of starting and conducting business, according to a 2012 World Bank
report. The survey also placed it sixth when it comes to credit access—ahead of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Access to credit is a
key part of starting a business, so the country is seeking new ways to build that access for small- and mediumsized enterprises. Here are some examples:¶ Helping entrepreneurs offset franchise costs. Housed within the Secretariat
of Economy, INADEM facilitates expanding credit access for SMEs by working with other government agencies and nonprofit
organizations. For example, the institute is working with the Programa de Garantías, through which Mexican entrepreneurs can
receive up to $162,000 to offset the costs of turning their businesses into franchises. Previously, this amount was limited to 50
percent of the initial cost of acquiring a franchise and could not exceed $20,000.¶ Startup training. INADEM provides training
resources for new and aspiring entrepreneurs. The organization Startup México works with INADEM, among other public and
private organizations, to educate entrepreneurs on startup training, credit access, and assistance with building business capital. In
2012, approximately 1,300 Mexicans trained with Startup México.¶ Increased funding for innovation. As of February 2013,
the government’s National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) announced an increase from $150 to $230 million in
annual funding for private-sector innovation projects. The program, which funded 522 projects last year, backs SMEs engaged in
science and technology, as well as research by larger companies to enhance competitiveness. Total funding by CONACYT has
increased by 18 percent in 2013, to $5.67 billion.
Mexican economic collapse wrecks the global economy
DMN 95 Dallas Morning News citing Victor Lopez Villafane who is the director of the Center for North
American Studies, Technology Institute of Monterrey, a member of the Board of the North American
Forum on Integration (NAFI), has been a visiting scholar in various institutions and universities across
North America and the Asia-Pacific region, and received a Ph.D. in economics from the National
Autonomous University of Mexico, 11/28, Lexis
With the exception of 1982 - when Mexico defaulted on its foreign debt and a handful of giant New York banks worried they would lose billions of
dollars in loans - few
people abroad ever cared about a weak peso. But now it's different, experts say. This time,
the world is keeping a close eye on Mexico's unfolding financial crisis for one simple reason: Mexico is a major
international player. If its economy were to collapse, it would drag down a few other countries
and thousands of foreign investors. If recovery is prolonged, the world economy will feel the
slowdown. "It took a peso devaluation so that other countries could notice the key role that Mexico plays in
today's global economy," said economist Victor Lopez Villafane of the Monterrey Institute of Technology. "I hate to say it, but if
Mexico were to default on its debts, that would trigger an international financial collapse"
not seen since the Great Depression, said Dr. Lopez, who has conducted comparative
studies of the Mexican economy and the economies of some Asian and Latin American countries.
Global economic crisis causes nuclear war
Cesare Merlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and
chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs, May 2011, “A PostSecular World?”, Survival, Vol. 53, No. 2
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the
One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and
traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis
might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just
experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy
similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive selfinterest and rejection of outside interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified,
emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as
premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system.
between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable.
amiliar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach
would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as
unbridled nationalism.
F
Enhancing remittance flows reinvigorates US-Mexican relations
O'Neil 13 (Shannon O'Neil, fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations and senior fellow for Latin
American studies. "Shannon O'Neil and Arturo Sarukhan Discuss U.S.-Mexican Relations" April 7, 2013.
www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/audio-video/shannon-oneil-and-arturo-sarukhan-discuss-usmexican-relations) VP
SHANNON O'NEIL: Well, it's interesting, the article today by Damien Cave in The New York Times -- he went to a town called Cargadero, and I
actually was there a couple years ago. And immigration -- I do think there are fundamental changes. I agree with what Arturo
said. And -- but the other question, the other side of this, is what it means for Mexico. ¶ And that article laid out much of what I saw when I was there,
and I do actually talk about it in the book, this visit, is you see these beautiful houses. You see lots of construction, you know, second floors and welltended and lots of investment going to these towns, but there's nobody there. ¶ And this is really the fundamental challenge, I think, for Mexico.
When you look at this really unprecedented wave of immigration over the last 30 years, it has brought
money back to Mexico in the form of remittances, which is, you know, second only to oil in some years and up
there with tourism in terms of the amount of foreign exchange and dollars that it brings flowing in , but it hasn't
necessarily brought development or long-term sustainable development.¶ So for Mexico, the challenge -- I do think if immigration reform
moves forward, things that are -- that are important that will help Mexico -- it will help the bilateral relationship, take out
some of the rhetorical and other hostility that sometimes occurs between the two countries
over these issues. But the real challenge is how do you get Mexicans to stay, to invest in their own country and to start up the businesses and
do the things that many of them end up doing in the United States instead of there?
<US-Mexico Relations Impact>
1AC – Illegal Immigration Advantage
CONTENTION ( ): ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
H2-A visas eliminate the current incentive for illegal immigration
Anderson 3 – Stuart, Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy and
Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning at the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(“The Impact of Agricultural Guest Worker Programs on Illegal Immigration and Making the Transition
from Illegal to Legal Migration”, 20 November 2003, NFA,
http://www.nfap.csom/pressreleases/Nov20_2003_pr.aspx)
The reports are important and timely as policy makers debate the best approaches to reducing illegal immigration
and confronting the status quo of migrant deaths, the black market in labor, and powerful smuggling
organizations. The issue of what to do about those already in the country illegally remains controversial. The studies point out
the flaws in the current approaches and discuss the best way to make a transition from an illegal to a legal migration system. A primary
conclusion of both studies, says Stuart Anderson, author of the reports and Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy,
is that “The absence of avenues to work legally in the United States is a primary reason for the current
levels of illegal immigration.” Copies of both reports are available at: www.nfap.net. In Making the Transition from Illegal to Legal
Migration, Anderson concludes, “The approach that offers the most realistic opportunity for significant and positive
change is one that combines new temporary worker visas with a transition that addresses those currently
in the country illegally. Without such an approach, ten years from now both sides of the debate will still decry the status quo.” The study
examines the three choices policy makers grappling with illegal immigration face: 1) maintain the status quo, which is an immigration enforcementonly approach that makes little use of market-based mechanisms; 2) enact legislation to establish new temporary worker visas or improve existing
categories; or 3) enact legislation to create new temporary worker visas/improve existing categories combined with a transition that addresses those
currently in the country illegally. The study supports option 3, since the
status quo or “status quo plus more enforcement” portends no
reduction in illegal immigration but rather a continuation of migrant deaths, a black market in labor, and
calls for harsher but likely counterproductive enforcement measures. Moreover, a “guest worker only” approach is similar
to the status quo in that it has little chance of being successful, since, among other reasons, legislation to enact a new guest worker program without
addressing those in the country illegally is unlikely to become law. In The Impact of Agricultural Guest Worker Programs on Illegal Immigration, the
report explains how in varying forms from 1942-1964, the bracero program allowed the admission of Mexican farm workers to be employed as seasonal
today, the idea of
allowing regulated, legal entry that employs market principles to fulfill labor demand otherwise filled by individuals
entering illegally is considered, depending on one’s viewpoint, either novel, radical, or bold. The report finds that “By providing a legal
contract labor for U.S. growers and farmers. Although facilitating legal entry for agricultural work proved effective,
path to entry for Mexican farm workers the bracero program significantly reduced illegal immigration. The end of the bracero program in 1964 (and its
curtailment in 1960) saw the beginning of the increases in illegal immigration that we see up to the present day.” It is recognized that the number of
INS apprehensions are an important indicator of the illegal flow and that, in general, apprehension numbers drop when the flow of illegal immigration
decreases. From
1964 -- when the bracero program ended -- to 1976, INS apprehensions increased from 86,597 to
than 1,000 percent increase, indicating a significant rise in illegal immigration. The report found
that “Additional factors in illegal immigration rising during this period included economic conditions in
Mexico and the lack of a useable temporary visa category for lesser skilled non-agricultural jobs.” “This is not
875,915 – a more
to say that the bracero program was without controversy or that workers who entered through the program did not experience problems or even
hardships,” says Anderson. “The point is that when
lawful temporary admissions were prevalent, illegal entry to the
United States was low. After the program was curtailed and later terminated, illegal immigration rose
steadily.” The report notes that “No one advocates resurrecting the bracero program in its various forms. Yet a revised H-2A visa
category that meets the needs of both employers and employees would make a significant
contribution to reducing illegal immigration in agriculture. “ The report also concludes: The data show that after
the 1954 enforcement actions were combined with an increase in the use of the bracero program, INS apprehensions fell from the 1953 level of 885,587
to as low as 45,336 in 1959 – indicating, based on apprehensions data, a 95 percent reduction in the flow of illegal immigration into the United States.
During that time, the annual number of Mexican farm workers legally admitted more than doubled from 201,380 in 1953 to an average of 437,937 for
the years 1956-1959. “Without question the bracero program was . . . instrumental in ending the illegal alien problem of the mid-1940’s and 1950’s,”
wrote the Congressional Research Service in a 1980 report. In the 1950s and 1960s, senior law enforcement officials in the U.S. Border Patrol and
elsewhere in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) understood and promoted the use of market forces to reduce illegal immigration and
control the Southwest border. A February 1958 Border Patrol document from the El Centro (California) district states, “Should Public Law 78 be
repealed or a restriction placed on the number of braceros allowed to enter the United States, we can look forward to a large increase in the number of
illegal alien entrants into the United States.” When at a Congressional hearing in the 1950s, a top INS official was asked what would happen to illegal
immigration if the bracero program ended, he replied, “We can’t do the impossible, Mr. Congressman.” The evidence indicates that a reasonable
enforcement deterrent at the border is necessary to enable a temporary worker program such as the bracero program to reduce illegal entry. Yet the
evidence is also clear that enforcement alone has not proven effective in reducing illegal immigration. INS enforcement did not grow weaker after the
1960 curtailing of the bracero program or after the program’s subsequent demise in December 1964. And both after 1960 and 1964, without the legal
safety valve that the bracero program represented, illegal immigration increased substantially. The
current temporary worker visa
category for agriculture, which U.S. employers consider burdensome and litigation-prone, fails to attract a
sufficient number of participants to be part of the solution to illegal migration,” Anderson concludes. “While the
bracero program has been criticized, that does not mean that it is impossible to devise a temporary
worker program that takes into account the needs of both workers and employers. That
would reduce illegal immigration by providing legal, market-based alternatives to the illegal entry
that we see today on the Southwest border of the United States.”
That enables the US to refocus its resources on border security
Griswold 10 – Daniel, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, where he has
authored numerous studies on trade and immigration policy (“To ‘Control the Border,’ First Reform
Immigration Law”, 29 April 2010, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/blog/control-border-first-reformimmigration-law)
Illegal immigration is the Prohibition debate of our day. By essentially barring the legal entry of low-skilled immigrant
workers, our own government has created the conditions for an underground labor market, complete with
smuggling and day-labor operations. As long as the government maintains this prohibition, illegal
immigration will be widespread, and the cost of reducing it, in tax dollars and compromised civil liberties, will be
enormous. We know from experience that expanding opportunities for legal immigration can dramatically
reduce incentives for illegal immigration. In the 1950s, the federal government faced widespread illegal
immigration across the Mexican border. In response, the government simultaneously beefed up enforcement while
greatly expanding the number of workers allowed in the country through the Bracero guest-worker program. The
result: Apprehensions at the border dropped by 95 percent . (For documentation, see this excellent 2003 paper by
Stuart Anderson, a Cato adjunct scholar and executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy.) If we want to
“get control” of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more
workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform. Then we
could focus our enforcement resources on a much smaller number of people who for whatever reason are still
operating outside the law.
Prevents an inevitable terrorist attack---only the plan solves
Verdey 6 – C. Stewart, formerly Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy and
adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (“Immigration Enforcement at the
Workplace: Learning From the Mistakes of 1986”, 19 June 2006, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG109shrg48837/pdf/CHRG-109shrg48837.pdf)
With each year that passes, our country’s shifting demographics mean we face a larger and larger shortage of workers,
especially at the low-skilled end of the economy. Entire segments of the economy in a growing number of urban and rural areas
depend on large illegal populations. Existing law allows only a small fraction of these workers even to attempt to enter the United States legally. Even
though our unemployment rate has fallen below 5 percent. Thus ,
each week our labor market entices thousands of
individuals, most from Mexico but many from numerous other countries, to sneak across our border, or to refuse to leave when a
temporary visa expires. These numbers add up: DHS apprehends over 1 million migrants illegally entering the United States
each year, but perhaps as many as 500,000 get through our defenses every year and add to our already
staggering illegal immigrant population. As believers in the free market and the laws of supply and demand, we believe border
enforcement will fail so long as we refuse to allow these willing workers a chance to work legally for a
willing employer. Most such migrants are gainfully employed here, pay taxes, and many have started families and developed roots in our society.
And an attempt to locate and deport these 10 to 12 million people is sure to fail and would be extraordinarily divisive to our country. But others
seeking to cross our borders illegally do present a threat — including potential terrorists
and criminals. The current flow of illegal immigrants and people overstaying their visas has made it extremely
difficult for our border and interior enforcement agencies to be able to focus on the terrorists, organized
criminals, and violent felons who use the cloak of anonymity that the current chaotic situation offers. An
appropriately designed temporary worker program should relieve this pressure on the border. We need
to accept the reality that our strong economy will continue to draw impoverished job seekers, some of whom will inevitably find a way to enter the
country to fill jobs that are available. A
successful temporary worker program should bring these economic migrants
through lawful channels. Instead of crossing the Rio Grande or trekking through the deserts, these economic migrants would be interviewed,
undergo background checks, be given tamper-proof identity cards, and only then be allowed in our country. And the Border Patrol would
be able to focus on the real threats coming across our border. This will only happen, however, if Congress passes a
comprehensive reform of our border security and immigration laws.
Terrorism is likely---failure to secure the border allows weapon smuggling
Joyner 9 – Christopher C. Professor of Government and Foreign Service at Georgetown University and
founder of the Institute for International Law and Politics (“Nuclear terrorism in a globalizing world:
assessing the threat and the emerging management regime”, Stanford Journal of International Law, 22
June 2009, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-216486733.html)
The Cause for Concern During the last decade, the determination of al-Qaeda to acquire nuclear weapons, the
information and communication powers afforded to them by globalization, and the existence of fissile
nuclear materials in unstable regions have all contributed to the transformation of the threat of nuclear
terrorism from a hypothetical scenario into a policy issue of grave concern. (27) In its examination of the
terrorist threats facing the United States after the events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Commission averred that,
"[p]reventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be
elevated above all other problems of national security ... [the President] should develop a comprehensive
plan to dramatically accelerate the timetable for securing all nuclear weapons material around the world." (28) This report was
based on the discovery of documents by the United States describing the extent of al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions. In 1998, Osama bin
Laden declared that the acquisition of nuclear weapons was a "religious duty." (29) Since this time, reports indicate that al-Qaeda
has made numerous attempts to purchase nuclear weapons on the black market, but these efforts have been
thwarted by supposed sellers scamming al-Qaeda. (30) Indeed, the CIA's Bin Laden Unit has documented what it describes as a
"professional" attempt to acquire nuclear weapons by al-Qaeda, which prompted the conclusion that "there could be no doubt
after this date [late 1996] that al-Qaeda was in deadly earnest in seeking nuclear weapons. (31) This particular
attempt even involved meetings with Pakistani nuclear scientists, as well as calls for other scientists with nuclear expertise to join
the fight against the United States. In spite of the disruption of al-Qaeda's network since the War on Terror began in 2001, U.S.
officials continue to warn that its members retain the ability to launch terrorist nuclear attacks coordinated
from its new bases in Pakistan. (32) As such, the desire of al-Qaeda to conduct massive nuclear attacks against the United States is
one of the principal factors that has made nuclear terrorism a real threat in the 21st century. The danger that alQaeda's nuclear ambitions pose to the United States is compounded by the manner in which the processes of globalization have
impacted the world. These impacts have not only empowered other purveyors of jihadist violence, but they also have simplified the
means by which such terrorists can smuggle and deliver nuclear weapons to their intended targets. Notwithstanding the debate over
the pros and cons of globalization, it is widely accepted that, "[t]he technological revolution presupposes global computerized
networks and the free movement of goods, information, and peoples across national boundaries." (33) In the same ways that these
occurrences facilitate more efficient functioning of daily life in many states, globalization concomitantly creates more and
speedier networks through which international terrorist organizations can perpetrate violent attacks . (34)
Technological innovations such as the internet and telecommunication networks that have accompanied globalization allow
terrorists to communicate with one another across the globe, and thus contribute to the ease with which
they can orchestrate and execute complex missions. (35) With respect to nuclear terrorism, terrorists can now
discover the location of fissile materials and plan attacks on nuclear facilities with much greater ease .
Meanwhile, they are also able to utilize tools like the internet to disseminate and access information concerning the construction of
nuclear devices. (36) As such, globalization has allowed terrorist groups like AI-Qaeda to transform themselves into powerful nonstate actors with specialized technological knowledge that can subvert the goals of powerful states. (37) Moreover,
globalization enables terrorist groups to transport nuclear weapons more stealthily from their
places of origin to intended targets. As a result of globalization and commercial liberalization, massive amounts of international
trade and commerce occur every day. Given the sheer volume of goods entering all states, the chance of detecting
illicit commodities is lower. (38) In the case of the United States, as of late 2008 there were 317 entry points into the country,
which makes the volume of goods entering the United States that much more difficult to detect and thoroughly examine. (39) This
is significant because, with respect to nuclear materials, only small amounts of easily concealable fissile
material are needed to create dangerous devices. Accordingly, physical detection is made more difficult and
smuggling nuclear material in large containers becomes more practicable. (40) Electronic detection instruments,
while in development and being tested in limited cases, have not yet been fully deployed. (41) Meanwhile, large amounts of illegal
drugs and immigrants enter even the most highly industrialized countries like the United States every year, testifying to the ease
with which groups could simply smuggle nuclear materials across porous state borders. (42)These developments render the
threat of nuclear terrorism a far more serious policy issue than previously acknowledged, as
they afford terrorist organizations greater power and easier means to accomplish their nuclear ambitions to destroy western
societies. (43) Meanwhile, globalization means that "new threats cannot be contained and controlled within one State" and will
consequently require international solutions. (44)
[ ] The attack will be nuclear---tech exists
Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor
of Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School, 9/7/ 12, "Living in the Era of
Megaterror", belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22302/living_in_the_era_of_megaterror.html
Today, how many people can a small group of terrorists kill in a single blow? Had Bruce Ivins, the U.S. government microbiologist
responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks, distributed his deadly agent with sprayers he could have purchased off the shelf, tens of
thousands of Americans would have died. Had the 2001 “Dragonfire” report that Al Qaeda had a small nuclear
weapon (from the former Soviet arsenal) in New York City proved correct, and not a false alarm, detonation of that
bomb in Times Square could have incinerated a half million Americans.¶ In this electoral season, President Obama is
claiming credit, rightly, for actions he and U.S. Special Forces took in killing Osama bin Laden. Similarly, at last week’s Republican
convention in Tampa, Jeb Bush praised his brother for making the United States safer after 9/11. There can be no doubt that the
thousands of actions taken at federal, state and local levels have made people safer from terrorist attacks.¶ Many are therefore
attracted to the chorus of officials and experts claiming that the “strategic defeat” of Al Qaeda means the end
of this chapter of history. But we should remember a deeper and more profound truth. While applauding actions that
have made us safer from future terrorist attacks, we must recognize that they have not reversed an inescapable reality:
The relentless advance of science and technology is making it possible for smaller and smaller groups to kill
larger and larger numbers of people.¶ If a Qaeda affiliate, or some terrorist group in Pakistan whose name readers
have never heard, acquires highly enriched uranium or plutonium made by a state, they can construct an
elementary nuclear bomb capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people. At biotech labs across the United States and
around the world, research scientists making medicines that advance human well-being are also capable of making
pathogens, like anthrax, that can produce massive casualties.¶ What to do? Sherlock Holmes examined crime scenes
using a method he called M.M.O.: motive, means and opportunity. In a society where citizens gather in unprotected movie
theaters, churches, shopping centers and stadiums, opportunities for attack abound. Free societies are inherently “target rich.”¶
Motive to commit such atrocities poses a more difficult challenge. In all societies, a percentage of the population will be homicidal.
No one can examine the mounting number of cases of mass murder in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere without worrying
about a society’s mental health. Additionally, actions we take abroad unquestionably impact others’ motivation to attack us.¶ As
Faisal Shahzad, the 2010 would-be “Times Square bomber,” testified at his trial: “Until the hour the U.S. ... stops the occupation of
Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims ... we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.Ӧ Fortunately, it is more
difficult for a terrorist to acquire the “means” to cause mass casualties. Producing highly enriched
uranium or plutonium requires expensive industrial-scale investments that only states will make. If all fissile
material can be secured to a gold standard beyond the reach of thieves or terrorists, aspirations to become the world’s
first nuclear terrorist can be thwarted.
Nuclear terror causes extinction
Ayson 10 [Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic
Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington,“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:
Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online
to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld]
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent
the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the
category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange
between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century
might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it
must be admitted that as
long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of
nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking
place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds— a non-state actor nuclear attack and
a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable . It is just possible that some sort
of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading
to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them . In
this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state
possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the
superpowers
started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear
proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of
nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in
the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on
the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought
into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups.
They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some
possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile
material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear
laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael
May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it
detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used
and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if
the act of nuclear terrorism
came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all)
suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors . Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and
France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of
North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high
stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if
the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of
existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded
between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst ? Of course, the
chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia
and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time.
The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited
conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible
perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response
to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might
the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and /or China .
For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S.
president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage
of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or
China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear
force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow , although it must be
also raise
admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as
discussed earlier) Washington
might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or
the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity
and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too
close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on
disarming attack against
their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and
abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ …
long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might
require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how
other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that
following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and
would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China
is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against
groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington
found the responses of Russia and China deeply
underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots
with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group
had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt
that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If
Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia
and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange . They might surmise, for
example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the
nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and
indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the
question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the
central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and
perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses
an arsenal of
thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of
the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state
of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view
such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if
not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear
terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In
the charged
atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country
respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase
“how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind . Some might even go so far
as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This
might not help the chances of nuclear restraint. ¶ Nuclear Terrorism Against Smaller Nuclear Powers¶ There is also the question of
what lesser powers in the international system might do in response to a terrorist attack on a friendly or allied country: what they might do in
sympathy¶ or support of their attacked colleague. Moreover, if these countries are themselves nuclear ¶ armed, additional possibilities for a wider
catastrophe may lie here as well. For example,¶ if in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, a nuclear armed ally such ¶ as Israel
might possess special information about the group believed to be responsible and¶ be willing and able to take the action required to punish that group.
If its action involved¶ threats of the use of nuclear force, or the use of nuclear force itself (perhaps against a ¶ country Israel believed to be harboring the
nuclear terrorists), how might other nuclear¶ armed countries react? Might some other nuclear powers demand that the United States¶ rein in its
friend, and suggest a catastrophic outcome should this restraint not take place? ¶ Or would they wait long enough to ask the question? ¶ Alternatively,
what if some states used the nuclear terrorist attack on another country to justify a major—and perhaps even nuclear—attack on other terrorist groups
on the grounds¶ that it was now clear that it was too dangerous to allow these groups to exist when they ¶ might very well also be planning similar
nuclear action? (Just as Al Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11¶ raised some of the threat assessments of other terrorist groups, the same and more might ¶ occur if
any terrorist group had used a nuclear weapon,) If a nuclear armed third party took ¶ things into its own hands and decided that the time for decisive
action had now come, how¶ might this action affect the nuclear peace between states?¶ But it needs to be realized that a catalytic exchange is not only
possible if the terrorists¶ have exploded a nuclear device on one of the established nuclear weapons states, including¶ and especially the United States.
A catalytic nuclear war might also be initiated by a nuclear¶ terrorist attack on a country that possesses a nuclear arsenal of a more modest scale, and ¶
which is geographically much closer to the group concerned. For example, if a South Asian terrorist group exploded a nuclear device in India, it is very
difficult to see how major¶ suspicions could not be raised in that country (and elsewhere) that Pakistan was somehow ¶ involved—either as a direct aider
and abetter of the terrorists (including the provision of¶ the bomb to them) or as at the very least a passive and careless harborer of the groups ¶
perpetrating the act. In a study that seeks to reduce overall fears of nuclear terrorism, Frost¶ nonetheless observes that
nuclear powers in South Asia was “thought to be ¶ behind a ‘terrorist’
if one of the
nuclear
attack in the
region, the risks of the incident escalating into a full nuclear exchange would be high .”¶ 43¶
Kapur is equally definite on this score, observing that¶ “if a nuclear detonation occurred within India, the attack would be undoubtedly blamed on ¶
Pakistan, with potentially catastrophic results.Ӧ 44
1AC – Plan
The United States federal government should initiate a bilateral agriculture
guest worker program with Mexico.
1AC – Solvency
CONTENTION ( ): SOLVENCY
A new bilateral agreement restores ag competitiveness and immigration
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
Circumstances today resemble, in significant ways, the political and economic conditions that made the
1942 and 1951 bilateral agreements possible. NAFTA has opened up trade between Mexico and the United States,
so cooperation is at a level similar to that experienced during World War II and the Korean War. n153 Generally, the concept of
globalization is becoming increasingly important, and many argue that with the free flow of commerce
there should be a liberalization of the flow of people, or at least a corresponding openness to bilateral
programs on migration. n154 More specifically, direct cooperation in the area of trade has generated
interdependence between the United States and Mexico, implying greater institutionalization and
interaction in other areas. n155 New institutions and increased interaction can facilitate future
cooperation on immigration by enhancing rapport, creating opportunities for discussion, and establishing
[*912] mechanisms and models for bilateral negotiation and implementation. n156 In fact, the Binational
Commission, used to advance bilateral cooperation on NAFTA and other issues, now has a full working group on migration. n157 In
1995, this group created a joint agenda for addressing Mexico's human rights concerns and U.S. law
enforcement concerns. n158 They then established joint training programs for border agents on both sides of the border and
institutionalized contact between the Mexican consulates, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and border patrol officials.
n159 Finally, the group completed various studies, including "a joint analysis of the characteristics, causes, and effects of migration
for both countries." n160 Furthermore, Mexico desires cooperation on migration issues, n161 and greater
interdependence improves Mexico's ability to influence U.S. policymaking. As one observer has noted,
"NAFTA "placed Mexico on the U.S. map on a national scale.'" n162 After all, NAFTA was really the first
time Mexico actively and successfully influenced U.S. domestic politics . n163 Mexico would have had more
leverage if it had directly linked immigration to NAFTA, n164 but the United States continues to need Mexican cooperation in a
variety of areas, such as border control. n165 Additionally, as World War II and the Korean War placed foreign policy in the national
spotlight (thus enhancing Mexico's bargaining position) the priority attached to hemispheric free trade by the United States has
heightened the importance of U.S.-Mexico relations for current U.S. policymakers. n166 The Mexican government can
easily link cooperation on immigration to Mexico's continued receptivity to trade friendliness . n167 After all,
U.S. hostility toward Mexican immigrants could turn Mexican voters against the United States. n168 Mexico's democratization
[*913] makes it increasingly difficult for Mexican politicians to ignore the populace's demands. In fact, with the recent electoral
defeat of the PRI, the political party that controlled Mexican politics for most of the twentieth century, partisan competition has
opened up "political space for anti-American positions." n169 The Mexican government can emphasize how a bilateral approach to
immigration policy could help defuse anti-American sentiments, as well as any accompanying anti-NAFTA backlash, by showing the
Mexican people that the United States recognizes the need to take the Mexican viewpoint into account. n170 Another parallel from
the 1940s and 1950s is apparent in current economic conditions. Just as the war economies opened up room for cooperation on
migration, the booming U.S. economy of today also increases the chances of a bilateral agreement. Growers have complained
of farm-worker shortages, n171 and, since unemployment rates are generally low, the usual skepticism
with which Congress receives the growers' complaints is reduced . n172 In 1999, the U.S. unemployment rate was
between 4.4% and 4.1% all year long. n173 In January 2000, it was even lower, at 4.0%. n174 American farmers are quick to remind
Congress that "the last time the U.S. enjoyed an unemployment rate approaching 4% was in the early 1960s," and back then they
could count on cheap labor from the braceros. n175 While during World War II the growers' regular labor pool left the farms for
better jobs in the defense industry, n176 today farm laborers are leaving for year-round jobs in construction, landscaping, food
service, and other low-skill occupations with equal or better pay. n177 Farm wages themselves increased by five percent in 1999,
more than the non-farm blue-collar wages. n178 The faster rate of increase in farm wages [*914] signals a need
for farm labor that a new bilateral program could meet . And with the strong economy, Congress and the
President can more easily justify to domestic labor defenders a bilateral program that somewhat liberalizes immigration policy. n179
In fact, agricultural labor organizers in the United States today may even help to make a new program more
viable. As discussed above, efforts to organize agricultural workers in the 1940s ended unsuccessfully. n180 However, in 1965,
Cesar Chavez started the United Farm Workers Union (UFW), which has been successfully improving the working conditions of
farm laborers. n181 Although labor unions usually oppose liberalizing employment immigration, the UFW is largely a Chicano
organization that is likely to support a bilateral program with Mexico. n182 The UFW itself might strengthen a new bilateral guest
worker program by monitoring and reporting on enforcement of proposed safeguards. Finally, the perception that Mexican
labor migration to the United States was not amenable to control through unilateral efforts by either
government, the perception that led to the creation of the Bracero Program, has been reaffirmed since the
termination of the program. n183 Unilateral steps taken by the United States, for example, to stem the
tide of illegal immigration have proven ineffective. n184 In fact, the United States experienced a significant
increase in the pace of Mexican immigration in the 1970s and 1980s. n185 In the 1990s, approximately 200,000 Mexican
immigrants (legal and illegal) came to the United States each year, n186 and one to two million additional Mexicans (legal and
illegal) worked at least seasonally in the United States each year. n187 The U.S. response to the massive flow of unauthorized
migration has focused on apprehending those attempting illegal entry. n188 Yet, instead of deterring attempted illegal
entries, the U.S. strategy has only caused migrants to pay professional smugglers higher fees and to
attempt crossing [*915] the border several times before successfully entering. n189 There has, in turn,
been a significant increase in the number of migrants who have died while attempting to gain
unauthorized entry. n190 The U.S. strategy has also created an unintended incentive for unauthorized
migrants to remain in the United States once they have entered since re-entry is ever more difficult. n191
Cooperation with Mexico has advantages that improve the chances of having greater success in achieving
the migration goals of both countries. n192 Although in the long run, both governments expect NAFTA to create jobs in
Mexico for people who might otherwise immigrate to the United States, n193 reduced migration is an unrealistic expectation in the
near-to medium-term future. n194 Conditions in both countries will continue to influence immigration decisions. n195
Conditions pulling Mexicans to the United States include the demand for immigrant labor by U.S.
employers, opportunities and higher wages, and family connections in this country. n196 Conditions
pushing Mexicans to leave Mexico include demographic population growth, urban and rural insecurity,
economic restructuring disruptions, and severe degradation of the environment in Mexico. n197 While it may
be impossible to completely control illegal immigration from Mexico, "the question is whether it can be reduced and maintained at a
tolerable level while protecting democratic values and civil liberties." n198 The Mexican government is concerned about protecting
the human rights of Mexicans in the United States, while the U.S. government focuses on the illegal Mexican immigrants and
toughening border controls. n199 However, as during the Bracero Program, common goals exist, n200 and "both
sides would benefit from normalizing existing flows of migrants in order to gain control of the border
[and] limit smuggling." n201 Furthermore, both countries can benefit from legitimate Mexican migrants
temporarily working in the United States. n202 For [*916] Mexico, the emigration provides a safety valve for economic
and political pressure from a large, poverty-stricken population while also pumping money into the Mexican economy as migrants
send their paychecks home to support their families. n203 For the United States, Mexican migrants provide cheap
labor, n204 keeping the cost of farm products down for consumers and allowing U.S. farmers to
compete more effectively with foreign farmers. n205 If the migrants are legal, the governments can
impose safeguards to protect human rights as well as protect domestic laborers. n206 These overlapping
goals improve the prospects for a new bilateral program.
Mexico would say yes and cooperation is key to ensure enforcement
MacNeil 7 (Melissa, magna cum laude as a Distinguished Honors Scholar with a Bachelor of Arts
degree in International Studies and Spanish and Board of Regents Scholar at the University of North
Texas, Discussion of the Validity of a Guest Worker Program in the United States,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc86950/m2/1/high_res_d/macneil-melissa.pdf, no date
given but research for the paper occurred in May 2007)
With this many people emigrating annually, Mexican officials have been studying the effects of migration
on communities within Mexico and pushing the United States to make a bilateral agreement for
a new guest worker program. The most important component of a new guest worker program would
be the cooperation between the Mexican and U.S. governments. The Bracero Program was intended to be
bilateral but ended up functioning as a multilateral program with U.S. employers making most of the recruiting
decisions and even disobeying Mexican requests to recruit workers from the interior rather than the border region (Basok, 2000).
The Mexican government had little say in the recruitment process, no oversight of the treatment of their workers in the United
States, and essentially no power to regulate the program or encourage returns. Cooperation between governments is an
important aspect in the facilitation of worker returns and the prevention of settlement, but
program rules must also be enforced to encourage returns. The best way to do this is by aligning employer
and worker incentives with the rules mandated by the program. By making it less profitable for an
employer to keep a previous employee on illegally, the migrant will be less likely to find work without
documents, thus returning home. Fees associated with hiring guest workers would help equalize the costs of hiring
foreign workers versus domestic labor, and distortion would be minimized by such a program. If
employers can no longer estimate costs based on the ready availability of cheap, migrant labor, they will need to look toward other
methods such as mechanization and rationalization that may increase costs in the short run but eventually decrease costs in the long
term (Abell et al., 2006).
Bilateral engagement is necessary---enhances trade and relations
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
Last year Mexican Labor Minister Jose Antonio Gonzalez Fernandez expressed his government's intention to ask
the United States to join Mexico in examining the possibility of a worker exchange program when the
NAFTA labor side-accord comes up for review in the future. n4 Such a bilateral effort, the Bracero
Program, was executed in the 1940s and 1950s. n5 Under this program Mexican agricultural workers were
legally permitted to temporarily enter the United States to work. The Bracero Program remains the only
example of a bilateral immigration program between the United States and Mexico. n6 Since then, the
U.S. government [*896] has made little effort even to discuss a new bilateral program for Mexican
immigration to the United States. n7 This Note will examine the bilateral nature of the Bracero Program, and the various
factors that made the program possible from 1942 until 1964. That is, what brought about the air of cooperation, what drove it away,
and what was accomplished in the interim. Ultimately, this examination will demonstrate that the economic and
political conditions that exist today are similar to those that existed when the Bracero Program was
established, providing hope that a new bilateral labor agreement between Mexico and the
United States may be forthcoming. A bilateral immigration program could provide significant
advantages over unilateral immigration policy. First, the two countries could more effectively achieve
their migration goals through a cooperative effort since the policies of either nation can influence
migration patterns. n8 Additionally, cooperation and compromise in the area of immigration can improve
overall relations between Mexico and the United States so that cooperation will continue in other fields,
such as trade. n9 However, differences in the sociopolitical atmosphere of the two countries and weaknesses in the Bracero
Program itself indicate that a new agreement would not and should not follow the Bracero model. Nonetheless,
the failures in cooperation and the weaknesses of the earlier program can provide some of the best insight
on how any future bilateral immigration program should be structured.
The Bracero model is the most effective---mitigates illegal immigration
Nowrasteh 13 (Alex, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, Guest Workers Key to Reform,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/guest-workers-key-reform, 3/5/13)
If there is a model for a successful guest-worker program, however, the Bracero Program is
it. Under Bracero, immigrants could work temporarily, but they had to leave the United States every
season. American farms got the labor they demanded, immigrant workers made money, and agricultural
production increased. The program was so successful that it was extended until 1964. It combined enforcement
that funneled migrants into a legal system with an unlimited temporary migration system. Often, Border Patrol agents enrolled
unauthorized immigrants they arrested in the Bracero Program and let them return to work — this time
lawfully. Mexican workers thinking of entering the United States illegally overwhelmingly chose the legal
Bracero option instead. Throughout the 1950s, unauthorized immigration declined by 95 percent.
If a Bracero-type guest-worker visa existed today, one that allowed migrants to switch jobs and work in
nonagricultural areas, unauthorized immigration would dramatically decrease. However, this solution
remains off the books because of the prior opposition of labor unions. Today, the AFL-CIO has agreed in principle to a guestworker visa program — but the gap between principle and legislation is wide. If history is a guide, unions and their
allies, although they are playing nice now, will oppose guest-worker visas when the details are released. But successful reform will require
ignoring union pressure and allowing more worker migration.
H-2A visas fail---a new, fully overhauled agreement’s necessary
Nowrasteh 13 (Alex, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, How to Make Guest Worker
Visas Work, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa719_1.pdf, 1/31/13)
After cancellation of the Bracero Program, the H-2 guest worker visa became the source of legal foreign
agricultural workers. The H-2 was underused relative to the Bracero Program because of complex rules,
numerical restrictions, and the cost of sponsoring migratory workers.22 The H-2 visa was initially created through
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 for “other temporary workers” not covered by the Bracero Program.23 From 1964 until
1986, mostly temporary unauthorized Mexican migration filled the gap left by the repeal of the Bracero Program and unfilled by the
H-2 visa.24The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act separated the H-2 visa into the H-2A for temporary agricultural workers
and the H-2B for seasonal nonagricultural workers. 25 Over time, the Department of Labor created even more extensive regulations
for the H-2A visa.26 Although the H-2A visa faces no numerical limit, the complexity of federal regulations
has made the visa too expensive for most farmers.27 The H-2B visa, although less complex, is numerically
capped.28 The Immigration Act of 1990 created what we now know as the H-1 visa for highly skilled workers.29 There are other
infrequently used temporary guest worker visas for those with extraordinary abilities in the sciences, arts, education, business,
athletics, and entertainment.30 The American guest worker system divides migrants into visa categories based
on their skills and occupation. It then creates differing regulatory burdens through inspection, wage
controls, employee benefit mandates, country-of-origin restrictions, worker mobility, numerical quotas,
and numerous other limitations on the employment and number of guest workers. Since World War I the level
of control and restrictiveness of quotas has increased, creating an environment where unauthorized immigration can
thrive.
**CASE**
Agriculture
a/t: price volatility
No volatility and it doesn’t matter
Barrett and Bellemare 11 – CHRISTOPHER B. BARRETT is the Stephen B. and Janice G. Ashley Professor in the
Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management and in the Department of Economics and Associate Director of the
David R. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future at Cornell University. MARC F. BELLEMARE is Assistant Professor of Public
Policy and Economics at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. (“Why Food Price Volatility Doesn't Matter”, July
12, 2011, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67981/christopher-b-barrett-and-marc-f-bellemare/why-foodprice-vola tility-doesnt-matter?page=show, Callahan)
Yet in their calls to help the poor and reduce political turmoil by stabilizing prices, Zoellick, Sarkozy, the Brookings Institution, the
G-20 agriculture ministers, and many other global leaders erred. They conflated high food prices with greater food
price volatility, which is best defined as variance around the food price level. The error is understandable, because the two
phenomena are indisputably correlated. If demand outstrips production, food prices rise and sellers begin tapping
their food inventories. Inventory management stabilizes prices by supplementing supply in times of scarcity and boosting
demand in times of surplus. But if food inventories are excessively drawn down during periods of unusually high prices, carryover
stocks will be insufficient to stabilize prices during further supply or demand. This can lead to price spikes. But high food price
levels and high food price volatility are not the same things. Food price levels are at historic highs, but
food price volatility, although high these past few years, is not out of line with historical experience and is
generally lower than it was in the 1970s. This means that the world does not necessarily face a price
volatility problem. It faces a high food price problem. The effects of each phenomenon on the well-being of
the poor differ. Throughout the world but especially in low-income countries, the poor are overwhelmingly net food consumers,
while farmers are generally better-off net sellers. Rising prices hurt consumers by reducing their purchasing power but benefit
producers by increasing their profits. By contrast, volatility does not necessarily hurt consumers, because different
food staples are often substitutable. Changes in the prices of one are not perfectly correlated with changes
in the price of the other, so consumers can adjust their purchases to take advantage of relative discounts.
But high price volatility does hurt producers, who make all their investments in seeds, fertilizer, and equipment at the start of the
growing season, before the post-harvest price is known. If prices in the year ahead look unstable, farmers may invest less than usual,
with the consequence that they no longer maximize profits and also produce less food to sell. Since volatile food prices do not
necessarily harm poor consumers, it does not make sense to blame volatility for increased poverty or
political unrest. In a recent statistical analysis, the FAO food price index and an indicator of political unrest were positively
correlated. But a measure of food price volatility and political unrest had a strong negative correlation. Although the food price
spikes that occurred in the late spring and early summer of 2008, at the end of 2010, and at the beginning
of 2011 coincided with political unrest, increases in food price volatility more commonly occurs after, not
before, patches of political unrest. So, although commentators and politicians frequently blame food price volatility for
human suffering and political unrest, they are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the problem. Perhaps not coincidentally,
their emphasis on tempering price volatility favors the same large farmers who already enjoy tremendous financial support from G20 governments.
a/t: AgJOBS solves
Nope
Stallman 13 – Bob Stallman is the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. (“AGRICULTURAL LABOR: FROM
H-2A TO A WORKABLE AGRICULTURAL GUESTWORKER PROGRAM”, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER
SECURITY, February 26, 2013, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/113th/113-3_79584.PDF, Callahan)
The issue is not new for agriculture. However, rather than providing a solution that works for all sectors of
the industry, past legislative attempts divided the industry. The most notable proposal, AgJOBS, provided
a short-term remedy by allowing some currently experienced agriculture workers to adjust their status
under certain conditions; it did not, however, reform the H-2A in any meaningful way and provided
virtually no access to a workforce in the future. Other bills have proposed changes to a guestworker
program without addressing our current experienced workforce. It is critical that agriculture has a
solution that addresses both.
Doesn’t change anything
Martin 03 – Philip; UC Davis. (“AgJOBS: New Solution or New Problem?” International Migration Review 37.4, Winter
2003, Wiley, Callahan)
Many things will not change as a result of AgJOBS . Most workers will continue to be young immigrant men
from rural Mexico. H-2A controversies may shift to governors, who will be under pressure from farm
employers to certify that there is sufficient housing so that farmers can pay housing allowances rather
than provide housing, while advocates cite statements about the lack of farm worker housing common in state applications for
federal housing grants. AgJOBS continues to send mixed signals about the future availability and cost of farm
workers. One the one hand, MOBS expresses a desire for a legal farm workforce, which advocates assume will also be a higherwage work force. However, an easing of admissions under the H-2A program combined with an AEWR freeze
signals employers that workers will continue to be available at a predictable cost . Furthermore, if
unauthorized workers continue to arrive and present false documents to employers in the hope of another
legalization, the combined effect is likely to produce no fundamental changes in the farm labor market.
Organics
a/t: food security impact turn
Alt causes and organics solve
Leu 12 – Andre is the President of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. (“Organic agriculture and
food security – not a contradiction”, 8/24/2012, http://www.rural21.com/english/a-closer-look-at/detail/article/organicagriculture-and-food-security-not-a-contradiction-0000430/, Callahan)
Organic farming is not going to succeed in feeding the world’s growing population, its critics say. This is wrong, our author
maintains, for there are numerous studies that refute the notion that conventional agriculture turns out
higher yields in all circumstances. Moreover, increases in production levels achieved over the last few years have not been
able to solve the problem of hunger either. Ever since economist Thomas Malthus wrote ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ in
1798 and first raised the spectre of overpopulation, various experts have been predicting the end of human civilisation because of
mass starvation. Malthus predicted that human society would starve in the 1800s. The theme was again popularised by Stanford
University Professor Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book, ‘The Population Bomb’. According to his logic, we should all be starving now that
the 21st century has arrived. ‘The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo
famines; hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now.’ The only famines that occurred since 1968 have been in countries saddled with corrupt governments,
political turmoil, civil wars and periodic droughts. The world had enough food for the affected people. It was political and logistical
events that prevented them from producing adequate food or stopped aid from reaching them. Hundreds of millions of people did
not starve to death. The spectre of mass starvation is again being pushed, based on highly questionable and
contestable assumptions, as the motive for justifying genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the unsustainable
use of toxic chemicals to push for higher yields. Enough food for everyone According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) and other figures, the world produces more than double the amount of food to feed everyone . Despite this,
around one billion people suffer from hunger and another billion are malnourished, lacking the essential micronutrients they need
to lead healthy lives. Clearly, our current market-based distribution systems are failing the poorest as they
cannot afford to buy this food. The market-based systems concentrate the food in the areas where people
have the money to pay for it. Consequently one billion adults are overweight and almost half of them are obese. Food losses
also are staggering. About one-third of the food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted every year,
amounting to about 1.3 billion tons annually (FAO, 2011). Reducing food losses and food waste, and
improving food access, is highly relevant to efforts to combat hunger, raise income and improve food
security in the world's poorest countries. Simple affordable measures such as village grain silos and better transport would
prevent most of these losses. The problem of hunger is mostly due to poor distribution systems and
inadequate production in the poorest communities. It has very little to do with the total amount of food
produced in the world. Where Organic has higher yields: Conditions of climate extremes … Research has shown two
significant areas where organic systems have higher yields than the conventional system. These are under
conditions of climate extremes and in traditional smallholder systems. Both of these areas are critical to
achieving global food security. According to research by NASA and others the world is seeing increases in the
frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts and heavy rainfall. Even if the world stopped polluting the planet
with greenhouse gases tomorrow, it would take many decades to reverse climate change. This means that
farmers have to adapt to the increasing intensity and frequency of adverse and extreme weather events
such as droughts and heavy, damaging rainfall. Published studies show that organic farming systems are more
resilient to the predicted weather extremes and can produce higher yields than conventional farming
systems in such conditions (Drinkwater, Wagoner and Sarrantonio, 1998; Welsh, 1999; Pimentel, 2005). For instance, the
Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials found that organic yields were higher in drought years and the same as conventional
yields in normal weather years (Posner et al., 2008). Similarly, Farming Systems Trials (FST) of the US-based Rodale Institute
showed that the organic systems produced more maize than the conventional system in drought years . The average maize yields
during the drought years were from 28 per cent to 34 per cent higher in the two organic systems. The yields were 6,938 and 7,235 kg
per hectare in the organic animal and the organic legume systems respectively, compared with 5,333 kg per hectare in the
conventional system (Pimentel, 2005). The researchers attributed the higher yields in the dry years to the ability
of the soils on organic farms to better absorb rainfall. This is due to the higher levels of organic carbon in
these soils, which makes them more friable and better able to store and capture rainwater which can then
be used for crops (La Salle and Hepperly, 2008). Improved efficiency of water use. Research also shows that organic
systems use water more efficiently due to better soil structure and higher levels of humus and other
organic matter compounds (Lotter, Seidel and Liebhart, 2003; Pimentel, 2005). Lotter and colleagues collected data over ten
years during the Rodale Farming System Trials. Their research showed that the organic manure system and organic legume system
(LEG) treatments improve the soil’s water-holding capacity, infiltration rate and water capture efficiency. The LEG maize soils
averaged a 13 per cent higher water content than conventional system (CNV) soils at the same crop stage, and 7 per cent higher than
CNV soils in soybean plots (Lotter, Seidel and Liebhart, 2003). The more porous structure of organically treated soil allows
rainwater to quickly penetrate the soil, resulting in less water loss from run-off and higher levels of water capture. This was
particularly evident during the two days of torrential downpours from Hurricane Floyd, which hit the eastern United States and the
Bahamas in September 1999, when the organic systems captured around double the water than the conventional systems captured
(Lotter, Seidel and Liebhart, 2003). This is very significant information as the majority of the world farming systems are rainfed.
The world does not have the resources to irrigate all of the agricultural lands. Nor should such a project be started as damming the
world's watercourses, pumping from all the underground aquifers and building millions of kilometres of channels would be an
unprecedented environmental disaster. Improving the efficiency of rainfed agricultural systems through organic
practices is the most efficient, cost effective, environmentally sustainable and practical solution to ensure
reliable food production in the increasing weather extremes being caused by climate change. … and
smallholder farmer systems The other critical area where research is showing higher yields for good practice
organic systems is in traditional smallholder systems. This is very important information as over 95 per cent of
the world’s farmers fall into this category. A report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found that organic agriculture increases yields in
Africa. ‘… the average crop yield was … 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in
East Africa.’ The report notes that despite the introduction of conventional agriculture in Africa, food
production per person is 10 per cent lower now, than in the 1960s. ‘The evidence presented in this study supports
the argument that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most
conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term’, Supachai
Panitchpakdi, Secretary General of UNCTAD and Executive Director of UNEP Achim Steiner stated. This is crucial information as
FAO data shows that 80 per cent of the food in the developing world comes from smallholder farmers such as those in Africa. The
developing world is also the region where most of the one billion undernourished people live, the majority of which are smallholder
farmers. With a more than 100 per cent increase in food production in these traditional farming systems, organic
agriculture provides the ideal solution to end hunger and ensure global food security. The
key to food security Information published by the ETC group, an international organisation dedicated to “the conservation and
sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights”, shows that 70 per cent of the world's food is
produced by smallholders and only 30 per cent by the agribusiness sector (ETC group, 2009; see Figure below).
Increasing the yields in the 30 per cent that comes from the agribusiness sector will show little benefit for
two reasons. Firstly, this sector is already high-yielding, and it has very little scope for large increases in
yields such as the more than 100 per cent that can be achieved by organic methods in traditional smallholder systems. Secondly,
this sector is largely focused on the commodity supply chain. The large food surpluses produced in the
sector have not lowered the number of people who are hungry. According to FAO figures, this number has been
steadily increasing since 1985. Fifty per cent of the world’s hungry are smallholder farmers and 20 per cent are the landless poor
who rely on smallholders for their employment (see Figure below). Logically, increasing the yields in this sector is the key to ending
hunger and achieving food security. Organic methods are the most suitable as the necessary methods and inputs
that are needed to do this can be sourced locally at no or very little cost to the farmers. Conventional
systems have largely failed to provide consistent higher yields to the poorest farmers as the expensive
synthetic chemical inputs have to be purchased. Most of these farmers do not have the income to do this. It is an
inappropriate economic model for the world’s most vulnerable farmers whereas organic agriculture is an appropriate one. A good
example is a project managed by the Institute of Sustainable Development in Tigray, Ethiopia (see Box at the end of the article).
What about yields and farm income? The assumption that greater inputs of synthetic chemical fertilisers and
pesticides are needed to increase food yields is not always accurate. In a study published in The Living Land,
Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University looked at projects in seven industrialised countries of Europe and North America.
‘Farmers are finding that they can cut their inputs of costly pesticides and fertilisers substantially, varying from 20 to 80 per cent,
and be financially better off. Yields do fall to begin with (by 10 to 15 % typically), but there is compelling evidence that they soon rise
and go on increasing. In the USA, for example, the top quarter sustainable agriculture farmers now have higher
yields than conventional farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment’ (Pretty,
1998a). Numerous studies into organic systems confirm this insight – the following refers to only a few of them: US Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) Pecan Trial. The ARS organically managed pecans out-yielded the conventionally managed, chemically
fertilised Gebert orchard in each of the past five years. Yields on ARS’ organic test site surpassed the Gebert commercial orchard by
18 pounds of pecan nuts per tree in 2005 and by 12 pounds per tree in 2007 (Bradford J.M., 2008). Rodale Organic Low/No Till.
The Rodale Institute (Pennsylvania, USA) has been trialling a range of organic low tillage and no tillage systems. The 2006 trials
resulted in organic yields of 160 bushels an acre (bu/ac) compared to the County average of 130 bu/ac. Iowa Trials. The results from
the Long Term Agroecological Research (LTAR), a 12 year collaborative effort between producers and researchers led by Dr Kathleen
Delate of Iowa State University (Iowa, USA) showed that while the organic systems had lower yields in the beginning, by year four
they started to exceed the conventional crops. Across all rotations, organic corn harvests averaged 130 bushels per acre while
conventional corn yield was 112 bushels per acre. Similarly, organic soybean yield was 45 bu/ac compared to the conventional yield
of 40 bu/ac in the fourth year. Cost-wise, on average, the organic crops’ revenue was twice that of conventional crops due to the
savings from non-utilisation of chemical fertilisers and pesticides (Delate, 2010). Developing countries.Nicolas Parrott of Cardiff
University, UK, authored a report, ‘The Real Green Revolution’. He gives case studies that confirm the success of organic and
agroecological farming techniques in the developing world (Parrott, 2002): Studies comparing the income of organic
farms with conventional farms have found that the net incomes are similar, with best practice organic
systems having higher net incomes (Cacek, 1986 and Wynen, 2006). A study by Dr Rick Welsh of the Wallace Institute,
USA, has also shown that organic farms can be more profitable. The premium paid for organic produce is not always a
factor in this extra profitability. While many organic farmers have higher incomes due to the premium they receive, others have
higher net incomes due to their lower input costs rather than from the premium. The United Nations report already cited notes: ‘A
transition to integrated organic agriculture, delivering greater benefits at the scale occurring in these
projects, has been shown to increase access to food in a variety of ways: by increasing yields, increasing
total on-farm productivity, enabling farmers to use their higher earnings from export to buy food, and, as
a result of higher on-farm yields, enabling the wider community to buy organic food at local markets.’
Conclusion There is very good research that clearly shows organic agriculture can get the yields that are needed to
feed the poor and the hungry. This is especially the case in smallholder agriculture – the majority of the
world’s farmers. ‘All case studies which focused on food production in this research where data have been reported have shown
increases in per hectare productivity of food crops, which challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase
agricultural productivity’, the UN report stated. Organic agriculture is a low-cost and effective way to help many of
the world’s poorest people to have good levels of nutrition and a better quality of life. We need to see more
research and extension in this area to ensure that all farmers can improve their yields and resilience by adopting the appropriate
best-practice organic systems (see article Challenges and opportunies for organic research and extension).
Mech now/plan solves
Mechanization now because of labor shortages
Payne 13 – John Payne is a writer for Robohub. (“In agriculture robots replace job vacancies”, April 12, 2013,
http://robohub.org/in-agriculture-robots-replace-job-vacancies/, Callahan)
It used to be that it didn’t matter how grueling the work was, so long as it was safe enough that a worker
could get through the day uninjured by being careful. If the boss paid cash at the end of the day and didn’t
ask too many questions, there’d be someone waiting to jump in the back of his pickup truck when he went
out early in the morning to collect workers. The pay wasn’t great, of course, but it was better than what the workers could
expect for equivalent work back where they’d come from, and if they were frugal they could save a bit and send some home or
eventually bring their families to the U.S. Moreover, there really weren’t any serious consequences for employers who hired
undocumented workers. This post is part of Robohub’s Jobs Focus. One who’d made a nuisance of himself and had come to the
attention of the authorities might be picked up from the worksite (usually a farm) now and then, but there would be another to take
his place the next morning. Sure, knowingly hiring illegal workers was itself technically illegal, but violations of these laws were
routinely overlooked, and political rhetoric demanding their enforcement was largely insincere. This was the situation in the
orchards of the Northwest, throughout the Central Valley of California, east from Texas across the southern United States, and
anywhere else hard manual labor was common. In the Midwest and the Great Plains, where crops like wheat, corn (maize), soya, and
others easily handled in bulk predominate, most farm labor had already been replaced by mechanization. Then
new, tougher US immigration laws came into effect after 9/11, and everything began to change . Not all at
once, of course, but the rhetoric immediately became more serious and more convincing, and the border with Mexico gradually
became more of a barrier. Laws regarding the hiring of undocumented workers were strengthened and began to be enforced.
Migrant workers without visas and work permits found themselves being squeezed out, as well as drawn
to better opportunities back home, and farmers were faced with an increasingly serious shortage of
workers, to the point that, in 2012, many crops were left unharvested, and in some cases even perennial
crops, like asparagus, were plowed under, because not enough workers could be found to harvest them. In
2012, many crops were left unharvested, and in some cases even perennial crops, like asparagus, were plowed under, because not
enough workers could be found to harvest them. Congress is now considering a range of options to soften the blow, but there’s no
chance of things going back to the way they were before, and, despite high unemployment in this country, Americans
aren’t stepping up to take the place of the migrant laborers. This is the situation into which companies like
Harvest Automation hope to introduce robots as a replacement for workers already gone missing . With the
introduction of robots, remaining human workers are converted from manual laborers to robot tenders , a task
American workers are more willing to perform. Ostensibly, this is the wave of the future, with machines taking over more
and more of the dull, dirty, and/or dangerous work, while humans move into maintaining, repairing, complementing, and managing
the machines. How significant this wave turns out to be will depend in no small part on improvements in education. Here I refer not
only to robotics and computing (nor even only to computing, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), but also to the
many aspects which have yet to be implemented in hardware or reduced to computer code of the various types of work robots might
eventually be trusted to do.
Remittances
Relations Impact – Environment
US Mexico relations are vital to environmental protection
Mumme and Sanchez 10 (Stephen Mumme, Professor of Political Science at Colorado State
University where he specializes in comparative environmental politics and policy, and Roberto SancezRodriguez, Emeritus professor of Environmental Sciences at UC Riverside. “Environmental Protection
and Natural Resources” 2010. http://usmex.ucsd.edu/assets/024/11636.pdf) VP
The bilateral framework for addressing shared environmental challenges along the ¶ U.S.-Mexico border is
today crafted around a triptych of agencies and programs with ¶ distinct missions whose role and functions have become
increasingly complementary in ¶ the NAFTA era. The oldest of these, with particular relevance to the management of ¶
border water resources, is the International Boundary and Water Commission, United ¶ States and Mexico (IBWC), whose mandate
is found in the 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water ¶ Treaty. The IBWC oversees the allocation treaty water resources,
hydropower operations ¶ on the Rio Grande River, and flood control infrastructure on both the Rio Grande/Rio ¶ Bravo and
Colorado Rivers in their boundary reach. It also has a hand in the ¶ management of sanitation and water quality
along the border. The 1983 U.S.-Mexico ¶ Border Environment Cooperation Agreement, popularly known as the La Paz
Agreement, ¶ provides the basis for binational dialogue and programs addressing water quality, urban ¶
and industrial environmental problems, biodiversity protection, environmental education, ¶
environmental enforcement, and environmental justice. Complementing the La Paz ¶ framework and contributing to
its implementation, the Border Environment Cooperation¶ Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank
(NADB), established ¶ in 1994, provide leadership, technical support, and financing for needed border ¶
environmental infrastructure projects along the border. While these are the leading ¶ agencies and programs guiding
binational cooperation on environmental matters, other ¶ agencies, the Border Health Commission (BHC) and the Commission
for Environmental ¶ Cooperation (CEC), also established in 1990’s, enrich the institutional mix and contribute ¶ to binational
capacity for environmental protection along the international border.
Extinction
Takacs 96 (David, Philosophies of Paradise, The Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr., Baltimore)
"Habitat destruction and conversion are eliminating species at such a frightening pace that extinction of many
contemporary species and the systems they live in and support ... may lead to ecological disaster and severe alteration
of the evolutionary process," Terry Erwin writes." And E. 0. Wilson notes: "The question I am asked most frequently about the
diversity of life: if enough species are extinguished, will the ecosystem collapse, and will the extinction of most other species follow
soon afterward? The only answer anyone can give is: possibly. By the time we find out, however, it might be too late. One planet, one
experiment."" So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value in and for itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and
Wilson oblige us to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs' rivet-popper trope makes this same point;
by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: "It is likely that
destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in
global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings
remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the
Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished. And if our
species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish
civilization.""
Relations Impact – Drug war
Bilateral commitment is key to combat the drug war
AP 13 (Associated Press. “Obama Pledges to Help Mexico in Drug War” March 5, 2013.
http://www.dw.de/obama-pledges-to-help-mexico-in-drug-war/a-16786842) VP
US President Barack Obama has vowed to help Mexico in the fight against drugs and end the violence that has
claimed thousands of lives. Obama vowed to put trade at the center of the two countries' relations.¶ Obama on Thursday
said there was an important role for his country in helping to combat the drug war and organized crime in
Mexico.¶ The president said that the US had a duty to help Mexican authorities end the violence that has
claimed more than 60,000 lives in the past six years, by stemming demand for drugs north of the border.¶ Obama
held talks with his opposite number, President Enrique Pena Nieto, at Mexico City's National Palace at a time when the Mexican
government is embarking on a rebalancing of its security strategy.¶ At a press conference, Obama said he had: "reaffirmed our
determination in the United States to meet our responsibilities to reduce the demand for illegal drugs and to combat the
southbound flow of illegal guns and cash."¶ "I agreed to continue our close cooperation on security even as
the nature of that evolves," said Obama. "It's up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and
how they engage with other nations including the United States."
Leads to Mexico Collapse
Losing the drug war collapses legitimate government and the Mexican
economy
Felbab and Williams 12 (Vanda Felbab-Brown, Fellow in the Latin America Initiative and in the
21st Century Defense Initiative in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, and Phil Williams, Wesley
W. Posvar Professor and Director of the Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies at
the University of Pittsburgh. “DRUG TRAFFICKING, VIOLENCE, AND INSTABILITY” April 2012.
mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/142849/.../pub1101.pdf) VP
Apart from strengthening belligerents and even criminal groups in a multifaceted way, large-scale illicit economies also
threaten the security and stability of the state. Politically, they provide an avenue for criminal organizations to
enter the political space, corrupting and undermining the legitimate democratic process . These actors,
who enjoy the financial resources and political capital generated by sponsoring the illicit economy, frequently
experience great success in politics. They are able to secure official positions of power as well as wield influence from behind
the scenes. The problem perpetuates itself as successful politicians bankrolled with illicit money make it more
difficult for would-be innocent actors to resist participating in the illicit economy, leading to endemic
corruption at both the local and national levels. Guatemala, El Salvador, and Haiti are cases in point.17¶ Large illicit
economies dominated by powerful traffickers also have pernicious effects on a country’s law enforcement
and judicial systems. As the illicit economy grows, the investigative capacity of the law enforcement and judicial systems
diminishes. Impunity for criminal activity increases, undermining the credibility of law enforcement, the
judicial system, and the authority of the government.18 Powerful traffickers frequently turn to violent
means to deter and avoid prosecution, killing or bribing prosecutors, judges, and witnesses. Colombia in the late 1980s and
Mexico today are powerful reminders of the corruption and paralysis of law enforcement as a result of
extensive criminal networks and the devastating effects of high levels of violent criminality on the judicial
system.¶ In addition, illicit economies have large and complex economic effects.19 Drug cultivation and
processing, for example, generate employment for the poor rural populations and might even facilitate upward
mobility. As mentioned above, they can also have powerful macroeconomic spillover effects in terms of boosting overall
economic activity. But a burgeoning drug economy also contributes to inflation and can hence harm legitimate,
export-oriented, import-substituting industries. It encourages real estate speculation and undermines currency
stability. It also displaces legitimate production. Since the drug economy is more profitable than legal production,
requires less security and infrastructure, and imposes smaller sunk and transaction costs, the local population is frequently
uninterested in, or unable to participate in, other (legal) kinds of economic activity. The illicit economy can thus lead to a
form of so-called Dutch disease, where a boom in an isolated sector of the economy causes, or is accompanied by, stagnation in
other core sectors, since it gives rise to appreciation of land and labor costs.
Drug cartels threaten Mexican stability
Hawley 10 (Chris Hawley, USA Today. “Drug cartels threaten Mexican stability” February 10, 2010.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-02-10-mexico-cartels_N.htm?csp=34) VP
Crime 'has become defiant,' president says, as police and politicians are forced to face 'the bribe or the bullet'¶ The drug
cartels of Mexico have grown into such a massive criminal enterprise that they have supplanted the
government in whole regions and threaten to turn the country into a narco-state like 1990s-era Colombia, say law
enforcement and criminal experts.¶ Attempts by the United States and Mexico's federal government have failed to stem the
power of the cartels, which economists say employ as much as one-fifth of the people in some Mexican states.¶
"We are approaching that red zone," said Edgardo Buscaglia, an expert on organized crime at the Autonomous
Technological University of Mexico. "There are pockets of ungovernability in the country, and they will expand." ¶
For the past decade, large parts of Mexico have been sliding toward the lawlessness Colombia experienced in
which drug traffickers in league with left-wing rebels controlled small towns and large parts of the interior through drugfunded bribery and gun-barrel intimidation, Buscaglia and others say.¶ Even President Felipe Calderón, who a year ago
angrily rebutted suggestions that Mexico was becoming a "failed state," is now describing his crackdown as a fight for
territory and "the very authority of the state."¶ "The crime has stopped being a low-profile activity and has become
defiant. ... Plainly visible and based on co-opting or intimidating the authorities," he told a group of Mexican ambassadors last
month. "It's the law of 'the bribe or the bullet.' "¶ In places such as Tancitaro, the battle may already be lost.¶ In the past
year, gunmen in this western town of 26,000 had killed seven police, murdered a town administrator and kidnapped others, said
Martin Urbina, a city official. Drug traffickers were apparently demanding the removal of certain officers, he said.
Instability Spillover
Mexican drug cartels threaten Latin American stability
Amies 11 (Nick Amies, Deutsche Welle news from Germany in the international media landscape.
“Mexican drug cartels exploit Central America's problems” September 5, 2011.
http://www.dw.de/mexican-drug-cartels-exploit-central-americas-problems/a-15061349) VP
The Mexicans have been looking for new routes into the US and have found going south into Central
America and then out through the Caribbean very appealing," Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, a Latin America expert at
Chatham House, told Deutsche Welle.¶ "Central America has always been a transit route for drugs from South America, but the
success of the Colombian government against drug trafficking in that country has led to a 'balloon' effect. Part of the trade - coca
growing and paste production - has gone south while cocaine production has gone north to Central America."¶ "Thus, Central
America has been caught in a double squeeze and the governments of the region, including Belize, are finding
it very difficult to cope," Bulmer-Thomas added.¶ Ted Leggett from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime believes
geography, a lack of law enforcement capacity, corruption, and the legacies of the civil wars that ended in the 1990s make
Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador attractive to the Mexican drug cartels.¶ Leggett said that the Mexican drug gangs make
use of local street gangs and high-level connections in the government and military to subvert the rule of
law. In Guatemala and Honduras in particular, he said, the risks are grave.¶ "These countries are already in
much worse shape than Mexico," he told Deutsche Welle. "Murder rates are at least four times higher in all of
these countries than in Mexico. High-level penetration by cartels is equally problematic. And because these
countries are much smaller and poorer than Mexico, they are much less capable of fighting back." ¶ The likely effect of cartel
infiltration will be that social and political problems within a number of Central American countries will
exacerbate, leading to increased destabilization which in turn could threaten their regional neighbors . The
arrival of the Zetas and other Mexican drug cartels may turn out to be disastrous for Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador but the
shockwaves won't stop at their own southern borders.¶ Threat to regional stability¶ Countries like Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama
may start to feel the effects should the northern triangle become the next front in the fighting as Mexico's drug war becomes a
Central American conflict.¶ Relatively stable Central American countries which rely on heavily on tourism
will soon find their economies suffering should the brutality of the conflict seen in Mexico start to infect their cities and
resorts. Remove tourism income from the economic equation and the kind of social problems experienced by poorer neighbors
may not be far behind - with the drug cartels following soon after.
Leads to Terror
Drug cartels aid terror in Mexico for a Hezbollah attack on the US
Boyle 12 (Matthew Boyle, Investigative Reporter for the Daily Caller. “Congressional report ties Middle
East terrorists to Mexican drug cartels” November 16, 2012.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/congressional-report-ties-middle-east-terrorists-to-mexican-drugcartels/) VP
A new congressional report from the House Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and
Management ties Middle East terror organizations to Mexican drug cartels .¶ The report, released Thursday, is titled
“A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence and Terror at the Southwest Border.” It found that the “Southwest border
has now become the greatest threat of terrorist infiltration into the United States. ” It specifically cites a
“growing influence” from Iranian and Hezbollah terror forces in Latin America.¶ “The presence of Hezbollah in
Latin America is partially explained by the large Lebanese diaspora in South America,” the report reads. “In general, Hezbollah
enjoys support by many in the Lebanese world community in part because of the numerous social programs it provides in Lebanon
that include schools, hospitals, utilities and welfare.”¶ The congressional report, prepared by the subcommittee’s chairman, Texas
Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, argues that the “explanation for Iranian presence in Latin America begins with
its symbiotic relationship with Hezbollah.”¶ “United in their dedication to the destruction of Israel, Iran has helped
Hezbollah grow from a small group of untrained guerrillas into what is arguably the most highly trained, organized
and equipped terrorist organization in the world, ” the report reads. “In return, Hezbollah has served as an ideal proxy
for Iranian military force – particularly against Israel – which affords Iran plausible deniability diplomatically. Hence wherever
Hezbollah is entrenched, Iran will be as well and vice-versa.”¶ McCaul’s report goes on to argue Iran’s increased presence in Latin
America is because of the nation’s close relationship with Venezuela – which recently re-elected socialist leader Hugo Chavez.¶ The
report found that Hezbollah’s “relationship with Mexican drug cartels,” has been “documented as early as
2005.Ӧ Quoting former Drug Enforcement Administration executive Michael Braun, the report argues these ties are troubling.
“Operatives from FTOs (foreign terrorist organizations) and DTOs (drug trafficking organizations) are
frequenting the same shady bars, the same seedy hotels and the same sweaty brothels in a growing number of areas around
the world,” Braun said in a statement quoted in the report. “And what else are they doing? Based upon over 37 years in the law
enforcement and security sectors, you can mark my word that they are most assuredly talking business and sharing lessons
learned.Ӧ In October 2011, Iran apparently tried to exploit its ties to the drug cartels to conduct its eventually
foiled assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador to the United States. ¶ “According to a federal arrest
complaint filed in New York City, the [Iranian] Qods Force attempted to hire a drug cartel (identified by other sources as the Los
Zetas) to assassinate Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir for a fee of $1.5 million,” the report reads. “The terror attack was to take place
at a popular restaurant in Washington, D.C. without regard to collateral deaths or damage.”¶ “The Qods Force made this solicitation
because it knows drug traffickers are willing to undertake such criminal activity in exchange for money,” the
report continues. “Moreover, if this terror attack had been successful, the Qods Force intended to use the Los Zetas for other attacks
in the future. Had it not been for a [Drug Enforcement Agency] DEA informant posing as the Los Zetas operative, this attack could
have very well taken place.”¶ In a previous report, McCaul’s subcommittee documented “the emerging power and influence of the
Mexican drug cartels along the Southwest border.”¶ “The report elaborated on the increasing cooperation between the
drug cartels and prison and street gangs in the United States to facilitate the trafficking and sale of illicit
drugs along with the enforcement of remunerations,” the recently-released report says of the previous report. “Those cartels
diversified into other areas of criminality such as human smuggling and arms trafficking.Ӧ In a statement, McCaul said that
“Middle East terrorist networks that continue to plot against the United States are expanding their ties to
Mexican drug trafficking organizations, better positioning themselves for a possible attack on our
homeland.”¶ “This report documents the increased presence of Iran and Hezbollah in Latin America and
addresses the growing concern that terrorist organizations will exploit burgeoning relationships with
Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate the Southwest border undetected,” McCaul said.
Mexican stability impact
Mexican stability is key to US competitiveness
Kaplan 12 – Robert Kaplan is the Chief Geopolitical Analyst for Stratfor. (“With the Focus on Syria, Mexico Burns”, March
28, 2012, http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/focus-syria-mexico-burns)
While the foreign policy elite in Washington focuses on the 8,000 deaths in a conflict in Syria -- half a world away from the United
States -- more than 47,000 people have died in drug-related violence since 2006 in Mexico. A deeply troubled state
as well as a demographic and economic giant on the United States' southern border, Mexico will affect America's destiny in
coming decades more than any state or combination of states in the Middle East. Indeed, Mexico may constitute
the world's seventh-largest economy in the near future. Certainly, while the Mexican violence is largely criminal, Syria is a more
clear-cut moral issue, enhanced by its own strategic consequences. A calcified authoritarian regime in Damascus is stamping out
dissent with guns and artillery barrages. Moreover, regime change in Syria, which the rebels demand, could deliver a pivotal blow to
Iranian influence in the Middle East, an event that would be the best news to U.S. interests in the region in years or even decades.
Nevertheless, the Syrian rebels are divided and hold no territory, and the toppling of pro-Iranian dictator Bashar al Assad might
conceivably bring to power an austere Sunni regime equally averse to U.S. interests -- if not lead to sectarian chaos. In other words,
all military intervention scenarios in Syria are fraught with extreme risk. Precisely for that reason, that the U.S. foreign policy elite
has continued for months to feverishly debate Syria, and in many cases advocate armed intervention, while utterly ignoring the
vaster panorama of violence next door in Mexico, speaks volumes about Washington's own obsessions and interests, which are not
always aligned with the country's geopolitical interests. Syria matters and matters momentously to U.S. interests, but Mexico
ultimately matters more, so one would think that there would be at least some degree of parity in the amount written on these
subjects. I am not demanding a switch in news coverage from one country to the other, just a bit more balance. Of course, it is easy
for pundits to have a fervently interventionist view on Syria precisely because it is so far away, whereas miscalculation in
Mexico on America's part would carry far greater consequences. For example, what if the Mexican drug cartels took
revenge on San Diego? Thus, one might even argue that the very noise in the media about Syria, coupled with the relative silence
about Mexico, is proof that it is the latter issue that actually is too sensitive for loose talk. It may also be that cartel-wracked Mexico - at some rude subconscious level -- connotes for East Coast elites a south of the border, 7-Eleven store culture, reminiscent of the
crime movie "Traffic," that holds no allure to people focused on ancient civilizations across the ocean. The concerns of Europe and
the Middle East certainly seem closer to New York and Washington than does the southwestern United States. Indeed, Latin
American bureaus and studies departments simply lack the cachet of Middle East and Asian ones in government and universities.
Yet, the fate of Mexico is the hinge on which the United States' cultural and demographic
future rests. U.S. foreign policy emanates from the domestic condition of its society, and nothing will
affect its society more than the dramatic movement of Latin history northward. By 2050, as much as a
third of the American population could be Hispanic. Mexico and Central America constitute a growing
demographic and economic powerhouse with which the United States has an inextricable relationship . In
recent years Mexico's economic growth has outpaced that of its northern neighbor . Mexico's population of 111
million plus Central America's of more than 40 million equates to half the population of the United States. Because of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, 85 percent of Mexico's exports go to the United States , even as half of Central
America's trade is with the United States. While the median age of Americans is nearly 37, demonstrating the aging tendency of the
U.S. population, the median age in Mexico is 25, and in Central America it is much lower (20 in Guatemala and Honduras, for
example). In part because of young workers moving northward, the destiny of the United States could be north-south,
rather than the east-west, sea-to-shining-sea of continental and patriotic myth. (This will be amplified by
the scheduled 2014 widening of the Panama Canal, which will open the Greater Caribbean Basin to megaships from
East Asia, leading to the further development of Gulf of Mexico port cities in the United States, from Texas to Florida.) Since
1940, Mexico's population has increased more than five-fold. Between 1970 and 1995 it nearly doubled. Between 1985
and 2000 it rose by more than a third. Mexico's population is now more than a third that of the United States and
growing at a faster rate. And it is northern Mexico that is crucial . That most of the drug-related homicides in this
current wave of violence that so much dwarfs Syria's have occurred in only six of Mexico's 32 states, mostly in the north, is a key
indicator of how northern Mexico is being distinguished from the rest of the country (though the violence in the city of Veracruz and
the regions of Michoacan and Guerrero is also notable). If the military-led offensive to crush the drug cartels launched by
conservative President Felipe Calderon falters, as it seems to be doing, and Mexico City goes back to cutting deals with the cartels,
then the capital may in a functional sense lose even further control of the north, with concrete implications for the southwestern
United States. One might argue that with massive border controls, a functional and vibrantly nationalist United States can coexist
with a dysfunctional and somewhat chaotic northern Mexico. But that is mainly true in the short run. Looking deeper into the 21st
century, as Arnold Toynbee notes in A Study of History (1946), a border between a highly developed society and a less
highly developed one will not attain an equilibrium but will advance in the more backward society's favor .
Thus, helping to stabilize Mexico -- as limited as the United States' options may be, given the complexity and sensitivity of the
relationship -- is a more urgent national interest than stabilizing societies in the Greater Middle East . If
Mexico ever does reach coherent First World status, then it will become less of a threat, and the healthy
melding of the two societies will quicken to the benefit of both.
Khalilzad 11
Yes US intervention
Drug violence puts Mexico on the brink—the US will intervene
Blair 09 – David Blair is the diplomatic editor for the Telegraph. (“Mexico in danger of collapse, says US army”, Jan 16, 2009,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/4271720/Mexico-in-danger-of-collapsesays-US-army.html, Callahan)
"Two large and important states bear consideration for rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico," reads the US army's
report. "The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial
infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels . How that
internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state." Mexico, with
a population of 110 million, provides America with more migrants than any other country. It also lies
astride the crucial smuggling routes linking the US with the drug-growing areas of South America, notably
Colombia, which remains the world's biggest source of cocaine. If Mexico became a failed state, millions
would flee across the northern border and organised crime gangs would have a secure base from which to
penetrate America. This could leave Washington with little choice but to intervene , possibly by military means.
"Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious
implications for homeland security alone," says the report.
Declining now
Remittances are continuing to decline
EFE 13 (Leading Spanish language news agency and the fourth largest news agency in the world.
“Remittances to Mexico fall over 13 pct in May” July 1, 2013. http://www.laprensasa.com/309_americain-english/2116540_remittances-to-mexico-fall-over-13-pct-in-may.html) VP
Mexico City, Jul 1 (EFE).- Remittances sent by Mexicans living abroad fell 13.2 percent to $2.03 billion in May,
compared to the same month in 2012, the Bank of Mexico said Monday.¶ May marked the 11th consecutive
month that remittances have fallen, the central bank said.¶ The average remittance totaled $286.81 in May, down from the
$329.81 registered in May 2012, the central bank said in its monthly report.¶ A total of 7.1 million transactions, the majority of them
electronic funds transfers, were registered in May, the Bank of Mexico said.¶ Remittances totaled $22.44 billion in 2012, down
1.57 percent from 2011.¶ Remittances sent by Mexicans living abroad are the country's second-largest source of foreign
exchange and help cover the living expenses of millions of people.
Now is key—remittances are declining now due to a reduction in immigrant
employment
LAT 12
(Los Angeles Times, "Remittances to Mexico fell 20% in September compared with last year" Nov 1, 2012,
latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/mexico-immigrants-remittances.html NP)
MEXICO CITY -- Remittances to Mexico from abroad fell by more than 20% in September compared with the
same month in 2011, according to Mexico’s central bank, a decline that experts said can be partly
explained by the reduction in immigrant employment in the United States.¶ Nearly 11% of all Mexicans live
abroad, most of them in the U.S., and the money they send home to family members is one of the
country’s most important sources of foreign income, representing about 2% of the country’s gross domestic
product.¶ Mexico's remittances for September stood at $1.66 billion, according to the Bank of Mexico, compared with $2.08 billion
in September 2011, a drop of 20.2%.¶ Researchers at Mexican bank BBVA Bancomerhad been expecting the steep fall. They said an
"extraordinarily high” amount of money was sent back to Mexico in September 2011, thanks to a steep increase in the exchange rate
at the time. (The exchange rate can be a major factor on remittances because immigrants often wait for the rate to be as favorable as
possible before sending money home.)¶ But the BBVA experts, citing U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
figures, also pointed to the labor market in the United States, where the number of
Mexican immigrants in the workforce has dropped from more than 7 million in January to
fewer than 6.7 million in August. The reasons for that decline are unclear, but they could be tied to the summertime
contraction in the U.S. manufacturing industry.¶ Yearly Mexican remittance figures have been inching up after taking a plunge in the
recession: The total amount of remittances in 2011 was $22.7 billion, a 7% rise over 2010.¶ Thus far, total remittances in 2012
amount to about $17.2 billion, according to the Mexican central bank.
Visas Solve
Legal Mexican migrants increase remittances
Aguiar and Walmsley 13 (Angel Aguiar and Terrie Walmsley, Global Trade Analysis Project, a
global network of researchers and policy makers conducting quantitative analysis of international policy
issues, coordinated by the Center for Global Trade Analysis in Purdue University's Department of
Agricultural Economics. “Deport or legalize? An Economic Analysis of US Immigration Reform” GTAP
Working Paper No. 74, 2013. https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/6454.pdf) VP
With legalization of undocumented workers, remittances received by Mexico rise for two ¶ reasons: first, salaries
earned by the newly documented Mexican workers are higher than those ¶ obtained when they were
undocumented and hence remittances are greater; and second, in the ¶ case of ineffective border control the influx of new
Mexicans immigrants into the United States.¶ The first effect is of an increase in Mexico’s GDP by 1.02%,
because, while wages rise, so do ¶ income taxes. The effect on GDP is also small, 0.01%, because there is no change to the labor ¶ endowment in Mexico. In the legalization without
effective border control remittances increase ¶ by 24.87%, primarily due to the increase in remittances
sent home by the new migrants. Higher ¶ levels of remittances would cause Mexico's current account to decrease. Mexico's GDP falls by -¶ 0.60% due to its loss of labor from
increased outward migration. The preferred policy for ¶ Mexicans ultimately depends on the importance of remittances in incomes relative to changes in ¶ real GDP and the extent to which they are negated by
unemployment.
Helps Mexican Econ
Immigration boosts remittances which are key to the economy – wage
levels, capital accumulation, small business investment, and education
Martin 2003 (Philip Martin, professor at UC Davis and chair of the university’s Comparative
Immigration and Integration Program. “Mexico-US Migration” 2003. Institute for International
Economics, http://www.iie.com/publications/chapters_preview/332/08iie3349.pdf) VP
Mexican immigration has a positive impact on wage levels in Mexico. 14 Economic studies suggest that during
1970-2000, Mexican immigration to the United States helped raise average Mexican wages by about 8
percent. Upward pressure on Mexican wage levels especially benefited Mexican workers with higher education levels.15 Moreover,
Mexican immigration plays a pivotal role in raising the level of remittances, which in turn help encourage
Mexican capital accumulation, small business investment, and educational attainment. In 2003, Mexican
immigrant remittances reached nearly $13 billion, equivalent to about 2 percent of Mexican GDP (Hanson 2005).
Remittances key to developing economies – legal immigration is key
O’Neil 3 (Kevin O’Neil, Migration Policy Institute. “Using Remittances and Circular Migration to Drive
Development” June 2003. http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=133) VP
Introduction: Remittances sent back by migrants continue to be a powerful financial force in developing
countries. Many countries, such as Jordan, Nicaragua, or El Salvador receive remittances estimated to total 10% or more of GNP.
After foreign direct investment and trade-related earnings, remittances are the largest financial flow into
developing countries, far larger than official development assistance. Unlike development aid, remittances
are spent directly by the families of migrants, so in many respects remittances are a very efficient way to
raise the incomes of people in poor countries. However, the costs of transmitting remittances remain high and the wider
development effects of remittances are far from clear. There are ways that policy can make remittances a more effective development
tool, but interventions must be prudent, incentive-based and informed by further research. New Knowledge and Developments in
Remittances¶ Research continues to show that remittances are largely spent on debt maintenance, retirement, housing, consumer
durables, everyday expenses, education and health care. There are indications that in some parts of the world there has been a shift
from spending on housing toward spending on everyday needs.¶ Remittances, at least as officially measured, have increased
faster than developing countries' GDPs over the past decade. Remittances to Latin America have grown
particularly quickly. This probably reflects both a real increase in total remittances and an increase in the proportion of
remittances that move through formal, observable channels.¶ Legal status affects remittances. Legal immigration
status increases remittances by raising earnings and making sending remittances easier, but may decrease
remittances over the long term by increasing integration in the migration-receiving country. One study showed that for migrants
who enter illegally and later achieve legal status, remittances grow steadily, peak at the time of regularization, and decrease
gradually thereafter.¶ There are remittance "life cycles" and they vary across cultures, countries, and economic conditions. For
example, Indian migrants in the US generally stop remitting within one generation, while many Koreans in Japan continue remitting
two generations after migration. In many cases, if one migrant in a family returns home or stops sending money, a "replacement
remitter" often migrates.¶ Flows of "remittance migration" have grown in response to economic crises .
Ecuador's international migration grew significantly in the late nineties when the country was hit by a
major economic crisis. 75% of Ecuadorian households now receive remittances totaling $1.5 billion a year.
Most of this remittance growth has been in the past three years and 70% of households with a member abroad say that the migrant
left within the past five years.
Remittances key to the Mexican Economy
Taylor 99
(J. Edward, professor of agricultural and resource economics, University of California, Davis, "The New
Economics of Labour Migration and the Role of Remittances in the Migration Process",
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2435.00066/pdf NP)
“Macro” economy-wide effects of migrant remittances¶ If migrant remittances contribute positively to
incomes, they may have a ¶ multiplier effect on incomes, employment, and production in
migrant sending¶ Tailor¶ economies. Households and firms are linked together through markets .¶
expeiditure linkages transmit the impacts of remittances from the remittance¶ receiving households to other households and
production firms in the economy.¶ economy-wide modelling techniques can be used to trace how
remittances ¶ influence income and production as they work their way through the migrant¶ ending economy.
Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, such models have not¶ made their way into the migration-and-development literature, at least
at the¶ macro level. The few studies that employ economy-i&modelling techniques¶ study remittance impacts generally produce
optimistic findings. For¶ example, AdeLman and Taylor (1990) found that, for every dollar sent or ¶ brought into
Mexico by migrants working abroad, Mexico’s gross national¶ product (GNP) increased by
somewhere between ¶2.69 and $3.17, depending¶ n which household group in Mexico received the remittances.
Remittances ¶ reduced the largest income multipliers when they flowed into rural house ¶
olds, whose consumption and expenditure patterns favour goods produced ¶ domestically,
with relatively labour-intensive production technologies and few ¶ imports. When migrant
remittances go to urban households, more of the money¶ leaks out of the country in the form of import demand.These
estimates also reveal that migrant remittances have an equalizing effect on the distribution
of ¶ income among socioeconomic groups in Mexico. In the first instance, they ¶ favour
relatively poor and middle-income rural and urban flimilies. In the¶ second instance, they create secondround income linkages that also favour the¶ poor. As a result, $1 in remittances translates into a $029 to SO.38 increase in¶
small4àrrner and rural-worker incomes and a $1.11 increase in the income of¶ urban worker households, despite the fàct that most
remittances do not flow¶ into the latter group. In other words, many of the benefits of remittances accrue ¶ to households other than
the ones that receive the remittances.
Remittances reduce poverty and increase education
Canas et al 12 (Jesus Canas, business economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; Roberto
Coronado, Assistant Vice President in Charge Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; Pia M. Orrenius, Assistant
Vice President and Senior Economist Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; and Madeline Zavodny, professor of
economics at Agnes Scott College. “The Vulnerability of Mexican Temporary Workers in the United States
with H-2 Visas” from Migration and Remittances from Mexico: Trends, Impacts, and New Challenges
edited by Alfredo Cuecuecha and Carla Pederzini, 2012.) VP
Turning to empirical evidence, remittances appear to reduce poverty among recipient households in Mexico.
Esquivel and Huerta-Pineda (2007) report that receiving remittances reduces a household’s probability of being in poverty by
about 6-10 percentage points, a sizable reduction given poverty rates that range from 16 percent to 44 percent of
households, depending on how poverty is measured. Lopez-Cordova (2004) shows that the fraction of households receiving
remittances is negatively associated with the poverty rates across all Mexican municipalities in the year 2000. ¶ Most research
on Mexico finds evidence of a positive effect of remittances on educational outcomes . Hanson and Woodruff
(2003) suggest that living in a household with a U.S. migrant increases years of schooling among girls whose parents have low
education levels. Remittance inflows raise household income and relax credit constraints which perhaps
enables families to pay school fees and delay girls’ entry into the labor force. Borraz (2005) finds a positive
but small effect of remittances on schooling, with the impact only occurring for children living in cities with fewer than
2,500 inhabitants and whose mothers have a very low-level of education. Lopez-Cordova (2004) shows that the fraction of
households receiving remittance income is posi-tively associated with school attendance rates and negatively associated with child
illiteracy rates across Mexican municipalities in year 2000.
Helps Small Business
Returning workers with remittances boost small business
Falkenberg 9 (Lisa Falkenberg, Houston Chronicle. “Small business help lacking in Mexico” March
31, 2009. http://www.chron.com/news/falkenberg/article/Small-business-help-lacking-in-Mexico1729487.php) VP
It’s the kind of story that gives you hope for our troubled neighbor to the south.¶ Mexican immigrants driven back home by
America’s economic recession seem to be taking a part of America with them: entrepreneurial spirit. ¶ As the
Chronicle’s James Pinkerton reported in his recent series, some of the immigrants are using their U.S. earnings to start
small businesses in their own country, from tequila distilleries to dairy cooperatives.¶ While there’s nothing new about
migrants using remittances as investment capital, the opportunity presented by this recent surge of
private enterprise is one of the few pieces of inspiring news we’ve heard lately from a country torn by poverty and drug
violence.¶ The employment small- and medium-sized businesses provide would seem a perfect antidote to
poverty, careers in narco-trafficking, and, yes, illegal immigration into the United States .
Helps Mexican Infrastructure
Mexico matches remittances 3-to-1 for infrastructure investment
Martin 2003 (Philip Martin, professor at UC Davis and chair of the university’s Comparative
Immigration and Integration Program. “Mexico-US Migration” 2003. Institute for International
Economics, http://www.iie.com/publications/chapters_preview/332/08iie3349.pdf) VP
In addition to sponsoring a new public policy framework, Mexico
has pioneered in recognizing the contributions that
its citizens living in the United States can make to foster economic development in Mexico . Presi-dent Fox
has called migrants in the United States heroes for their remit-tances of over $1 billion a month to Mexico
and has said that migrants are indispensable to creating a modern and prosperous Mexico. Backing up such claims,
the Mexican government began issuing matricula consular documents to Mexicans in the United States so
that they have government-issued ID cards to open bank accounts, rent apartments, and function in a
security-conscious United States.13 Mexican federal, state, and local gov-ernments have created programs to
match remittance savings that are in-vested to spur economic development. In 2004, these programs
provided $60 million to match $20 million in remittances donated by Mexicans abroad to build or improve
streets and water systems.24
The 3-to-1 remittance match supports thousands of infrastructure projects
Cohn and Passel 9 (Passel, Jeffrey and D'Vera Cohn, Pew Hispanic Center. “Mexico: Migrants,
Remittances, 3x1” Migration News 16.4, October 2009.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=3548_0_2_0) VP
3x1. Mexico has had a widely discussed 3x1 program since 2002 to match contributions made to Mexicans
in the US via Hometown Associations to improve the infrastructure of migrant-sending areas of Mexico. The 3x1
program provides $3 in federal, state and local funds for each $1 contributed by HTAs for water, sewer, road
and similar infrastructure projects. HTAs propose the projects, and Mexican government agencies vet and approve them
before providing the matching funds. ¶ The program operates in 27 of Mexico's 32 states, but most 3x1 funds are spent in
the four western Mexican states that are the sources of most Mexicans in the US? Guanajuato, Zacatecas, Jalisco, and Michoac�n.¶
The 3x1 program is very small in relation to Mexico's annual remittances? 458 million pesos ($38 million) in federal (Sedesol) funds
were available in 2008, when 2,500 projects were supported. About 40 percent of these projects involved
paving roads. The federal government contributes up to 800,000 pesos ($60,000) per project.¶ In 2008, a 1x1 Migrant
Business Fund was established to provide subsidized loans to Mexicans in the US who want to invest in
Mexico. Migrant entrepreneurs must submit business plans to the Mexican development agency Sedesol, which can grant up to
300,000 pesos ($22,600) to help establish a business in Mexico.
Infrastructure Key to Econ
Infrastructure is key to long-term Mexican growth
Aschauer 98 (David Alan Aschauer, Elmer W. Campbell Professor of Economics at Bates College.
“The Role of Public Infrastructure Capital in Mexican Economic Growth” 1998.
http://www.economiamexicana.cide.edu/num_anteriores/VII-1/02_ASCHAUER_47-78.pdf) VP
A number of tentative conclusions pertinent to
Mexican infrastructure policy can be drawn from the foregoing
analysis of the relationship between public capital and economic growth in developing countries . These
conclusions are based on the following fitted growth expression: ¶ y(90) - y(70) = 1.63 - 0.39 y(70) + 0.20 kp + 0.28 kg + 0.26 eff +
0.18•h - 0.41- debt - 0.29 -gc. ¶ and utilize sample average data as well as data for Mexico. Conse-quently, these policy conclusions
are conditional on assumption that the specific process generating Mexican economic growth is closely captured by the average
process estimated for the entire set of countries in the sample. A preferable approach would be to utilize separate time series for the
Mexican economy — but, unfortunately, this is unfeasible due to limitations of data. ¶ 1)The public capital stock is an
important determinant of long run output per capita and of transitional growth rates. Figure 8a shows the
relationship between public capital and economic growth for the entire cross country sample. For Mexico, a 1% (or 33 billion
pesos) increase in public capital would lead to a 0.28% (or 88 pesos) increase in the long run level of output per
capita — and an increase in the average growth rate of just over 0.01% per year. 2) The private capital stock
also is an important determinant of long run output per capita and of transitional growth rates. Figure 8b shows the
relationship between private capital and economic growth for the entire sample of developing countries. For Mexico, a 1% (or 54
billion pesos) increase in private capital would lead to a 0.20% (or 63 pesos) increase in the long run level of output per capita — and
an increase in the average growth rate of around 0.01% per year. 3) For the typical country in the sample, a reallocation of the total
capital stock from private to public capital would modestly increase the long run level of output per capita and the rate of economic
growth. On average, therefore, the types of capital included in the private capital stock have been over-accumulated relative to the
types of capital in-cluded in the public capital stock. For Mexico, a 1% (or 54 billion pesos) reallocation of capital would increase the
long run level of per capita output by 0.15% (or 47 pesos)— and the rate of economic growth by just under 0.01% per year. This
relatively large impact arises because production in the Mexican economy is private (rather than public) capital intensive — at least
relative to the entire set of developing countries in the sample. This does not imply that Mexico could expect to reap significant
productivity and output gains by reversing the outcome of recent privatization efforts; rather, it implies that Mexico could
experience economic improvement by investing somewhat more in the types of capital which, typically, are
included in the public capital stock and somewhat less in the types of capital which are included in the private capital stock. 4) The
efficiency of use of the public capital stock is a key facto r in explaining long run levels of output per capita and
transitional growth. Figure 8c displays the overall relationship between efficiency and economic growth. In Mexico, a 1% increase in
public capital efficiency would result in a 0.26% (or 81 pesos) increase in long run output per capita — and an increase in the average
growth rate of somewhat more than 0.01% per year. We agree, then, with Hulten (1996) that the economic growth depends
on the efficiency with which public capital is utilized just as much as on the size of the public capital stock .
5) The human capital stock also is an important determinant of long run per capita output and transitional
growth. Figure 8d depicts the relationship between human capital and economic growth for the broad set of developing countries.
For Mexico, a 1% increase in human capital would lead to a 0.18% (or 56 pesos) increase in long run per capita output — and an
increase in the average growth rate of somewhat less than 0.01% per year. 6) The level of external public debt is a critical factor
determining the long run level of per capita output and the rate of economic growth. Figure 8e shows the relationship between
external public debt, mea-sured as a ratio to output, and economic growth. In Mexico, a le (or 7 billion pesos) increase in external
public debt would lead to a 0.09% (or 28 pesos) reduction in the long run level of per capita output — and an approximate 0.005%
per year reduction in the rate of economic growth. 7) The level of government consumption spending is a key deter-minant of the
long run level of output per capita and economic growth. Figure 8f depicts the relationship between government consumption
spending, as a ratio to output, and economic growth. In Mexico, a 1% (or 2 billion pesos) increase in government consumption
spending would result in a 0.29% (or 91 pesos) decrease in the long run level of per capita output — and a more than 0.01% per year
decrease in the rate of economic growth. 8) The means of financing capital, generally, and public capital,
specifically, is important to long run per capita output levels and to rates of economic growth . In Mexico, a
1% (or 33 billion pesos) increase in public capital would increase or decrease long run per capita output (and economic growth) —
depending on how the public capital is financed. Specifically, if the rise in public capital is financed by a reduction in
government consumption, economic growth will be stimu-lated and there will be a rise in long run per
capita output equal to 178 pesos (or 0.57%) — and a rise in annual growth of some 0.02%. But if the rise in public capital is
financed by an equal rise in external borrowing, economic growth will be depressed and there will be a drop in long run per capita
output equal to 1.1% (or 341 pesos) — and a drop in annual growth of around 0.05 percent.
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigration increasing
a/t: CIR solves border sec
No—not sufficient
Plumer 13 – Brad Plumer is a reporter at the Washington Post writing about domestic policy, particularly energy and
environmental issues. (“Border security is the key to immigration reform. So how do we measure it?” June 21, 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/21/border-security-is-the-key-to-immigration-reform-so-how-dowe-define-it/, Callahan)
Case in point: The Congressional Budget Office expects that the annual flow of new illegal immigrants would drop by
just 25 percent if the Senate immigration bill became law. Now, that’s just a rough estimate — other experts I asked
thought the real number could be much higher or lower in any given year. But the CBO’s reasoning is worth following. On the one
hand, the CBO notes, beefed-up security measures would likely tamp down border crossings. But there’d also
be more immigrants who overstay their temporary visas under newly established programs, such as the
W-visas for low-skill workers. Many of these immigrants might just stay in the country once their visas
lapse and work off the books. Granted, policymakers have devised all sorts of strategies to crack down on
illegal hiring, such as a E-Verify system for employers. But many of these policies don’t work perfectly,
and there’s political resistance to more sweeping measures, such as creating a tamper-proof biometric card. My
colleague Dylan Matthews recently wrote a nice rundown of the pros and cons of strategies to prevent companies from hiring
illegally.
Warming impact
Reducing illegal immigration is key to prevent environmental
degradation and warming
FAIR 9 – Federation for American Immigration Reform (“Environmental Impact (2009)”, June 2009,
http://www.fairus.org/issue/environmental-impact)
Per capita ecological footprint increases when immigrants come to the United States When
immigrants come to the United States, they do not maintain the traditional lifestyle of their home country. Rather,
they quickly adapt to the American lifestyle. As they do, they become greater consumers
and polluters; their individual ecological footprint increases . For example, the carbon footprint
of the average immigrant is 302 percent higher than it would have been had s/he remained
at home. This does not justify the consumptive patterns of Americans; however, it does indicate that that we can
reduce the immediate stress upon our environment by limiting immigration to the U.S.
Immigration → Overpopulation → Environmental Degradation The problem is not merely that immigrant’s ecological footprint
increases after they arrive in America although that fact is troubling in itself .
Immigration also causes
overpopulation . Environment degradation does not solely depend on per capita
consumption and waste; it also matters how many people there are. Simply stated: (Environmental
Degradation) = (Per Capita Ecological Footprint) x (Population) The more people there are in the United
States, the more we as a whole degrade the environment. This is the problem of population
growth, and immigration worsens it severely. The Pew Research Center estimates that post 1970’s immigrants
and their children will constitute 82 percent of population growth from 2005 to 2050.2 We can not manage our nation’s ecological
footprint unless we stabilize our population. But we cannot stabilize our population without reducing
annual immigration to a sustainable level . For the sake of our environment, we need a
moratorium on immigration . What the environment degradation factors mean Methane Production. The gas methane
contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is increasing the world’s temperature. Freshwater Consumption. We are depleting or
polluting freshwater much faster than it is being replaced. Mass immigration exacerbates the shortage of freshwater. Industrial CO 2
Production. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the primary gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. CO2 is perhaps our worst
and most immediate environmental danger, and immigrants triple their CO2 production
by coming to the United States . Energy Consumption. Ninety-three percent of U.S. energy comes from a nonrenewable source, and each source degrades the environment in some way.3 The average immigrant more than triples his energy
consumption. Cattle Production. While cattle production may seem benign, it is not. Cattle emit methane, cause soil erosion, pollute
streams, and require the conversion of forest into rangeland. Immigration more than quintuples the average immigrant's effect on
the production of cattle. Fertilizer Consumption. Although fertilizer increases short-term crop yields, it also salts the earth,
poisoning land and water systems. The average immigrant increases his use of fertilizer by a factor of six upon arriving in America.
Fish Production. Nearly half of America’s native fish species are in danger of extinction. On average, when people immigrate to the
United States, their contribution to the problem increases six fold. Total Ecological Footprint. Total Ecological Footprint measures a
population’s demand on local ecosystems. It represents the amount of land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a
population consumes and to absorb the population’s waste. The average immigrant degrades America’s
environment 213 percent faster than he degraded the environment of his native country.
Cropland Footprint. Agricultural self-sufficiency is a hallmark of American national security but cropland also equates to lost habitat
for native species. After coming to the U.S. the average immigrant increases his Cropland Footprint by 82 percent. Carbon Footprint.
Carbon dioxide is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. As world temperatures
increase, the artic icecaps melt, which raises sea levels. Even a slight rise in sea levels will
inundate millions of acres of valuable land and force the migration of hundred Forest Footprint.
Healthy forests provide animal habitat, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and prevent soil erosion from clogging our
waterways. The average immigrant increases his forest footprint by 357 percent after moving to America
Warming is an existential risk – quickening reductions is key to avoiding extinction
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,”
pg. 122)//BB
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on
the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual'
projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping
emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C
(O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century."
Without early and severe reductions in
emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be
catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human
change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies,
beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing
countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that
unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to
tragedy. Climate
civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or
such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound
social, cultural and political changes.
Exts – solves warming
Curbing illegal immigration solves warming - reduces emissions and energy
consumption
FAIR 9 – Federation for American Immigration Reform (“Energy Use, CO2 Emission and Immigration
(2009)”, June 2009, http://www.fairus.org/issue/energy-use-co2-emission-and-immigration)
The role of immigration in population increase and its role in increased energy consumption results from the
growing rate of immigrant admissions (legal immigration) supplemented by large scale illegal immigration and the growing
admission of long-term nonimmigrant workers. From 1975 to 2007, the United States admitted 27 million
immigrants. Thus direct legal immigration accounted for 31.5 percent of the U.S. population increase
during this period. The share of population growth attributable to immigration is still higher when illegal immigration estimated at
13 or more million persons and long-term foreign workers arriving at more than one million per year and staying as long as 5 or 6
years are included. And the children born to these immigrants and nonimmigrants add still more. The pattern of increased energy
consumption and population growth may be seen also when examining sectoral use. In the residential sector, consumption
increased by 44.7 percent between 1973-2007 while per capita consumption remained virtually unchanged. By contrast, in the
industrial sector, energy consumption was virtually unchanged between 1973 and 2007 while per capital consumption actually
declined about 30 percent as industry installed more energy efficient production equipment or moved offshore. When per capita
energy consumption data in the commercial and industrial sectors are added together, the total declined by about 16 percent while
total energy consumption in these two sectors increased from 42.2 quads to 50.9 quads (21%). Thus, once again, this 8.7 quad
increase may be attributable entirely to population growth. In the transportation sector, there was a 9 quad increase in energy
consumption between 1974 and 2007 as well as a 9.1 percent increase in per capita energy consumption, a fact likely related to more
cars per capita, increased purchase of less economical vehicles such as sport utility vehicles [SUVs] and Humvees, as well as the
extended use of older, less fuel-efficient cars by population segments with limited means. Per capita motor gasoline consumption in
the U.S. increased by 7 percent between 1974 and 2005 despite major improvements in the fuel efficiency of new vehicles, but total
gasoline consumption increased over the same period by 53 percent. The driving factor behind gasoline consumption is vehiclemiles, which in turn is driven by population growth. Total vehicle-miles for passenger cars, motorcycles, light trucks and SUVs rose
approximately 113 percent between 1974 and 2000. This reflects the fact that as the population of an urban region grows, the
urbanized area increases in size, and the residential areas are almost always on the periphery of the urban region. Therefore
commute distances are increased. Secondly, population growth has caused property values near some urban centers to rise
dramatically. People with modest incomes who have been priced out of the housing market in these urban centers have been buying
homes in small towns that, in some cases, are located considerable distances from their places of employment. Looking at the total
energy usage, population growth is again revealed as a primary factor in the overall 34.1 percent increase in
energy consumption over this same period because overall usage per capita decreased by 6.3 percent. As the United States
considers policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions particularly carbon dioxide (CO2 ) the impact of
immigration on emissions levels cannot be ignored. Suppose that U.S. accepted the Kyoto Protocol target
of reducing energy consumption by 7 percent from the 1990 level by 2012, i.e., to 78.4 quads. Per capita energy
consumption would have to fall to 245 million BTUs , which represents a 37 percent reduction from projected 2012
consumption based on current trends. A required reduction in energy consumption of this magnitude would necessitate enormous
lifestyle changes for Americans and cause serious economic dislocations. Restrictions on CO2 emissions would translate into higher
manufacturing costs for U.S. industry regardless of whether these reductions were achieved through taxes, fuel switching, and
installation of more efficient equipment, trading emissions credits, or other means. U.S. industry would be disadvantaged in
comparison to manufacturers in both Europe and Japan which do not have a similar population growth and in undeveloped
countries which have high population growth but no requirement of CO2 emission reduction. Finally, it is important to note that
immigration is the principal reason the natural rate (births less deaths) of population increase is so much higher in the U.S. than in
Europe. The 2000 U.S. Census data show that the Hispanic or Latino population segment, which has surged as a result of
immigration, accounted for 12.5 percent of the population but 18.7 percent of all live births, The Census Bureau estimates a total
fertility rate (births) of 2.049 for women of all races and 2.921 for women of Hispanic origin 42.3 percent higher. The increase in
energy consumption as a result of population growth shows clearly that the United States would not be able
to achieve meaningful CO2 emission reduction, such as called for in the Kyoto Protocol targets, without serious economic
and social consequences for American citizens unless population growth is sharply reduced. This necessitates a
sharp curtailment of immigration the principal factor in population growth. Failure to address the immigration
issue is only rendering the energy problem more intractable. The longer the United States continues to
grow at a rate of about 3 million people per year, the more precarious will become the existence of each of
us and our children and the sooner that undesirable and traumatic major forced adjustments will arrive.
Disease impact
Illegal immigration increases risk of food-borne and other diseases
FAIR 9 – Federation for American Immigration Reform (“Illegal Immigration and Public Health
(2009)” http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-and-public-health)
The impact of immigration on our public health is often overlooked. Although millions of visitors for tourism and
business come every year, the foreign population of special concern is illegal residents, who come most often
from countries with endemic health problems and less developed health care. They are of greatest consequence because
they are responsible for a disproportionate share of serious public health problems, are living among us for
extended periods of time, and often are dependent on U.S. health care services. Public Health Risks Because illegal
immigrants, unlike those who are legally admitted for permanent residence, undergo no medical screening to assure that
they are not bearing contagious diseases, the rapidly swelling population of illegal aliens in our country has also set
off a resurgence of contagious diseases that had been totally or nearly eradicated by our public health system.
According to Dr. Laurence Nickey, director of the El Paso heath district “Contagious diseases that are generally
considered to have been controlled in the United States are readily evident along the border ... The incidence of
tuberculosis in El Paso County is twice that of the U.S. rate. Dr. Nickey also states that leprosy, which is considered by most
Americans to be a disease of the Third World, is readily evident along the U.S.-Mexico border and that dysentery is several times the
U.S. rate ... People have come to the border for economic opportunities, but the necessary sewage treatment
facilities, public water systems, environmental enforcement, and medical care have not been made available to them,
causing a severe risk to health and well being of people on both sides of the border.”1 A June, 2009 article in
the New England Journal of Medicine noted that a majority (57.8%) of all new cases of tuberculosis in the United States in 2007
were diagnosed in foreign-born persons. The TB infection rate among foreign-born persons was 9.8 times as high as that among
U.S.-born persons.2 The article documents the medical testing process for TB required of immigrants and refugees, and this points
to foreigners who are unscreened, especially the illegal alien population as the logical source of this disproportionate rate of TB
incidence. It should also be kept in mind that among U.S. citizens who contract TB their exposure to the disease may well have come
from exposure to a non-U.S. citizen. “The pork tapeworm, which thrives in Latin America and Mexico, is showing
up along the U.S. border, threatening to ravage victims with symptoms ranging from seizures to death. ... The same
[Mexican] underclass has migrated north to find jobs on the border, bringing the parasite and the sickness—cysticercosis—its eggs
can cause[.] Cysts that form around the larvae usually lodge in the brain and destroy tissue, causing hallucinations, speech and
vision problems, severe headaches, strokes, epileptic seizures, and in rare cases death.”3 The problem, however, is not
confined to the border region, as illegal immigrants have rapidly spread across the country into many new
economic sectors such as food processing, construction, and hospitality services.
Disease causes extinction
Steinbruner 98 – John D, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution where he holds the Sydney
Stein, Jr. chair in international security. He is also vice chair of the committee on international security
and arms control of the National Academy of Science (“Biological Weapons: A Plague upon All Houses”,
Foreign Policy Magazine)
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not
depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers
and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully
understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate
and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken
down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's
population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIV virus have infected
an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis,
and cholera- once thought to be under control-are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first
century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth
rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across inter- national borders, and
scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause
for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of
infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a
whole.
Econ impact
Illegal immigration places an unsustainable burden on the economy –
reform is key
FAIR 11 – Federation for American Immigration Reform (“Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage
Earners: The Harmful Effect of Unskilled Immigrants on American Workers (2011)”, May 2011,
http://www.fairus.org/issue/immigration-poverty-and-low-wage-earners-the-harmful-effect-ofunskilled-immigrants-on-american-work)
Today’s immigration system is dysfunctional because it is not responsive to the socioeconomic conditions
of the country. Only a small share of legally admitted immigrants is sponsored by employers while the bulk are admitted because
of family ties to earlier immigrants who may be living in poverty or near poverty. As a result, immigration contributes to an
already-existing surplus of low-skilled workers, increasing job competition and driving down wages and
conditions to the detriment of American workers. The presence of a large illegal workforce perpetuates a
vicious cycle as degraded work conditions discourage Americans from seeking these jobs and make
employers more dependent on an illegal foreign workforce. America’s massive low-skill labor force and illegal alien
population allow employers to offer low pay and deplorable conditions. These harmful effects of the immigration system
were recognized in the reports of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in the mid 1990s. The
Commission’s immigration reform recommendations were welcomed by President Clinton and submitted to Congress, but have
largely been ignored since then. Conditions for America’s poorest workers have continued to deteriorate because of both illegal and
legal immigration. Reform of the immigration system to assure that it does not harm Americans and
instead contributes to a stronger more equitable society is long overdue. The reforms that are needed include
ending family-based chain migration and unskilled immigration, ending the job competition for America’s most vulnerable citizens
by curtailing illegal immigration and unskilled legal immigration, and holding employers accountable for hiring illegal workers. The
U.S. has a responsibility to protect the economic interests of all of its citizens, yet the immigration system ,
which adds hundreds of thousands to the labor force each year, is bringing in workers faster than jobs are being
created. Moreover, only a small portion of admissions are based on skills or educational criteria, creating an enormous glut of lowskilled workers who struggle to rise above poverty. In 1995, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended curtailing
family-based immigration and replacing the “failed and expensive regulatory system [for skill-based immigration] with one that is
market-driven.” Along these lines, the Commission recommended that, “it is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers”
because “the U.S. economy is showing difficulty in absorbing disadvantaged workers.” Fifteen
years later, U.S. politicians continue to ignore these recommendations, bowing to corporate demands for unskilled labor rather than
taking a realistic look at immigration’s effect on poverty and the American worker. Current calls for “comprehensive immigration
reform” are nothing short of a push for a massive amnesty that would give permanent status to millions of illegal aliens who are not
needed in the workforce, and it would reward unscrupulous employers who profited from hiring illegal workers, providing them with
a legal low-wage workforce that would continue to have a negative impact on native workers. The border is not secured and there is
much opposition to the mandatory use of E-Verify and interior enforcement. Those who argue against enforcement are not going to
decide overnight to support these measures, and politicians have long ago proven that their promise to enforce immigration laws
after granting amnesty are not to be believed. This report contains the following findings: In 2009, less than 6 percent of legal
immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy. Studies
that find minimal or no negative effects on native workers from low-skill immigration are
based upon flawed assumptions and skewed economic models, not upon observations of actual labor
market conditions.
Exts – solves econ
Illegal immigration is an unsustainable fiscal burden – $113 billion per year
FAIR 11 – Federation for American Immigration Reform (“The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on
U.S. Taxpayers”, February 2011, http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegalimmigration-on-u-s-taxpayers)
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113
billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax
collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy.
Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because
over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers. Key Findings Illegal immigration costs
U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are
absorbed by state and local governments. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount
per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden
falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality Education for the
children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of
those costs are absorbed by state and local governments. At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax
collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal
immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens. Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who
do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits
resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury. With many state budgets in deficit, policymakers have an obligation to
look for ways to reduce the fiscal burden of illegal migration. California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in
2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens. New York’s $6.8 billion
deficit is smaller than its $9.5 billion in yearly illegal alien costs. The report examines the likely consequences if an amnesty for the
illegal alien population were adopted similar to the one adopted in 1986. The report notes that while tax collections from the illegal
alien population would likely increase only marginally, the new legal status would make them eligible for receiving Social Security
retirement benefits that would further jeopardize the future of the already shaky system. An amnesty would also result in this
large population of illegal aliens becoming eligible for numerous social assistance programs available for low-income populations for
which they are not now eligible. The overall result would, therefore, be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal
burden. Methodology All studies assessing the impact of illegal aliens begin with estimates of the size of that population. We use a
population of 13 million broken down by state. In our cost estimates we also include the minor children of illegal aliens born in the
United States. That adds another 3.4 million children to the 1.3 million children who are illegal aliens themselves. We include these
U.S. citizen children of illegal aliens because the fiscal outlays for them are a direct result of the illegal migration that led to their
U.S. birth. We do so as well in the assumption that if the parents leave voluntarily or involuntarily they will take these children with
them. The birth of these children and their subsequent medical care represent a large share of the estimated Medicaid and Child
Health Insurance Program expenditures associated with illegal aliens. We use data collected by the federal and state governments on
school expenses, Limited English Proficiency enrollment, school meal programs, university enrollment, and other public assistance
programs administered at the federal and state level. Estimates of incarceration expenses are based on data collected in the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program in which state and local detention facilities seek federal compensation for the cost of detention of
criminal and deportable aliens. Estimates for other administration of justice expenditures are based on data collected from the states
by the U.S. Department of Justice. General government expenditures are estimated for other non-enumerated functions of
government at both the federal and local level. An example would be the cost of fire departments or the cost of the legislature.
Medical costs that amount to 10 percent of overall state and local outlays on illegal aliens derive from our estimate of the childbirths
to illegal alien mothers covered by Medicaid, the subsequent medical insurance and treatment of those children and an estimate of
uncompensated cost of emergency medical treatment received by illegal aliens. The latter expenditure estimate is based on state and
local government studies of uncompensated medical care. The tax collections from illegal aliens assume eight million illegal alien
workers, one-half of whom are in the underground economy. Those in the above-ground economy are assumed to have an average
family income of $31,200 (60 hr. workweek @ $10/hr.) with two children. Conclusion The report notes that today’s debate over
what to do about illegal aliens places the country at a crossroads. One choice is pursuing a strategy that
discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job
opportunities and deportations. The other choice would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an
amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.
Solvency
More cards
Bilateral partnerships solve
O'Neil 3 (Kevin, writes for Migration Policy Institute, “Using Remittances and Circular Migration to
Drive Development”, June 2003, http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=133)
The bad: Temporary labor programs have an enormous potential for abuse, particularly when they are
unilaterally administered and their rules are not carefully enforced by the receiving authorities. H-2A and H-2B
visas granted by the US, the overwhelming majority of which go to Mexicans, are tied to specific jobs. The
system gives employers and recruiters an enormous amount of power over migrants; with little regulation
and enforcement on either side of the border, migrants may pay a recruiter for a visa only to end up
working for sub-standard wages or conditions. In practice, the system may also be encouraging illegal, long-term
stays. The difference: Future temporary labor migration programs should:¶ create committed bilateral
partnerships between sending and receiving countries.¶ be market driven, flexible and self-adjusting.¶ take
advantage of technology in matching employers and workers and enforcing regulations.¶ consider both the costs and
benefits to the receiving country's workers.¶ give migrants the same rights and obligations as native workers to every extent
practical.¶ open a clear path to legal permanent residency for temporary workers who meet predetermined requirements.¶ not tie
workers to a specific employer beyond an initial period.¶ be self-financed.¶ have clear, independent dispute-resolving mechanisms.¶
minimize bureaucracy without surrendering the government's ability to audit and enforce compliance.
CIR doesn’t solve
CIR doesn’t solve—too small
Jacoby 13 – Tamar Jacoby is a fellow at the New America Foundation and president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national
federation of small business owners working for better immigration law. (“Guest Workers Are the Best Border Security”, June 11,
2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578535823045836956.html, Callahan)
The one area where the Senate proposal falls short: It's almost surely too small to address the country's future
labor needs. In the early 2000s, when the economy was booming, more than 350,000 unauthorized Mexicans
entered the U.S. every year to fill low-skilled jobs for which there were not enough Americans. The downturn eased this
demand somewhat, but it's now picking up again. If the trends of recent decades resume, the Senate proposal won't be big
enough to divert future illegal immigration. In its first year, the Senate's guest-worker program will be
capped at 20,000 visas. It will grow over time in response to market demand but is capped at 200,000
workers annually. The danger is that if there aren't enough visas to meet U.S. labor needs, the program won't
prevent illegal immigration in years ahead. The best antidote to illegal immigration is a legal immigration system that
works. The Senate's visa program is a good start. The challenge now, for the House or the Senate, is to scale up the Senate
model so it can work in years to come.
CIR doesn’t solve- policy flaws
Nowrasteh 13 (Alex, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, Immigration Bill: Better, Not
Best, http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-bill-better-not-best, 6/27/13)
This afternoon the Senate voted 68-32 to pass its sweeping immigration reform bill. The bill is a solid
improvement over the current immigration system. It legalizes most of the unlawful immigrants here and provides larger pathways
for legal immigration in the future. The bill does have flaws – many of which I’ve written about in detail. It doesn’t
increase lawful immigration enough. The guest worker visa programs for lower skilled workers are too
small, restricted to certain sectors of the economy, and governed by confusing bureaucracy. Under today’s
immigration rules, very few of our ancestors would have been able to immigrate here legally. The Senate’s
immigration bill takes us a small step closer to our traditionally more open immigration policy. It shovels
gargantuan amounts of security resources toward the southern border in an attempt to halt future unlawful
immigration that could otherwise cheaply be halted with an expanded guest worker visa program . The
border “surge,” as many are calling it, is truly embarrassing, especially for a country with such proud immigrant traditions. There are
certainly legitimate security concerns, but the extra enforcement will just drive up the price of smuggling and marginally decrease
unlawful immigration of peaceful workers at enormous cost.
CIR Bad – Braid Drain
CIR Causes Brain Drain which hurts Mexican Econ– plan doesn’t because
ag workers aren’t key
Hennemuth 13 (Elizabeth Hennemuth, The Project on International Peace and Security.
“Unintended Consequences: Considering Mexico’s Stability when Designing U.S. Immigration Reform”
May 2013. http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/pips/2012-2013/hennemuth_e_brief.pdf) VP
More visas for highly skilled and educated workers would create opportunities for middle-class¶ Mexicans
seeking employment, safety, and a better future for their children. A large-scale influx ¶ of Mexican professionals into
the United States would deny Mexico the economic, political, and ¶ social leaders needed to enact
President Peña Nieto’s proposed reforms. ¶ Mexico’s brain drain. One in three Mexicans with PhDs and
one in seven Mexicans with ¶ Master’s degrees live in the United States.160 From 1971 to 2008, Mexico lost
2,100 ¶ scientists and more than 140 billion pesos the Mexican government invested in their ¶ education.161 Mexicans
have several means to pursue nonimmigrant educational and ¶ employment migration, such as through the NAFTA Professional
(TN) visa, which has ¶ had no numerical limit since 2004.162 Furthermore, from 2000-2012, the number of ¶ nonimmigrant
Mexicans investing significant capital in U.S. businesses through E-2 ¶ NAFTA visas doubled.163 Moreover,
the number of Mexicans immigrating on the EB-5 ¶ visa, which aims to grow the U.S. economy through
immigrants’ capital investment and ¶ job creation in U.S. businesses, has recently increased.164¶ Mexico’s
brain drain likely would worsen as immigration reform makes it easier for ¶ professionals,
especially those in STEM fields, to immigrate to the United States legally. ¶ In an April 2013 report,
the Banco de México and the Migration Policy Institute predicted¶ more Mexican migration in skilled employment sectors, as well as
an overall return to net ¶ migration inflows of 230,000 to 330,000 annually, between 2011 and 2017.¶ 165¶ Many educated
professionals cannot find employment in their fields in Mexico. For ¶ example, in 2012, President Calderón reported that 130,000
engineers and technicians ¶ graduate from Mexican universities and specialized high schools —more than in
Canada, ¶ Germany, or Brazil.166 But the number of Mexicans employed as engineers has barely ¶ grown,
increasing from 1.1 million in 2006 to 1.3 million in 2012.167 Engineering ¶ students often take technician jobs for which they are
over-qualified.168 In contrast, 4 of ¶ the top 10 fastest-growing sectors of the U.S. economy are in STEM
fields.169¶ Environmentally conscious building construction, which is predicted to grow 22.8 ¶ percent over the next 5 years, would
likely attract skilled labor and engineers.170 Mexico’s inhibited economy. Many of President Peña Nieto’s proposed
reforms require a ¶ skilled labor force for successful implementation—the same groups that U.S. ¶
immigration reform targets. For example, President Peña Nieto’s proposal to renovate ¶ Mexico’s railway system
would create jobs for engineers and skilled laborers.171 Mexico ¶ also is starting to see a return of
manufacturing jobs from China as China’s labor costs ¶ increase.¶ 172 If U.S. immigration reform attracts
Mexicans employed in these sectors to the ¶ United States, then the demand for and wages of workers in
Mexico would increase. The¶ ensuing higher manufacturing costs would again put Mexico in closer
competition with ¶ China. The departure of better-educated, higher-earning migrants would leave the
general¶ Mexican population worse off economically. A brain drain could take away local leaders and
technicians who otherwise could provide ¶ important public services in Mexico. Fewer qualified engineers,
teachers, businesspeople, and ¶ politicians would deprive Mexico of leadership at the national level.
Decreases Mexican Jobs
Hennemuth 13 (Elizabeth Hennemuth, The Project on International Peace and Security.
“Unintended Consequences: Considering Mexico’s Stability when Designing U.S. Immigration Reform”
May 2013. http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/pips/2012-2013/hennemuth_e_brief.pdf) VP
Fewer Jobs Created in Mexico¶ Immigration reform
would make the United States more attractive to Mexican
entrepreneurs¶ whose absence would divest Mexico of their talents and potential job creation. President ¶
Calderón aimed to create 6 million new jobs during his term, but he created only 2.6 million.180¶ Small and medium-sized
businesses create the largest proportion of jobs in Mexico.181 The ¶ average Mexican entrepreneur is 25 to 44 years
old, is highly educated and middle-income, and ¶ still has other jobs.182 Inadequate access to capital, however, impedes
Mexican ¶ entrepreneurship.¶ 183 The Milken Institute Capital Access Report of 2009 ranked Mexico 45th out ¶ of 122
countries regarding its access to capital, whereas the United States ranked fifth.184¶ If immigration reform attracts more
Mexican entrepreneurs to the United States, Mexico will ¶ lose the people most likely to create muchneeded jobs. Returning migrants are among the best ¶ equipped to create jobs, with wages for male migrants who return to
Mexico five percent higher ¶ than for non-migrant males.185 If they return to Mexico, these migrants have the potential to make
significant contributions to Mexico’s economy through entrepreneurial ventures. ¶ Increasing employment opportunities
could help reduce Mexicans’ dependence on the informal ¶ economy for employment.186 Consequently,
the security situation could improve, as countries ¶ with lower levels of income inequality and
unemployment tend to have lower homicide rates.187
-- a/t: Increases Remittances
Brain drain means it won’t increase remittances
Hennemuth 13 (Elizabeth Hennemuth, The Project on International Peace and Security.
“Unintended Consequences: Considering Mexico’s Stability when Designing U.S. Immigration Reform”
May 2013. http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/pips/2012-2013/hennemuth_e_brief.pdf) VP
Limited Remittances from Middle Class¶ President Peña Nieto
supports U.S. immigration reform, in part because he
likely expects a boost ¶ in remittances from Mexican migrants.174 Mexico receives $23.6 billion in remittances ¶
annually—the third-largest amount in the world, after India and China.175 Although increased¶ migration may yield a
boost in the total amount of remittances sent to Mexico, it cannot ¶ compensate for the simultaneous
deficit in leadership and skilled labor. Remittances will be ¶ vulnerable to downturns in the U.S.
economy and will not mitigate the brain drain. Since 2007, ¶ remittances received in Mexico have fallen by
14 percent, largely because of the U.S. economic ¶ downturn.176¶ Moreover, U.S. immigration reform will attract new
middle- and upper-class Mexican ¶ immigrants, who are less likely to send remittances. More than
three-fifths of remittance senders ¶ from Mexico and Central America can be considered “working poor” or “lower
middle class,” ¶ with an income of less than $30,000.177 In Mexico, approximately 56 percent of all remittancereceiving households
are classified as poor.¶ 178 On the other hand, only 14.3 percent of migrants ¶ in the United States earning $50,000
or more send remittances to their countries of origin.179 As ¶ more middle- and upper-class Mexicans immigrate
to the United States, remittances may not ¶ follow to the degree expected.¶ Although there are benefits to U.S.
immigration reform, U.S. policymakers cannot afford to ¶ overlook the potentially negative consequences for
Mexico’s long-term economic prospects. ¶ Additional stress on Mexico’s already struggling economy could
further embolden organized ¶ crime to engage in violent activities that could also affect the United States.
Add-ons
Econ
CIR kills the economy/plan’s key to solve it
Bier 13 – David Bier is an immigration policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute , a free-market public policy
group in Washington, D.C. (“To Grow, The U.S. Economy Needs More Low-Skilled Immigrant Workers”, 5/6/2013,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/06/to-grow-the-u-s-economy-needs-more-low-skilled-immigrant-workers/,
Callahan)
Recently introduced legislation to tackle immigration reform has elements that should satisfy both
liberals and conservatives–namely, strong border security metrics for conservatives and a pathway to citizenship for those
here illegally for liberals. But the bill also contains provisions that could end up being problematic for both sides, unless they agree
to dramatically expand the proposed guest worker program. The bill’s border security standards include mandatory
implementation of E-Verify, the electronic employment verification system that checks employees’
information against government databases to see if they are authorized to work. Unfortunately, because E-Verify
results in some errors for legal employees, nearly 180,000 authorized workers would be forced to sort out
erroneous rejections under a national mandate. Under this bill, employers must employ unconfirmed workers for up to
six weeks while they have the opportunity to appeal – which, in effect, guarantees unauthorized workers employment. Immigrants
already engage in mostly short-term employment, which means many will come knowing that E-Verify will give them a job. But the
real problem for employers is if they are forced to hire and fire 1 percent (at current E-Verify rejection rates) of all
new employees, this measure will increase worker turnover expenses dramatically. Replacing workers,
even the low-skilled, can cost between $2,640 and $6,042, according to two recent studies by economist Heather
Boushey and another by the Sasha Corp., a management consulting firm. At the current rejection rate, E-Verify will reject 650,000
unauthorized workers per year, costing businesses $3.9 billion in turnover costs. Actual costs may be higher because these
workers would leave unexpectedly without the traditional two-week notice. But there is a solution: If immigrants
looking for short-term employment are able to apply for guest worker visas, there will be fewer undocumented immigrants going
through the E-Verify process – and fewer worker turnover costs for employers. The only time in the last 70 years
when illegal immigration was almost eliminated was in the 1960s when Congress let in
millions of guest workers. But the Senate proposal includes a small program that would permit only
20,000 guest workers next year and at most 200,000. This number is far too low. The Government
Accountability Office found more than 500,000 people attempted to cross into the United States in 2011 alone.
The Senate plan would cover less than half of new illegal entrants in a given year, and that’s just entrants
from a single country and with America in a down economy. Without a significantly expanded guest
worker program, undocumented immigrants are going to cycle through the E-Verify system, and
American businesses are going to bear the costs – something no conservative intended. Liberal goals also are threatened
by the low guest worker numbers. As written, the current bill opens a pathway to citizenship for newly legalized immigrants but only
if border patrol is able to catch 90 percent of border crossers. The only realistic way such a high percentage can be maintained is if
most of the current flows enter legally rather than illegally. Moreover, an expanded guest worker program would benefit
American workers too. In 2012, the Department of Agriculture looked at the economic impact of cutting low-skilled
immigrants by 6 million and found it would reduce Americans’ wages by up to 0.6 percent of GDP – or about $90 billion.
Increasing the number of guest workers allowed into the country will boost the economy, protect
American businesses and allow for a smooth pathway to citizenship for the new Americans that this bill
welcomes. With these incentives, Congress has more than enough reasons to fix this bill before it is too
late.
Relations
Bilateral guest worker program solves Mexican relations
MacNeil 7 (Melissa, magna cum laude as a Distinguished Honors Scholar with a Bachelor of Arts
degree in International Studies and Spanish and Board of Regents Scholar at the University of North
Texas, Discussion of the Validity of a Guest Worker Program in the United States,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc86950/m2/1/high_res_d/macneil-melissa.pdf, no date
given but research for the paper occurred in May 2007)
It is also important to remember that guest worker programs do not operate in an economic vacuum.
Instead, they change with economic conditions—for example, if some potential problem arises that would disturb
economic growth and increase the possibility for unemployment, policy makers and citizens may be more reluctant to admit guest
workers. Germany experienced this problem in the 1970s when an oil embargo threatened high unemployment and recessions.
Guest worker programs also have the potential to change in response to employer and migrant demands.
In the United States, if an employer requests the ability to recruit workers and his request is denied, he is
able to go to court and get the Department of Labor’s decision overturned. This practice effectively
changed the program from a government-run program to an employer-run program. Foreign policy
requirements could also possibly change the structure and implementation of guest worker policy because
if relations improve between two nations, or there is a need to bridge economic and political ties, a
bilateral guest worker program is a good response. Finally, workers’ rights activists play a role in ensuring
that employers are treating the guest workers properly and also allowing fair competition between native workers and migrant
workers in the labor market. For example, when widespread abuses were discovered in the Bracero Program in the 1950s and 1960s,
workers’ rights advocates played a major role in bringing an end to the program (Abell et al., 2006).
Exts – solves relations
Plan key to relations – Immigration and mutual economic interests
Villarreal 10 (M. Angeles Villareal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance for Congressional
Research Service. “The Mexican Economy After the Global Financial Crisis” September 16, 2010.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41402.pdf) VP
The relationship between the United States and Mexico is important to policymakers from both ¶
countries because of the mutual interest in a number of key issues affecting the two countries, ¶ such as bilateral trade, economic
competitiveness, and border security. During his state visit to ¶ Washington, DC, in May 2010, Mexican President Felipe Calderón emphasized the need for ¶ increased
cooperation in North America in order to increase the competiveness of the region.68¶ President Barack Obama hosted a meeting with President Calderón where the two leaders ¶ discussed numerous key
The leaders ¶ reaffirmed the shared values in areas such as economic
competitiveness, social and economic ¶ well-being, and the security of citizens in both countries. One area of
cooperation that was ¶ highlighted in a press release after the meeting was the need for mutual economic
growth. The ¶ two leaders vowed to enhance and reinforce efforts to create jobs, promote economic recovery ¶ and expansion, and encourage
bilateral and hemispheric issues affecting the two countries.
inclusive prosperity across all levels of society in both countries.69¶ The two leaders discussed the following actions for bilateral cooperation to enhance ¶ competitiveness: (1) the creation of a Twenty-First
Century Border to facilitate the secure and ¶ efficient flow of goods and people and reduce the cost of doing business between the two ¶ countries; (2) a commitment to continuing cooperation for safe, efficient,
secure, and compatible ¶ modes of transportation; (3) a commitment to significantly enhance the economic ¶ competitiveness and the economic well-being of both countries through improved regulatory ¶
The two leaders also
underscored ¶ the importance of human capital and touched upon the issue of immigration. President Obama ¶ underscored his
cooperation; and (4) the enhancement of intellectual property rights protection to promote¶ innovation and investment in technology and human capital.70
commitment to comprehensive immigration reform in the United States while ¶ President Calderón stated that his administration was committed to creating more job and ¶ educational opportunities in Mexico.
Both leaders acknowledged the importance of taking actions ¶ to address illegal immigration, border
security, and human trafficking groups, and agreed to set ¶ priorities for the future.71
Border smuggling
Plan is key to coop on border smuggling
Rosenblum 98 (Marc R. Rosenblum, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of
California, San Diego, MY NEIGHBOR, MYSELF: MEXICAN INFLUENCE ON U.S. MIGRATION
POLICY, lexis, Fall, 1998 / Winter, 1999)
[*540] A second factor that gives some Mexican officials reason for optimism is the identification of certain preferences shared with
the U.S. Specifically, the two sides have "a common interest in [migrants] working; and people in the United
States clearly benefit from the cheap labor." n29 As a result, Mexicans argue, both sides would benefit from
normalizing existing flows of migrants in order to gain control of the border, limit smuggling , and insure that
migrants are legitimately employed. n30 Many in Mexico consider a new, limited guestworker program the ideal
way to satisfy the demands of both countries. The program would be limited to already-existing migration
labor markets and would have the added advantage of promoting the return to Mexico of migrants,
thereby limiting brain drain and allowing Mexico to benefit from migrant workers' new skills. n31 Based on
these interviews, it is clear that Mexico has strong preferences about U.S. migration policy. While Mexico's preference for migration
access is tied to economic conditions, concern about human rights is considered more important and responds to publicity of human
rights abuses. Recent trends are toward divisions between the executive and legislative branches, balanced by the identification of a
more coherent position within the executive branch. Finally, Mexicans expressed optimism about the possibility of
direct cooperation with the U.S. based on the existence of overlapping preferences on some fundamental
migration issues.
Smuggling routes will be used by terrorists to attack with wmd
Associated Press ‘8 (US Officials Fear Terrorist Links With
Drug Lords,
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5986948)
There is real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah could form alliances
with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch new terrorist attacks, U.S. officials said
Wednesday. Extremist group operatives have already been identified in several Latin American countries,
mostly involved in fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of intelligence
analysis at the Homeland Security Department, said they could use well-established smuggling routes and
drug profits to bring people or even weapons of mass destruction to the U.S. "The presence of these
people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the United States," said
Allen, a veteran CIA analyst. "The threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them."
-- bioweapons impact
Border smuggling enables bioweapons use
Timmerman ’10 (Ken Timmerman, Newsmax correspondent, “FBI Director Mueller: Al-Qaida Still
Wants Nuclear Bomb,” 3/18/2010, http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/mueller-fbi-alqaidanuclear/2010/03/18/id/353169)
FBI Director Robert Mueller warned Congress on Wednesday of ongoing al-Qaida efforts to acquire
weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States. “Al-Qaida remains committed to its goal of
conducting attacks inside the United States,” Mueller told a House appropriations subcommittee. “Further, al-Qaida’s
continued efforts to access chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material pose a serious threat to
the United States.” To accomplish its goals of new attacks on the American homeland, al-Qaida “seeks to infiltrate
overseas operatives who have no known nexus to terrorism into the United States using both legal and
illegal methods of entry,” Mueller said. In February, Sheikh Abdullah al-Nasifi, a known al-Qaida recruiter in
Kuwait, boasted on al Jazeera television that Mexico’s border with the United States was
the ideal infiltration point for terrorists seeking to attack America . “Four pounds of anthrax – in
a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill
330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there ,” al-Nasifi said.
Extinction
Steinbruner 97 – Brookings senior fellow and chair in international
security
(John D. Steinbruner, Brookings senior fellow and chair in international security, vice chair of the
committee on international security and arms control of the National Academy of Sciences, Winter 1997,
Foreign Policy, “Biological weapons: a plague upon all houses,” n109 p85(12), infotrac)
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction,
there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons
do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these
things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event.
Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a
reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of
the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military
planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled.
For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an
effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most
likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that
could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade
of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic
demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
**OFF-CASE**
Topicality
2AC T- EE
1. We meet- Bilateral guest worker programs are economic engagement
Edwards 1 (James, Adjunct Fellow with Hudson Institute, Help Mexico, but Don't Hurt U.S,
http://rs.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=839, 4/26/1)
Mexican and American officials met in Washington recently to begin laying the groundwork for a goodneighbor policy. However, Mexico's agenda includes a "guest worker" program and another amnesty for
illegal aliens. We should reject these as the wrong approach to improving our country's relations with Mexico.
Certainly, economic engagement with Mexico benefits both nations.
2. Counter interp- Economic engagement is trade, tech transfer,
investment, finance, tourism, labor and development cooperation
Acharya 8 (Gyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs - Govt of Nepal, 4/30, http://ifa.org.np/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/Economic-Diplomacy.pdf)
It is therefore a great pleasure that the Institute of Foreign Affairs has prepared a guideline ¶ on economic
diplomacy in order to provide a theoretical framework together with some¶ operational and practical
aspects of its promotion. This is indeed what is now required¶ for all our diplomatic missions. We have to move from the initial
stage to the comprehensive¶ stage of promoting economic diplomacy. As we move towards successive consolidation¶ of sustainable
peace in Nepal with a vision of creating a new and modern Nepal, there¶ is hardly any need to emphasize here that such a
transformation must have profound¶ economic change as its principal constituent element. Business as usual is not adequate¶ in
today's fast changing face of the globalized world. Competitiveness, innovativeness,¶ responsiveness and visionary outlook are the
defining features for the success in the¶ modern world. Considering Nepal's diverse level of integration with the outside world¶ and
the important role that the international community has been playing by providing¶ cooperation for Nepal's development endeavors,
such a far reaching transformation is¶ only possible with a proactive, articulate, coordinated and sustained campaign by all to¶
promote the large and comprehensive economic interests of the country. Trade, transfer¶ of technology, investment,
finance, tourism, labor and development cooperation are¶ natural areas of our economic
engagement with the rest of the world. Therefore, a¶ promotional and facilitatory role in a focused manner in these areas
would go a long way¶ towards further enhancing and consolidating our reach beyond the borders of Nepal.
OR
“Economic engagement” is increasing economic intersection and mutual
dependence
Çelik 11 – Arda Can Çelik, Master’s Degree in Politics and International Studies from Uppsala
University, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, p. 11
Introduction
Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves
with the target state. Engagement policies differ from other tools in Economic
Diplomacy. They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic
intersection, interconnectness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks
economic interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender stale to change the political behaviour of target
stale. However they cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools, they focus on long term strategic goals and they are not
restricted with short term policy changes.(Kahler&Kastner,2006) They can be unconditional and focus on creating greater economic
benefits for both parties. Economic engagement targets to seek deeper economic linkages via promoting institutionalized mutual
trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership to avoid possible
militarized and non militarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway lo perceive the international political atmosphere from the same
and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the engagement policies as follows
"It is a policy of deliberate expanding economic ties with and adversary in order to
change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relations ".(p523-abstact). It
is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as long term economic gains and more importantly; political
gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosecrance (1977) in a way that " the direct and positive
linkage of interests of stales where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction.
3. Prefer our interpretationA. Aff flex- they over limit- they take out every government to government
coop aff- key aff ground- neg conditionality and amounts of DA’s means
these affs are key to winning advantage ground
B. The aff is a pre-requisite to any other Mexican issue
WWICS 9 (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, THE UNITED STATES AND
MEXICO: Towards a Strategic Partnership,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/The%20U.S.%20and%20Mexico.%20Towards%20a%20
Strategic%20Partnership.pdf, January 2009)
To a large extent, all
of the other issues addressed in this report—security, economic integration, and migration—
come together at the border between the two countries. It is tempting to think that we can control the border by
limiting transit and commerce across it—the model perhaps best exemplified by the building of a fence on the U.S. side to control
immigration and the flow of drugs. However, unilateral approaches rarely work and they belie the actual bilateral
nature of border interactions. Even narcotics trafficking is the subject of bilateral flows: illegal drugs move to the north and
cash and arms to the south. It is impossible to develop an effective strategy for controlling these flows that does
not build on some form of binational cooperation to reduce flows in both directions. !e two federal
governments need to balance the legitimate right to assert their own sovereignty in stopping illegal traffic
across the border with binational strategies that follow a more strategic and targeted approach . Since it is
impossible to inspect all people and vehicles moving across the border, cross-border intelligence and carefully designed risk
management strategies, supported by the latest technologies available, are more likely to yield real results.
4. Reasonability- competing interpretations causes a race to the bottom,
arbitrarily limits out affs- justifies counter interp only our aff is topical
More T cards
Economic engagement is trade, tech transfer, investment, finance, tourism,
labor and development cooperation
Acharya 8 (Gyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs - Govt of Nepal, 4/30, http://ifa.org.np/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/Economic-Diplomacy.pdf)
It is therefore a great pleasure that the Institute of Foreign Affairs has prepared a guideline ¶ on economic
diplomacy in order to provide a theoretical framework together with some¶ operational and practical
aspects of its promotion. This is indeed what is now required¶ for all our diplomatic missions. We have to move from the initial
stage to the comprehensive¶ stage of promoting economic diplomacy. As we move towards successive consolidation¶ of sustainable
peace in Nepal with a vision of creating a new and modern Nepal, there¶ is hardly any need to emphasize here that such a
transformation must have profound¶ economic change as its principal constituent element. Business as usual is not adequate¶ in
today's fast changing face of the globalized world. Competitiveness, innovativeness,¶ responsiveness and visionary outlook are the
defining features for the success in the¶ modern world. Considering Nepal's diverse level of integration with the outside world¶ and
the important role that the international community has been playing by providing¶ cooperation for Nepal's development endeavors,
such a far reaching transformation is¶ only possible with a proactive, articulate, coordinated and sustained campaign by all to¶
promote the large and comprehensive economic interests of the country. Trade, transfer¶ of technology, investment,
finance, tourism, labor and development cooperation are¶ natural areas of our economic
engagement with the rest of the world. Therefore, a¶ promotional and facilitatory role in a focused manner in these areas
would go a long way¶ towards further enhancing and consolidating our reach beyond the borders of Nepal.
Bilateral guest worker programs are economic engagement
Edwards 1 (James, Adjunct Fellow with Hudson Institute, Help Mexico, but Don't Hurt U.S,
http://rs.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=839, 4/26/1)
Mexican and American officials met in Washington recently to begin laying the groundwork for a goodneighbor policy. However, Mexico's agenda includes a "guest worker" program and another amnesty for
illegal aliens. We should reject these as the wrong approach to improving our country's relations with Mexico.
Certainly, economic engagement with Mexico benefits both nations.
Economic integration with Mexico necessitates bilateral action on
migration
WWICS 9 (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, THE UNITED STATES AND
MEXICO: Towards a Strategic Partnership,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/The%20U.S.%20and%20Mexico.%20Towards%20a%20
Strategic%20Partnership.pdf, January 2009)
To a large extent, all
of the other issues addressed in this report—security, economic integration, and migration—
come together at the border between the two countries. It is tempting to think that we can control the border by
limiting transit and commerce across it—the model perhaps best exemplified by the building of a fence on the U.S. side to control
immigration and the flow of drugs. However, unilateral approaches rarely work and they belie the actual bilateral
nature of border interactions. Even narcotics trafficking is the subject of bilateral flows: illegal drugs move to the north and
cash and arms to the south. It is impossible to develop an effective strategy for controlling these flows that does
not build on some form of binational cooperation to reduce flows in both directions. !e two federal
governments need to balance the legitimate right to assert their own sovereignty in stopping illegal traffic
across the border with binational strategies that follow a more strategic and targeted approach . Since it is
impossible to inspect all people and vehicles moving across the border, cross-border intelligence and carefully designed risk
management strategies, supported by the latest technologies available, are more likely to yield real results.
Bilateral policy initiatives are economic engagement
Akhtar et al 13 (Shayerah Ilias Akhtar, Coordinator Specialist in International Trade and Finance for
the CRS, Mary Jane Bolle Specialist in International Trade and Finance for the CRS, Rebecca M. Nelson
Analyst in International Trade and Finance for the CRS, U.S. Trade and Investment in the Middle East
and North Africa: Overview and Issues for Congress, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42153.pdf,
3/4/13)
Elements of this network of trade agreements and policy initiatives serve as additional components of U.S.
economic engagement with the MENA. For instance, in support of Tunisia’s political transition, in October 2011,
the United States and Tunisia “re-launched” talks under the TIFA, originally established in 2002.43 In March 2012,
they met under the bilateral TIFA Council to explore options for bolstering bilateral and intra-regional trade
and investment ties.44 The United States also seeks to enforce U.S. rights under existing trade and investment agreements with
MENA countries.
Disads
2AC Robotics DA
No reason ag is key—their evidence doesn’t isolate a causal relationship
between the plan and robotics in other sectors
Robotic innovation in manufacturing high now—ag robotics not key—their
evidence says one development spills over which means the status quo is
sufficient to spill over
Knight 12 – Will Knight is the online editor of MIT Tech Review. (“This Robot Could Transform Manufacturing”, September
18, 2012, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429248/this-robot-could-transform-manufacturing/, Callahan)
About two months ago, a new employee arrived on the production line at Vanguard Plastics in Southington,
Connecticut, a town that was once a hub of U.S. manufacturing but saw many of its factories disappear in the 1960s. The small
manufacturer’s new worker, Baxter, is six feet tall, 300 pounds, and a robot. For a hulking machine, Baxter is remarkably
expressive. A pair of eyes on the screen that serves as a face stare down as the robot picks up plastic components, look concerned
when it makes a mistake, and direct its glance at its next task when one is finished. It’s cute. But the real point of these
expressions is that they let workers nearby know instantly if Baxter is performing appropriately, and they
provide clues to what it is about to do next. Even more amazing, when Baxter is done with one task, a fellow
worker can simply show the robot how to start another. “Almost anyone, literally, can in very short order be shown
how to program it,” says Chris Budnick, president of Vanguard Plastics. “It’s a matter of a couple of minutes.” Baxter is the first
of a new generation of smarter, more adaptive industrial robots. Conventional industrial robots are
expensive to program, incapable of handling even small deviations in their environment, and so
dangerous that they have to be physically separated from human workers by cages . So even as robotics have
become commonplace in the automotive and pharmaceutical industries, they remain impractical in many other types of
manufacturing. Baxter, however, can be programmed more easily than a Tivo and can deftly respond to a
toppled-over part or shifted table. And it is so safe that Baxter’s developer, Rethink Robotics, which loaned Baxter to
Vanguard Plastics, believes it can work seamlessly alongside its human coworkers. Baxter’s talents could, for
the first time, bring the benefits of robotics and automation to areas of work where it never made sense
before. This might mean lost jobs for an already struggling low-skill workforce. But it could also help the United
States compete in the global manufacturing market against countries that offer low-wage labor. The
amount of manufacturing in the United States has declined dramatically over the last few decades, in part
because workers in other parts of the world will perform simple and menial jobs for far less. But robots like
Baxter could wipe out that advantage by taking over such tasks, making it once again possible for many
industries to competitively manufacture their products in the United States and other developed countries.
Obviously the first advantage is an impact turn to this—robotic agriculture
crowds out small farms and is unsustainable—that’s Ikeda
No impact to primacy
Fettweis 11 Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint?
Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO
there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of
U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite
may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the
United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990 .51 To internationalists,
It is perhaps worth noting that
defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American
military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world
if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm
against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The
verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its
forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States
military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced
to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no
regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished . The
peace.”52 On the other hand,
rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies
The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut
its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis
were no less safe.
should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall
U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead
U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected.
Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on
its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific
trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative
for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand
strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments
can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the
maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S.
spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had
reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been
. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist
strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands,
the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States
suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest
of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think
otherwise base their view on faith alone.
fulfilled
Innovation inevitable
Wadhwa 12 – Vivek leads the academic team at Singularity University, is a fellow at the Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock Center
for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research
Commercialization at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University, and distinguished visiting scholar at Halle Institute of
Global Learning, Emory University. (“Why I Believe That This Will Be The Most Innovative Decade In History”, Forbes, 6/25/2012,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/06/25/most-innovative-decade-in-history/, Callahan)
Most people in the world have been affected by the advances in computing and mobile technologies. In a
short 15 years, the Internet has changed the way we work, shop, communicate, and think . Knowledge, which
used to be available only to the elite classes through books such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, is today abundant and free. All of
this happened because computing power is growing exponentially. The technology industry knows this growth
as Moore’s Law. The advances are happening not only in computing but also in fields such as genetics, AI, robotics, and
medicine. For example, in 2000, scientists at a private company called Celera announced that it had raced
ahead of the U.S. government–led international effort decoding the DNA of a human being. Using the
latest sequencing technology as well as the data available from the Human Genome Project, Celera
scientists had created a working draft of the genome. It took decades and cost billions to reach this
milestone. The price of genome sequencing is dropping at double the rate of Moore’s Law . Today, it is possible
to decode your DNA for a few thousand dollars. With the price falling at this rate, a full genome sequence will cost less than $100
within five years. Genome data will readily be available for millions, perhaps billions, of people. We will be able to discover the
correlations between disease and DNA and to prescribe personalized medications—tailored to an individual’s DNA. This will create a
revolution in medicine. We can now “write” DNA. Advances in “synthetic biology” are allowing researchers, and even high-school
students, to create new organisms and synthetic life forms. Entrepreneurs have developed software tools to “design” and “compile”
DNA. There are startups that offer DNA synthesis and assembly as a service. DNA “printing” is priced by the number of base pairs to
be assembled (the chemical “bits” that make up a gene). Today’s cost is about 30 cents per base pair, and prices are falling
exponentially. Within a few years, it could cost a hundredth of this amount. Eventually, like laser printers, DNA printers will be
inexpensive home devices. It isn’t just DNA that we can print. In an emerging field called digital manufacturing, 3D
printers enable the production of physical mechanical devices, medical implants, jewelry, and even
clothing. These printers use something like a toothpaste tube of plastic or other material held vertically in an X-Y plotter that
squirts out thin layers of tiny dots of material that build up, layer by layer, to produce a 3D replica of the computer-generated design.
The cheapest 3D printers, which print rudimentary objects, currently sell for between $500 and $1000.
Soon, we will have printers for this price that can print toys and household goods . Within this decade, we will
see 3D printers doing the small-scale production of previously labor-intensive crafts and goods. In the
next decade, we can expect local manufacture of the majority of goods; 3D printing of buildings and
electronics; and the rise of a creative class empowered by digital making. Nanotechnology is also rapidly
advancing. Engineers and scientists are developing many new types of materials such as carbon
nanotubes, ceramic-matrix nanocomposites (and their metal-matrix and polymer-matrix equivalents), and new
carbon fibers. These new materials enable designers to create products that are stronger, lighter, more
energy efficient, and more durable than anything that exists today . There are also major advances
happening in Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (or MEMS), which make it possible to build inexpensive
gyros; accelerometers; and temperature, current/magnetic fields, pressure, chemical, and DNA sensors.
Imagine iPhone cases that act like medical assistants and detect disease; smart pills that we swallow and that monitor our internals;
and tattooed body sensors that monitor heart, brain, and body activity. And then there is Artificial Intelligence, which
has advanced to the point at which computers can defeat humans on the TV show Jeopardy, perform
medical diagnosis, and drive autonomous cars. I can go on and on and on, but the bottom line is that we are
innovating at an unprecedented rate. In this and the next decade, we will begin to make energy and food abundant,
inexpensively purify and sanitize water from any source, cure disease, and educate the world’s masses. The best part: it isn’t
governments that will lead this charge; it will be the world’s entrepreneurs.
Regulations are an alt cause to manufacturing
Wingfield 12 – Brian Wingfield is a writer for Bloomberg News. (“Rules Reduce U.S. Manufacturing by $500 Billion:
Study”, August 21, 2012, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-21/rules-reduce-u-dot-s-dot-manufacturing-by-500billion-study, Callahan)
Regulations on U.S. manufacturing may reduce output by as much as $500 billion this year , according to an
industry-sponsored study that cast doubts on President Barack Obama’s efforts to trim red tape in the federal government. The
Obama administration has established an average of 72 regulations on manufacturers annually, an increase
from the 45 per year imposed under President George W. Bush, according to the study, commissioned by the Manufacturers Alliance
for Productivity and Innovation, based in Arlington, Virginia. “It is imperative that the pace of new regulations be
controlled and the cumulative burden of existing regulations be reduced, ” said the study, conducted by NERA
Economic Consulting. With job creation a central theme in the U.S. presidential race, the health of manufacturing companies is of
importance to both Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers have said federal regulations hinder economic
growth. During remarks in Windham, New Hampshire on Aug. 18, Obama said his administration has “created 4.5 million new
jobs, half a million in manufacturing.” Romney is scheduled to visit LeClaire Manufacturing Co., a maker of aluminum casings, in
Bettendorf, Iowa, tomorrow. Major Regulations Major regulations -- a category of rule where compliance costs are estimated at
more than $100 million -- reduce economic output by $200 billion to $500 billion in 2010 dollars, according to
the study, which examined data from the White House Office of Management and Budget during the last
three decades. Exports this year may be 6.5 percent to 17 percent lower, it said.
1AR Robotics/Innovation High
Innovation in robotics is high—a new robot called Baxter is hitting the
factories that can interpret complex situations and do intense tasks that
previously were reserved for people—that solves manufacturing
competitiveness because it provides cheap labor and makes processes more
efficient—their 1NC Christensen evidence says small innovations spill over
which means Baxter is sufficient to solve
They also don’t have ANY evidence that agriculture is necessary to overall
innovation in robotics—that means you should have a very high threshold
for “ag key” warrants
Innovation is increasing and inevitable
Singer 12 – Peter W. Singer is the director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and a senior fellow in the
Foreign Policy program at Brookings. Singer’s research focuses on three core issues: the future of war, current U.S. defense needs
and future priorities, and the future of the U.S. defense system. (“The Robotics Revolution”, December 11, 2012,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/12/11-robotics-military-singer, Callahan)
While many are surprised by the existing use of robotics, the pace of change won’t stop. We may have thousands now,
but as one three-star U.S. Air Force general noted in my book Wired for War, very soon it will be “tens of thousands.” But the
numbers matter in another way. It won’t be tens of thousands of today’s robots, but tens of thousands of
tomorrow’s robots, with far different capabilities. One of the laws in action when it comes to technology is
Moore’s Law, that the computing power that can fit on a microchip doubles just under every two years or
so. It has become an encapsulation of broader exponential trends in technology that have occurred
through history, with technology constantly doubling upon itself in everything from power to storage to
broader innovation patterns. If Moore’s Law holds true over the next 25 years, the way it has held true
over the last 40 years, then our chips, our computers, and, yes, our robots will be as much as a billion
times more powerful than today. But Moore’s Law is not a law of physics. It doesn’t have to hold true. What if our
technology moves at a pace just 1/1000th slower than it has historically? In this slowed-down scenario, we’d only see a mere
1,000,000 times the change. The bottom line is that what was once only fodder for science-fiction conventions like Comic-Con is
now being talked about seriously in places like the Pentagon. A robotics revolution is at hand. I should be clear here.
The robot revolution happening is not the Robopocalypse that Steven Spielberg is preparing to film. It is not the type where you need
to worry about the former governor of California showing up at your door, à la The Terminator. Instead, every so often, a technology
comes along that changes the rules of the game. These technologies – be they fire, the printing press, gunpowder, the steam
engine, the computer, etc. – are rare, but truly consequential . The key to what makes a revolutionary technology is not
merely its new capabilities, but its questions. Truly revolutionary technologies force us to ask new questions about what is possible
that wasn’t possible a generation before. But they also force us to relook at what is proper. They raise issues of right and wrong that
we didn’t have to wrestle with before. The historical comparisons that people make to the robotics revolution illustrate this. When I
conducted interviews for my book, I asked people to give historical parallels to where they think we stand now with robotics. As I
noted earlier with the comparison to the “horseless carriage,” many of them, especially engineers, liken where we are now with
robotics to the advent of the automobile. Indeed, at this stage of the last century, Ford was selling fewer than 1,000 cars a year.
Within a decade, especially spurred on by the military proving ground of the First World War, it was selling a million a year. If the
horseless carriage is the parallel, think of the ripple effects that cars had on everything from our geopolitics to our law enforcement.
A group of people who were, at the time, desert nomads became crucial players in the global economy simply because they lived over
a sticky black substance previously considered more of a nuisance than anything else. The greater use of that same – now crucial –
resource has changed the global climate. The growing use of cars, in turn, led to new concepts that reshaped the landscape, whether
through highways and suburbia, or through new social notions. Others, such as Bill Gates, make a different comparison, to the
computer in 1980. Much like robots today, the computer back then was a big, bulky device for which we could only conceive a few
functions. Importantly, the military was the main spender on computers’ research and development and a key client driving the
marketplace, again comparable to the development of robots. But soon, computers changed. They got smaller. We figured out more
and more functions and applications that they could perform, both in war and in civilian life. And they proliferated. It soon got to the
point that we stopped thinking of most of them as “computers.” I drive a car with more than 100 computers in it. No
one calls it a “computerized car.” I have a number of computers in my kitchen. I call them things like
“microwave” or “coffee maker.” The same thing is happening with robotics – not just the changes in size
and proliferation, but also the reconceptualization. Indeed, if you buy a new car today, it will come
equipped with things like “parking assist” or “crash avoidance” technologies . These are kind ways of saying that
we stupid humans are not good at parallel parking and too often don’t look in our blind spots. So, the robotic systems in our car will
handle these things for us. But, again, just as the story of the automobile was more than just the shift from owning horse stables to
garages, so, too, was the computer about more than never having to remember long-division tables again. What were
important, again, were the ripple effects. The game-changing technology reshaped the modern information-rich economy,
allowing billions of dollars to be made and lost in nanoseconds. It led to new concepts of social relations and even privacy. I can now
“friend” someone in China I’ve never met. Of course, I may now be concerned about my niece social networking with people whom
she’s never met. It became a tool of law enforcement (imagine the TV show CSI without computers), but also led to new types of
crime (imagine explaining “identity theft” to J. Edgar Hoover). And it may even be leading to a new domain of war, so-called “cyberwar.” This comparison is a striking one because it illustrates how bureaucracies often have a hard time keeping up with
revolutionary change. For example, while computers were obviously important by then, the director of the FBI was so averse to
computers that he didn’t have one in his office and never used email, as late as 2001. Sound amazing? Well, the current U.S.
secretary of Homeland Security, the agency in charge of the civilian side of American cyber-security, doesn’t use email today in 2012.
The final comparison that is made is perhaps a darker one. It is to the work on the atomic bomb in the 1940s. Scientists, in
particular, talk about the field of robotics today in much the same way they talked about nuclear research back in the 1940s. If you
are a young engineer or computer scientist, you will find yourself drawn towards it. It is the cutting edge. It is where the excitement
is, and where the research money is. But many worry that their experience will turn out just like that of those amazing minds that
were drawn towards the Manhattan Project, like a moth to an atomic flame. They are concerned that the same mistakes could be
repeated – of creating something and only after the fact worrying about the consequences. Will robotics, too, be a genie we one day
wish we could put back in the bottle? The underlying point here is that too often in discussions of technology we focus on the widget.
We focus on how it works and its direct and obvious uses. But that is not what history cares about. The ripple effects are what make
that technology revolutionary. Indeed, with robotics, issues on the technical side may ultimately be much easier to resolve than
dilemmas that emerge from our human use of them. How Our Robots Are Changing The first key ripple effect with robotics
is the diversification of the field and expansion of the market itself. The first generations of aerial robots were much
like the manned systems they were replacing, even down to some of them having the cockpit where the pilot would sit looking like
it’d been painted over. Now we are seeing an explosion of new types, ranging in size, shape, and form . With no
human inside, they can stay in the air not just for hours, but for days, months, and even years, having wings
the length of a football field. Alternatively, they can be as small as an insect . And, of course, they need not be
modelled after our manned machines, but can instead take their design cues from nature, or even the bizarre. The other key change
is their gain in intelligence and autonomy. This is a whole new frontier for weapons development. Traditionally, we’ve compared
weapons based on their lethality, range, or speed. Think about the comparison between a Second World War B-17 bomber plane and
a B-24 bomber plane. The B-24 could be considered superior because it flew faster, further, and carried more bombs. The same
could be said in comparing the MQ-9 Reaper UAS with its earlier version, the MQ-1 Predator. The Reaper is better because it flies
faster and further and carries more bombs. But the Reaper is also something else, which we couldn’t say about previous generations
of weapons: It is smarter, and more autonomous. We are not yet in the world of The Terminator, where weapons make their own
decisions, but the Reaper can do things like take off and land on its own, fly mission waypoints on its own,
and carry sensors that make sense of what they are seeing, such as identifying a disruption in the dirt
from a mile overhead and recognizing it as something that we humans call a “footprint.” From these
changes comes a crucial opening up of the user base and the functionality of robotics . Much as you once could
only use a computer if you first learned a new language like “Basic,” so, too, could you once only use robotic systems if you were
highly trained. To fly an early version Predator drone, for instance, you had to be a rated pilot. Now, just as
my three-year-old can navigate his iPad without even knowing how to spell, so, too, can you fly some
drones with an iPhone app. This greater usability opens up the realm of possible users, lowering the costs
and spreading the technology even further. So, we are seeing the range of uses expand not just in the military, but also,
once proved on the military side, moving over to the civilian world. Take aerial surveillance with UAS. It’s gone from a military
activity to border security to police to environmental monitoring. Similarly, the notion of using a robotic helicopter to carry cargo to
austere locations was first tested out in Afghanistan, but is now being looked at by logging companies. A key step in moving
this forward in the U.S. will be the integration of unmanned aerial systems into the National Airspace
System (NAS) and expanded civilian use. Congress has recently set a deadline of 2015 for the Federal Aviation Authority to
figure out how to make this happen. While it is unclear if the FAA will meet that deadline, the step is coming, and with it, the next
ripple effect outwards in the market. Indeed, what the opening of the civilian airspace will do to robotics is akin to what the internet
did to desktop computing. The field was there before, but then it boomed like never before. For instance, if you are a maker of small
tactical surveillance drones in the U.S. right now, your client pool numbers effectively one: the U.S. military. But when the airspace
opens up, you will have as many as 21,000 new clients – all the state and local police agencies that either have expensive manned
aviation departments or can’t afford them. Beyond the obvious applications moved over from the military side, the real change
occurs when imagination and innovation cross with profit-seeking. This is where parallels to computer or
aviation history hold most, as the civilian side then starts to lead the way for the military. For instance, the
idea of moving freight via airplanes was not originally a military role. It started out in 1919 with civilians. Today, it’s both a major
military role (the U.S. military’s Air Mobility Command has some 134,000 members) and an industry that moves more than $10
trillion in global trade annually. And, yes, a number of airfreight firms are starting to explore drone air cargo delivery. If history is
any lesson, there are many more ways we don’t yet know of that robotics might be applied to other fields .
Who saw agriculture as a field to be computerized? And yet the application of computers has led to massive efficiency gains. So, too,
is agriculture appearing to be an area in which robotics will drive immense change, from the surveillance of the fields to the cropdusting to the picking and harvesting.
2AC Mech CP
Doesn’t solve the “mechanization bad” advantage…..
Farm labor is sustainable—Bickerton evidence indicates we provide a
steady stream of labor—we don’t need to win that we prevent all
mechanization, just that we sustain a sufficient number of small farms
Mechanization fails—can’t replace humans
Cevasco 13 – Suzanne is a law student at Seton Hall. (“Nation of Immigrants, Nation of Laws: Agriculture as the Achilles
Heel of Enforcement-Only Immigration Legislation”, 5/1/2013,
http://erepository.law.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&context=student_scholarship, Callahan)
To date, mechanization is an impractical substitute for human agricultural labor . Even where technology can be
effectively employed, human judgment and dexterity are necessary to ensure a complete harvest and thus
maximum profits.117 “A machine cannot easily mimic the judgment and dexterity of experienced
farmworkers, particularly when crops do not mature evenly, and workers must determine what can be
harvested during multiple passes through fields and orchards .”118 Individual crops present specific challenges:
strawberries, for example, can only be harvested by hand, as commercial mechanical harvesters are not currently
available.119 Although oranges for processing can be harvested mechanically, the necessary machinery costs
over a million dollars, a sum that is prohibitive for small farmers.120 Like strawberries, oranges for the fresh
market must be harvested by hand, because mechanical harvesters damage the fruit’s skin and make it
unmarketable.121 “Developing a viable mechanized harvesting system often depends on breakthroughs in three areas:
machinery, varieties, and agricultural practices.”122 Mechanization therefore cannot be instantly adopted as a
substitute for the millions of undocumented laborers who currently toil in the nation’s fields.
2AC Mexican Ptx DA
Alt causes and link turn
Farnsworth and Werz 12 – Michael Werz is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. (“The United
States and Mexico: The Path Forward”, November 30, 2012,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/11/30/46430/the-united-states-and-mexico-the-path-forward/)
Working together, the National Action Party executive and the Institutional Revolutionary Party-controlled
legislature have joined to give the incoming Peña Nieto government a strong tailwind toward economic
opening and greater competition, without having to pay the political cost that labor reform might otherwise have entailed. At
the same time, north of the border, President Barack Obama has spoken clearly of his desire for meaningful
immigration reform this year, which would provide another significant political and economic boost to the
new Mexican president. With labor reform out of the way, attention turns to the three policy fields that
Peña Nieto has promised to address, perhaps all at once: energy reform, tax reform, and Social Security
reform. Should he succeed in addressing these issues effectively, he will have restructured a significant part of Mexico’s economy,
preparing Mexico for an economic takeoff that could rival Asian economies. This effort brings risk as well as promise, since failing
with these fundamental reforms could throw Peña Nieto’s presidency into turmoil at its inception. Each of
these reforms individually would be enough to occupy the Presidential Palace Los Pinos for months and to soak up the political
capital of any president. Doing all of them together would be a political project more involved than any other since the Institutional
Revolutionary Party first restructured Mexico’s economy in the 1930s. Clearly, the political stakes are huge. A major
obstacle to reform could be the Institutional Revolutionary Party itself. Party discipline will largely ensure a
supportive if not compliant congressional delegation, but party bosses, governors, and individual congressional
representatives, among others, will likely seek to ensure that their political equities are protected in any
reform process. Peña Nieto’s challenge will be to keep them in line, using traditional tools of political coalition building without
stepping over the line into corruption. A number of younger, newly elected members of the Mexican Congress in the leftist Party of
the Democratic Revolution have indicated that the deepening of democratic reform is their main priority and that there might be
room for cooperation with President-Elect Peña Nieto should he push this agenda. The fate of the reform agenda will arguably be the
new president’s greatest and most immediate test. He faces a Mexican public that no longer tolerates the old ways of doing politics in
Mexico and is skeptical that the Institutional Revolutionary Party has truly changed. But equally importantly, the party has been out
of power for 12 years and its leaders now want and expect to receive the rewards that national power bestows. It will be a delicate
balancing act for Peña Nieto. But his inauguration also has implications for U.S.-Mexico relations, which will play out on both sides
of the border. The path forward Given this backdrop, the new Mexican president needs major political and policy
successes in 2013 to consolidate power within his own party and secure congressional majorities for an
ongoing economic reform process. Here, the United States has an important role to play: The two countries
are intertwined in a unique way and thus the political success of Enrique Peña Nieto will, at least in part,
be impacted by what happens north of the border. And the to-do list for the United States is extensive, but it is largely
focused on economic policy and immigration reform. Immigration reform is increasingly likely to dominate the domestic debate
once the fiscal cliff is resolved. President-Elect Peña Nieto made a strong endorsement of immigration reform at
his
Washington press conference with President Obama this week, stating that he fully supports President
Obama’s proposal. Even though a strong majority of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million
undocumented immigrants living in the country, it will remain a difficult legislative battle. And while aligning with a
popular U.S. president who will be viewed as fighting to legalize Mexican nationals makes obvious sense,
there is some risk that a failed legislative effort will trigger collateral damage to Peña Nieto’s
image in Mexico.
Engagement on immigration now
Felsenthal and Spetalnick 12 – Mark Felsenthal and Matt Spetalnick are writers for Reuters. (“Mexico's Pena
Nieto backs Obama immigration reform push”, November 27, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-usa-mexicoidUSBRE8AQ1CS20121127, Callahan)
(Reuters) - Mexican President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto on Tuesday backed President Barack Obama's planned push for
U.S. immigration reform, pledged cooperation on border security and promised efforts to reduce violence in his own country.
Three weeks after winning re-election, Obama held White House talks with Pena Nieto, who is due to take office
on Saturday, to begin forging a personal bond and discuss shared challenges that have sometimes created
fraught relations between their countries. Pena Nieto made clear that Mexicans were closely following Obama's
plan to tackle a major U.S. domestic issue - fixing America's immigration system. The porous, nearly
2,000-mile (3,200-km) U.S.-Mexican border is the No. 1 crossing point for illegal immigrants entering the
United States. Emboldened by strong support from Hispanic voters in the November 6 U.S. election, Obama said just days
later that he planned to move quickly in his second term to address an immigration overhaul, an
achievement that eluded him in his first term. "We fully support your proposals," Pena Nieto told
reporters as he began an Oval Office meeting with Obama. "We want to contribute, we really want to participate ....
in the betterment and the well-being of so many millions of people who live in your country." Obama spoke of
what he called a "very ambitious reform agenda" put forth by Pena Nieto, who takes power at a time when Mexico is bucking an
international economic downturn but is coping with widespread drug gang violence.
Overall economic engagement now
Shoichet 13 – Catherine is a reporter for CNN. (“U.S., Mexican presidents push deeper economic ties; security issues still
key”, May 2, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/americas/mexico-obama-visit, Callahan)
Speaking to reporters after his meeting with Obama on Thursday, Peña Nieto emphasized the importance of reducing violence,
and also the importance of Mexico's relationship with the United States extending beyond the drug war. "We
don't want to make this relationship targeted on one single issue," he said. "We want to place particular emphasis on the
potential in the economic relationship between Mexico and the United States ." To achieve that goal, Peña Nieto
said, the presidents agreed to create a new high-level group to discuss economic and trade
relations between the two nations. The group, which will include Cabinet ministers from both
countries and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, will have its first meeting this fall, Peña Nieto said. Imports and
exports between the United States and Mexico totaled nearly $500 billion last year , and before Obama's arrival
officials on both sides of the border said economic relations would be a focal point during the U.S. president's
visit. "When the economy in Mexico has grown, and people have opportunity, a lot of our problems are solved, or we have the
resources to solve them," Obama said Thursday. The emphasis on the economy Thursday was a significant shift , said
Jason Marczak, director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. "The conversations between Mexico
and the United States are changing," he told CNN en Español. Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech at the National
Anthropology Museum in Mexico City on Friday morning. In the afternoon, he will travel to Costa Rica, where he will meet President
Laura Chinchilla and other regional leaders.
2AC Ptx (link turns)
Farm lobby loves the plan
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
Opponents of the program were also up against a powerful interest group-the growers-who insisted there
was a labor shortage and demanded aid from the government.51 Long before the attack on Pearl Harbor,
southwestern growers claimed to be experiencing a labor shortage and complained to their representatives in
Congress.52 Initially, their complaints were deemed to be a "mere repetition of the age-old obsession of
all farmers for a surplus labor supply" to keep the costs of labor down. 53 However, the threat of declining
economic conditions soon con vinced Congress otherwise. 54
No backlash from the GOP- Hispanic base
Silva 13 (Mark, deputy managing editor for government news in Washington and editor of Political
Capital, Immigration Bill: Promise with a Prayer, http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-0516/immigration-bill-promise-with-a-prayer/, 5/16/13)
In November, Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, which helped him defeat Republican Mitt Romney.
The narrative of the immigration debate under way in Washington suggests that Republicans ultimately
will align with Democrats on a long-sought revision of U.S. law because it is in their political self-interest
to avert another drubbing. Yet will passage of an immigration bill repair the Republican Party’s torn relations with Latino
voters, following a campaign in which deportation of the undocumented drove the party’s primary contests? “It’s hard to say what
the dynamic would be — how it would change peoples’ thinking,” Rodriguez said. “We’re like everybody else out there,” he said,
suggesting that the public at large will thank Congress for taking action on what everyone knows is “a broken
immigration system” — and look askance at failure.
Mexican lobby loves the plan- they have congressional influence
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
More specifically, direct cooperation in the area of trade has generated interdependence between the United States and Mexico,
implying greater institutionalization and interaction in other areas. 155 New institutions and increased interaction can
facilitate future cooperation on immigration by enhancing rapport, creating opportunities for discussion, and establishing
mechanisms and models for bilateral negotiation and implementation. 156 In fact, the Binational Commission, used to advance
bilateral cooperation on NAFTA and other issues, now has a full working group on migration. 157 In 1995, this group created a joint
agenda for addressing Mexico's human rights concerns and U.S. law enforcement concerns. 158 They then established joint training
programs for border agents on both sides of the border and institutionalized contact between the Mexican consulates, Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), and border patrol officials. 159 Finally, the group completed various studies, including "a joint
analysis of the characteristics, causes, and effects of migration for both countries." 160 Furthermore, Mexico desires
cooperation on migration issues,161 and greater interdependence improves Mexico's ability to influence U.S. policymaking. As
one observer has noted, "NAFTA 'placed Mexico on the U.S. map on a national scale. "'162 After all, NAFTA
was really the first time Mexico actively and successfully influenced U.S. domestic politics. 163
Mexico would have had more leverage if it had directly linked immigration to NAFTA,I64 but the United States
continues to need Mexican cooperation in a variety of areas, such as border control. 165
Plan’s popular with the GOP
Bolton 9 (Alexander, staff writer at The Hill, Immigration is added atop heavy agenda,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/19970-immigration-is-added-atop-heavy-agenda, 6/4/9)
Reid added another challenge to the mix Thursday by saying he wants a guest-worker program included in the
legislation, a move that may win him some Republican votes and support from business groups but alienate
liberal Democrats and organized labor. Taking up a sweeping rewrite of
immigration laws this year is ambitious
because it is likely to occupy precious time in a year when the window for legislative action is shrinking.
The past two efforts took months to negotiate and weeks to debate on the Senate floor.
Unions love the plan
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
In fact, agricultural labor organizers in the United States today may even help to make a new program more
viable. As discussed above, effor ts to organize agricultural workers in the 1940s ended unsuccessfully. 180
However, in 1965, Cesar Chavez started the United Farm Workers Union (UFW), which has been successfully
improving the working conditions of farm laborers. 181 Although labor unions usually oppose liberalizing
employment immigration, the UFW is largely a Chicano organization that is likely to support a bilateral
program with Mexico. 182 The UFW itself might strengthen a new bilateral guest worker program by
monitoring and reporting on enforcement of proposed safeguards.
Plan doesn’t cost capital- spin
Martin and Teitelbaum, November-December 2001 (Philip - professor in the Agricultural and
Economic Resources Department at the University of California, Davis, and Michael - program director at
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, The mirage of mexican guest workers, Foreign Affairs, p. lexis)
Guest worker and legalization programs are also attractive to politicians in Washington because, in theory,
they offer a way to control illegal immigration without making tough and politically difficult choices. Such
programs are based on the assumption that the United States needs to bring in outside workers, since the
migrants who slip in illegally manage to find jobs anyway. So a guest worker policy is intended to bring
this illicit, unorganized mass migration under government control and put it to economic use by actively
importing temporary workers and defining their place in the economy . Past experience has shown, however, that
these guest workers often manage to escape the program's constraints and find ways to settle down. If they and their children
become legal permanent residents and eventually U.S. citizens, they are themselves likely to need substantial public and private
resources. Hence what is today in effect a special subsidy for farmers, meatpackers, and families that hire nannies can become a
large obligation financed by all Americans.
Agricultural action’s bipartisan
Altschuler 11 (Daniel, Copeland Fellow at Amherst College and a doctoral candidate in Politics at the
University of Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, Americas Quarterly, What Will Immigration
Reform Advocates Learn from DREAM’s Defeat?, 1/10/, http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/2089)
In his comment, Mr. Fitz mentioned another piece of legislation, AgJobs (The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and
Security Act), which was excluded from the final bill. This raises a second question: was DREAM on its own the optimal piecemeal
strategy? In early December, DREAM advocates became uncertain of the bill’s prospects in the House, and thus began entertaining
the possibility of adding AgJobs to secure passage. AgJobs would offer an earned path to legalization to undocumented farmworkers,
while reforming the H-2A program that oversees agricultural guest workers. Advocates considered adding AgJobs to DREAM
because the agricultural bill has enjoyed a firm agreement between labor and business (the growers’ lobby) and
reliable bi-partisan support from congressional members with rural constituencies. When labor (principally
the United Farm Workers, UFW) and business negotiated the initial AgJobs compromise in 2003-4, the bill
obtained 125 House co-sponsors and 63 Senate co-sponsors, including a majority of Senate Republicans.
Fast forward to December 2010, when Republican support was in short supply , and AgJobs again looked
attractive. In a December 6 memo to the House Democratic leadership, Ali Noorani, the Executive Director of the National
Immigration Forum and RIFA’s chairman, argued: “Support for these measures is additive; DREAM is especially appealing to more
progressive and urban members, and AgJOBS addresses an urgent need in the local rural economies of scores of more moderate
members. Both bills have a history of bipartisanship, and together, AgJOBS and DREAM hold the promise of bringing the moderate
Democrat and Republican votes necessary to win.”
2AC CIR
1. Case outweighs—
2. (INSERT UNIQUENESS)
3. Not intrinsic- a logical policymaker can pass the plan and CIR
4. The aff is key to effective CIR
Nowrasteh 13 (Alex, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, Guest Workers Key to Reform,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/guest-workers-key-reform, 3/5/13)
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.
5. Fiat slves the link- policymakers won’t backlash against something they
just passed
6. Farm lobby loves the plan
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
Opponents of the program were also up against a powerful interest group-the growers-who insisted there
was a labor shortage and demanded aid from the government.51 Long before the attack on Pearl Harbor,
southwestern growers claimed to be experiencing a labor shortage and complained to their representatives in
Congress.52 Initially, their complaints were deemed to be a "mere repetition of the age-old obsession of
all farmers for a surplus labor supply" to keep the costs of labor down. 53 However, the threat of declining
economic conditions soon con vinced Congress otherwise. 54
Farm lobby key to agenda
Philpott 11 (Tom, food and ag correspondent for Mother Jones, Matt Yglesias Just Doesn't Get the Farm
Lobby, http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/matt-yglesias-large-corporations-farmlobby, 10/12/11)
But Yglesias' farm lobby example doesn't help his argument—at all. When he writes, "agriculture
has a lot of political
clout," he clearly is referring to farmers, or what's commonly referred to as the "farm lobby." Problem is,
the lobby's power stems directly from its association with the highly consolidated agribusiness sector—to the degree
that you might call it an agribusiness front. Consider the American Farm Bureau Federation, the self-described
"Voice of Agriculture" and the public face of the farm lobby. The Farm Bureau claims it is "governed by and
representing farm and ranch families." It holds strong opinions on everything from free-trade pacts (pro) to the
the extension of the Clean Water and Air acts to farms (anti) to energy policy (pro drilling, pro ethanol) to regulations on use of
agrichemicals (anti) to climate-change legislation (anti). It spends between $2 million and $8 million per year
lobbying for that agenda in DC, and is a major player in Congress' twice-per-decade battles over the Farm
Bill. So this is just a group of politically empowered farmers flexing their muscles, right? No, not really. A 2010 Food
& Water Watch report takes a hard look at the group's structure. Far from being a federation of farmers looking out for their
interests, the Farm Bureau is actually a sprawling, complex multibillion-dollar nonprofit with a focus on selling
insurance—and not just to farmers or even rural residents. From the report: The Farm Bureau’s immense finances drive
its political power. With its nearly 3,000 affiliated state and county-level non-profit farm bureaus, the
combined organization maintains billions of dollars in assets, making it among the most monied nonprofit organizations in the United States.
6. No backlash from the GOP- Hispanic base
Silva 13 (Mark, deputy managing editor for government news in Washington and editor of Political
Capital, Immigration Bill: Promise with a Prayer, http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-0516/immigration-bill-promise-with-a-prayer/, 5/16/13)
In November, Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, which helped him defeat Republican Mitt Romney.
The narrative of the immigration debate under way in Washington suggests that Republicans ultimately
will align with Democrats on a long-sought revision of U.S. law because it is in their political self-interest
to avert another drubbing. Yet will passage of an immigration bill repair the Republican Party’s torn relations with Latino
voters, following a campaign in which deportation of the undocumented drove the party’s primary contests? “It’s hard to say what
the dynamic would be — how it would change peoples’ thinking,” Rodriguez said. “We’re like everybody else out there,” he said,
suggesting that the public at large will thank Congress for taking action on what everyone knows is “a broken
immigration system” — and look askance at failure.
7. Winner’s win
Hirsh 2/7 Michael, chief correspondent for National Journal; citing Ornstein, a political scientist and
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Bensel, gov’t prof at Cornell, "There's No Such Thing as
Political Capital", 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital20130207
But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood
can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital
masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you
try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on
Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term
goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such
as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. ¶ Some political scientists who
study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty
concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can
refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes
it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the
calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the
calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an
issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he
gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think
he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”
8. Vote no- debate is a round in congress, even if you vote neg obama still
loses capital because the 1AC was presented
9. Low PC inevitable and not key
Schier 11 Steven E. Schier is the Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon professor of political science at
Carleton College, The contemporary presidency: the presidential authority problem and the political
power trap. Presidential Studies Quarterly December 1, 2011 lexis
Implications of the Evidence¶ The evidence presented here depicts a decline in presidential political capital
after 1965. Since that time, presidents have had lower job approval, fewer fellow partisans and less
voting support in Congress, less approval of their party, and have usually encountered an increasingly adverse public
policy mood as they governed.¶ Specifically, average job approval dropped. Net job approval plummeted, reflecting greater polarization about presidential
performance.The proportion of fellow partisans in the public dropped and became less volatile. Congressional voting support became lower and varied more. The number
of fellow partisans in the House and Senate fell and became less volatile. Public issue mood usually moved against presidents as they governed. All of these measures, with
the exception of public mood, correlate positively with each other, suggesting they are part of a broader phenomenon.¶ That "phenomenon" is political authority. The
decline in politicalcapital has produced great difficulties for presidential political authority in recent decades. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when
job approval, congressional support, and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times past.¶ Because of the uncertainties of political authority,
recent presidents have adopted a governing style that is personalized, preemptive,and, at times, isolated. Given the entrenched autonomy of other elite actors and the
impermanence of public opinion, presidents have had to "sell themselves" in order to sell their governance. Samuel Kernell (1997) first highlighted the presidential
proclivity to "go public"in the 1980s as a response to these conditions. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able to overcome institutional
resistance to their policy agendas. Brandice Canes-Wrone (2001) discovered that presidents tend to help themselves with public opinion by highlighting issues the public
Despite shrinking political
capital , presidents at times have effectively pursued such strategies, particularly since 1995.
Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure
important policy changes --in Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Bush's tax cuts
and education reform--that at the time received popular approval. This may explain the slight recovery in some presidential political capital measures since
supports and that boosts their congressional success--an effective strategy when political capital is questionable.¶
1993. Clinton accomplished much with a GOPCongress, and Bush's first term included strong support from a Congress ruled by friendly Republican majorities. David
Mayhew finds that from 1995 to 2004, both highly important and important policy changeswere passed by Congress into law at higher rates than during the 1947-1994
A trend of declining political capital thus does not preclude significant policy change ,
Short-term legislative
strategies can win policy success for a president but do not serve as an antidote to declining
political capital over time, as the final years of both the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate.
period. (2)
but a record of major policy accomplishment has not reversed the decline in presidential political capital in recent years, either.
10. (INSERT IMPACT DEFENSE)
Farm lobby k/t agenda
Farm lobby determines agenda- junkets, grass-roots, public sympathy, political structure
Dorning and Martin 6 (Mike Dorning and Andrew Martin, staff writers at the Chicago Tribune, Farm
lobby's power has deep roots,
http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby'spowerhasdeeproots.htm, 6/4/6)
Combest is far from the only person to pass through the capital's revolving farm door. The House Agriculture Committee's former
top-ranking Democrat, Charles Stenholm of Texas, lobbies on behalf of agriculture interests too. In all, at least 19
congressional aides who worked on the 2002 farm bill have taken jobs as agriculture lobbyists or with
commodity groups or farm organizations. What's more, members of Congress and staff can count on
being treated to junkets: Big Sugar plays host at mountain resorts, and the cotton industry in Las Vegas
and New Orleans. Although the health-care industry and trial lawyers spend far more than Big Farm to influence Washington,
the farm lobby is distinguished by a well-organized grass-roots network of organizations that extends
throughout rural America. In the capital, farmers are represented by a core group of long-serving lobbyists
who regularly band together, setting aside divergent interests to keep the dollars flowing to farm
programs. And this lobby can draw on public sympathy for a stereotype of a quaint family farm. The
political structure also works in its favor. The Senate's equal representation gives voters in sparsely
populated rural states extra political weight. And it doesn't hurt that the first presidential caucus is held in
Iowa, where candidates ritually pay homage to the myth of the family farm.
2AC Brain drain DA
Returning immigrants create a brain GAIN effect
Reinhold and Thom 12 (Steffen Reinhold, University of Mannheim, and Kevin Thom, New York
University. “Migration Experience and Earnings in the Mexican Labor Market” May 17, 2012.
https://files.nyu.edu/kt44/public/MigExperienceAndEarnings.pdf) VP
There is a large literature on the determinants and effects of migration, and Mexican mi-¶ gration in particular. Hanson (2006)
offers a comprehensive survey of the work on Mexico.¶ Much of this literature addresses the selection of migrants observed in
the United States.¶ While our empirical work does not directly engage this issue, later we will place our results¶ in the context of that
literature (see the Appendix). Rather, here we restrict our attention¶ to the theoretical and empirical work on return migration
and skill upgrading.¶ A number of studies, including Borjas and Bratsberg (1996), Dustmann and Weiss¶ (2007), and Dustmann
et al. (2011), develop theoretical models of temporary migration¶ in which migrants acquire additional skills while
working abroad that are rewarded in the¶ home country. If the return to such skill is sufficiently high, then this
mechanism provides¶ an incentive for individuals to return home. As Domingues Dos Santos and Postel-Vinay¶ (2003)
argue, this effect of temporary migration may help to expand a source country's ¶ human capital stock and
increase its rate of economic growth. Mayr and Peri (2009) furtherlink this mechanism to the literature on the “brain
gain" by developing a model of return¶ migration, skill upgrading, and endogenous schooling to analyze the conditions
under which¶ temporary migration opportunities can raise the education level of a sending country. ¶ While
there is an existing empirical literature on temporary migration and skill upgrad-¶ ing, it tends to focus on the European experience.
De Coulon and Piracha (2005) analyze¶ data from Albanian workers and find that the return migrants in their sample are negatively¶
selected on the basis of pre-migration earnings, but experience a wage premium as a result¶ of temporary migration. Using
Hungarian data, Co et al. (2000) conclude that time spent¶ abroad improves the labor market performance of
female migrants, but not the performance¶ of male migrants. Barrett and O'Connell (2001) and Barrett and Goggin (2010) also
find¶ a premium for return migrants in Ireland.
Plan solves Mexican brain drain
MacNeil 7 (Melissa, magna cum laude as a Distinguished Honors Scholar with a Bachelor of Arts
degree in International Studies and Spanish and Board of Regents Scholar at the University of North
Texas, Discussion of the Validity of a Guest Worker Program in the United States,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc86950/m2/1/high_res_d/macneil-melissa.pdf, no date
given but research for the paper occurred in May 2007)
A comprehensive program including elements to reduce “brain drain” and promoting increased
development in emigration areas would be the option most viable and likely for success in the twenty-first
century. Abell, Kuptsch, and Martin (2006) outline three policies that could prevent the continued rise in inequalities that result
from professional migration to industrialized nations. First, it would be important for the host country to allow the
country of origin to retain links to “stored brain power” abroad by allowing migrants to share techniques
and information with the government or other professionals in their country of origin. Second, receiving
countries should provide “human capital replenishment” similar to the natural resource replenishment
provided to countries where industrialized nations gather significant amounts of natural resources such as
timber. Finally, an important component of human capital replenishment is the reexamination of content
and funding of the education in the country of origin. Primary and secondary education are not the central
focus of many government spending programs, which direct more funds to institutions of higher
education, but funding the foundation of education in the primary and secondary schools is important for
developing an educated population base. Providing specialized on-the-job training is also an important component of
education because it allows for the creation of jobs requiring specialized skills in the country of origin as well
as making skills less transferable over borders, thus reducing emigration (Abell et al., 2006).
Brain Drain is about skilled workers, but the plan brings in unskilled
workers
Bhagwati 99 (Jagdish Natwarlal Bhagwati, an American economist and professor of economics and
law at Columbia University. “Globalization: The Question of ‘Appropriate Governance’” 1999.
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:123621/CONTENT/Ta
egu.pdf) VP
The largest flows have been of legal migrants, however. These comprise both skilled workers, the¶ subject of the
wellknown and recurrent debates about the “brain drain”; and unskilled workers, who¶ have often come under
temporary gastarbeiter (European) or bracero (US) programs but have¶ resulted frequently into “stay on” immigration.
CPs
2AC Conditions CP
1. Condition CPs are bad
a. kills plan focus – no longer can debate the merits of the 1ac- steals aff
ground
b. Infinitely regressive—infinite number of conditions negative can put on
affirmative plan—can’t find offense against every possible one.
Voter for fairness
Counter interp- they get cp’s except those that have the potential to result in
the aff
2. CP fails- Nieto can’t hold up his end
Hennemuth 13 (Elizabeth, Project on International Peace and Security, Unintended
Consequences Considering Mexico’s Stability when Designing U.S. Immigration Reform,
http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/pips/2012-2013/hennemuth_e_brief.pdf, May 2013)
Mexicans distrust public institutions because of their corruption and ineffectiveness. Mexico is ranked
105th on Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perception Index.74 Lack of social trust undermines the Mexican
government’s reforms. This lack of confidence hinders Mexico’s development into a stable,
economically viable democracy. Corrupt politics undermining institutional reform. Under
the decades-long rule of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), many Mexican politicians accepted
bribes from drug cartels in exchange for distribution rights, market access, and
protection.75 Charting a new course, President Peña Nieto has asserted that the new PRI
will neither cut deals with drug traffickers, nor continue President Calderón’s tactics . 76
Moreover, President Peña Nieto has announced a series of reforms in labor, taxation, energy, and Social Security to improve
economic growth. 77 However, to
implement these reforms, President Peña Nieto would need
significant political capital that he may not have, as he only won 38 percent of the vote in
the 2012 presidential election.78
3. Perm do both
4. Mexico says no to the CP
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
Additionally, as World War II and the Korean War placed foreign policy in the national spotlight (thus enhancing Mexico's
bargaining position) the priority attached to hemispheric free trade by the United States has heightened the importance of U.S.Mexico relations for current U.S. policymakers. l66 The Mexican government can easily link coop eration
on immigration to Mexico's continued receptivity to trade friendliness . 167 After all, U.S.
hostility toward Mexican immigrants could turn Mexican voters against the United States.
168 Mexico's democratization makes it increasingly difficult for Mexican politicians to
ignore the populace's demands. In fact, with the recent electoral defeat of the PRI, the political party that controlled
Mexican politics for most of the twentieth century, partisan competition has opened up "political space for
anti-American positions." 169 The Mexican government can emphasize how a bilateral
approach to immigration policy could help defuse anti American sentiments, as well as any
accompanying anti-NAFTA backlash, by showing the Mexican people that the United States
recognizes the need to take the Mexican viewpoint into account. 170
5. Perm do the CP- cp’s have to be textually and functionally competitiveavoids plan plus cp’s that steal the aff and have a net benefit that is an
advantage to the CP instead of a DA to the plan
6. Certainty and immediacy is key to solve labor shortages
Farm Foundation 12 – The Farm Foundation is a non-partisan, non-lobbing agriculture think tank. (“The Future of
Foreign-Born Labor in U.S. Agriculture”, July 10, 2012, http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/1747FFBL%20Symposium%20Summary%20FINAL%20Sept%202012.pdf, Callahan)
Foreign-born workers are an important component of the hired farm workforce in the
United States. Yet many of these workers are unauthorized, which poses challenges for employers, workers, families, and host
communities. The Farm Foundation, NFP, and AGree hosted a symposium to increase understanding of the problems and
opportunities associated with foreign-born labor in U.S. agriculture; identify improved policies and programs; and provide a
foundation for continued conversations among key actors to collaborate in support of policy reforms. Attendees included producers,
farmworker advocates, and policymakers. This report offers a summary of the proceedings, as an initial step in a continuing
conversation. As part of the ground rules for meeting participants, this report does not identify the speakers or attribute comments
to any individual. Some of the key issues emerging from the symposium discussions include the
need to: • Create a guest worker program that balances the needs of farm employers for
short-term workers with the ability of workers to change employers. Admitting guest
workers and allowing those workers to change employers would help protect workers
from exploitation . For employers who hire workers year-round, a guest worker program that allows foreign workers to stay
in the United States for several years could benefit both. • Create a more reliable internal enforcement system, as well as humane
and efficient border control. • Work to find a “grand bargain” or compromise, in any solution
between labor, growers, and retailers coupled with political support from consumers
seeking a sustainable U.S. food system. Achieving a stable, legal workforce will require
reaching across divides and moving forward with both political and market solutions. With
comprehensive immigration reform unlikely in the near term, three incremental changes are most feasible: 1) providing an earnedimmigrant status for those who have worked in agriculture for several years; 2)
designing a more efficient guest
worker mechanism ; and 3) addressing the perverse incentives that complicate recruitment, remuneration, and retention
in the farm labor market. While symposium attendees were from very different backgrounds, they all shared a similar problem: U.S.
immigration policy.
The U.S. food system depends on immigrants more than any other sector in
the U.S. economy . Yet the immigration system is “broken” and unable to provide immigrant
farm workers and their employers a clear, reliable, and expedient process. Across the board—
from grower to laborer, business owner to union leader, and all political persuasions— symposium participants agreed on one thing:
it is time to set aside ideology and work together to find a way to build a system that ensures a stable and legal workforce.
Immigration Trends Farming has changed. No longer a small family farm where everyone pitched in,
today’s farms are more often complicated businesses, employing sometimes hundreds of
workers in a season. Where not long ago unpaid family members did 60% of farm work, 1 today 60% is handled by hired
labor. Responsible for most U.S. production, big farms also employ the bulk of the hired farm workers.
The largest farms in the United States (representing less than 0.5% of all farms) account for more than one-half of the hired labor
expenses. The majority of workers on these farms are foreign-born, largely from Mexico and
Central America, and more than one-half are undocumented. Although foreign-born
workers have long harvested fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops, use of immigrant
labor has spread to nearly every commodity in U.S. agriculture—particularly large-scale livestock
operations, which were not a focus of earlier immigration policy reforms. Immigration is the result of push-and-pull forces in the
United States and in source countries. Globalization, trade, economic crises, policies, and the beacon call of America as the land of
opportunity all combine to swell immigration. The most recent surge of immigrants began in the 1970s, when the foreign-born
population in the United States totaled approximately 10 million. By 2007, their numbers had quadrupled. Looked at another way,
the share of the U.S. population that was foreign-born in 1970 was 5%. Today it is 13%. Although a handful of states (California,
Arizona, Texas, and Florida) have long had significant populations of foreign-born workers, in recent decades, the immigrant
population has become more widely dispersed. As Brookings Institution scholar Audrey Singerreports, by 2000, nearly one-third of
U.S. immigrants resided outside states with long-established immigrant populations. Some states have seen their foreign-born
populations grow to more than double the national average. 2 Many—11.1 million—of these foreign-born workers lack formal
documentation or legal working status. Nearly one-half are couples with children; 4.5 million U.S.–born children are sons and
daughters of unauthorized immigrants. Most undocumented immigrants are from Mexico (55%), followed
by Central America. The flow of unauthorized immigrants slowed significantly with the onset of the Great Recession in 2007. As the
Pew Hispanic Center notes in an April 2012 report, “After four decades that brought 12 million current
immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico
to the United States has stopped and may have reversed.”3 Today, only 20% of the new arrivals to the
United States are unauthorized compared with 80% in prior years. Whether this reversal is temporary or permanent is yet to be
seen. However, the pressure to migrate from Mexico may be easing . The fertility rate in Mexico has declined
from seven children per woman in 1970 to 2.4 children today. 4 If the economic pressure eases and fewer migrate, the networks that
facilitate migration will shrink. Migrants to the United States often send word back home about where the work is to be found and
the working conditions in those jobs. Friends and family members then follow, creating tight networks of immigrant streams. A
U.S. grower at the symposium noted that most of his workers come from a single village in
Mexico. The mayor of the village, in fact, was proud to show off the improvements in his village that were made possible by the
money sent home from the workers on his farm. As these networks shrink, the flows may shrink with them. Immigration Policy and
U.S. Agriculture Today, approximately 2 million immigrants work in the fields, ranches, and
dairies that are the backbone of U.S. agriculture. Most of these workers are hired directly by employers or
through private labor contractors. The most common immigrant labor-contracting program at the
federal level is the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Program. Regarded as onerous by nearly
everyone at the symposium , this program was instituted in 1986. Currently, about 10% of the 1 million long-season
farm jobs are filled through the H-2A program.5 Employers must fill out several forms, navigate three
different federal agencies (Labor, Homeland Security, and State), and then handle the recruitment
themselves. Employers must certify that there are not sufficient U.S. workers “able, willing, and qualified” to do temporary or
seasonal work and that the presence of H-2A workers will not “adversely affect” the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers
similarly employed. In 2010, when employers were certified to fill 100,000 farm jobs, the government issued 64,400 H-2A visas to
guest workers, some of whom fill two jobs.6 The Agricultural Jobs Opportunity, Benefits, and Security bill (AgJOBS) is a proposal
for policy change that was worked out between farm employer and worker organizations over a decade ago.It begins with a “blue
card” that offers temporary legal immigrant status for those who have worked for at least two years on a U.S. farm. Blue-card holders
could become permanent residents if they continued to work in agriculture for three to five more years. AgJOBS also would make
employer-friendly changes to the H-2A program. Another policy, E-Verify, is a federal system that enables employers to
electronically verify the status of employees. Legislation introduced in 2011 sought to mandate its use by all U.S. employers. Growers
argue that if implemented, mandatory
E-Verify would be “ economically ruinous ,” according to the
without an improved guest-worker
program and a way to ensure a widespread source of agricultural labor will threaten the
agricultural system. 7 E-Verify, many in attendance argued, is a failed solution to a failed paper-based system. The Life of a
Washington Growers League President Mike Gempler, because EVerify
Farm Worker The typical immigrant farm worker is a young male, under age 35, with limited education and limited English skills.
Two-thirds of the crop workers, for example, have less than 10 years of school and two-thirds speak little or no English. Few are
newcomers to the United States, and roughly 80% have more than five years of farm work experience. 8 The farm worker is not
always a young single male, however. Many farmworkers also live in the United States with their spouse and children. Much hired
farm work (particularly in crop production) is short-term and workers frequently migrate between farms to meet shifting labor
demands. For some farm workers who migrate with the changing growing season, the journey may begin in early spring. These
workers operate in a system that is both as regular as the seasons, but as unpredictable as the weather. As U.S. border control has
become more intensive in recent years, many find it difficult or impossible to return to their home country so most have lived and
worked in the United States for many years. Laborers in fruit, vegetable, and nut production are often paid a piece rate so their
wages fluctuate with the volume of crop picked and the weather. A top cherry picker might pick 1,000 pounds a day, averaging $20
an hour. The slowest harvesters, on the other hand, might pick 350 pounds a day and earn less than $10 an hour, on average.
National surveys suggest that the majority of crop workers are paid an average hourly wage of just under $9.00 per hour in 20072009, and currently $10-12 an hour. Very few receive health insurance benefits. Since most farm workers work only part of the year,
their annual household incomes tend to be lower than the incomes of farm workers with year-round employment. The labor needs
are extremely diverse, from vegetables and fruit, to dairy, meatpacking, sheep shearing, or commodity crops like wheat and corn.
One symposium participant represented 34 different crops and 7,000 guest workers. Some work is low-skilled labor. Some
agricultural jobs use highly technical machinery. Other jobs can be dangerous, with exposure to heat, pesticides, and large animals.
Many workers migrate year after year, usually to the same farms, to do seasonal work. Some come with the goal of earning money to
send back home, and these workers may have no desire to stay permanently in the United States. Others hope to use farm labor as a
stepping-stone for their children to have a better life in the United States. A seasonal farm worker typically stays on the job for about
10 years, and children who are educated in the United States rarely follow their parents into the field. There are a few exceptions to
seasonal farm work. The dairy industry tends to hire workers for year-round jobs, sometimes with health care and other benefits.
Meatpacking also requires fulltime, year-round positions, employing about 486,000 workers. Although once anchored largely in
urban areas, meatpacking has moved many of its plants to rural towns where land is cheaper and they can build bigger plants. The
typical meatpacking plant today can employ 1,400 people on the floor. Wages have not kept up with inflation. Today, the average
wage for slaughtering and processing is $630 a week9 . This shift to rural areas can bring its own set of problems. An influx of
foreign-born workers can have a large impact on a small rural community, which can lead to tensions and can tax local services such
as schools and hospitals. The current immigration situation worries farm employers and farm
workers. As one participant noted, the “misery index” is high. The fear of deportation is high, and the
political climate can be toxic. Workers in Florida are afraid to migrate with the growing season to Georgia and
Alabama—states with some of the strongest E-Verify programs—because of fear of arrest and deportation. In some locales, workers
cannot get to work because they are unable to obtain drivers’ licenses owing to new laws. The lack of formal documentation makes
workers vulnerable to exploitation from unscrupulous employers, and labor advocates point to examples of unfair wage and working
conditions in some areas. At the same time, their illegal status and new punitive anti-immigration state
laws often discourage workers from seeking help from local government authorities . The
patchwork of social service programs in communities and statewide to support the needs of farm workers and their families is
struggling as well. Often underfunded and at the mercy of changing administrations, these programs may only meet the most urgent
needs. Further, the fear of deportation is driving many immigrants underground. Seeking services, they fear, will expose them to the
possibility of criminal charges. Some communities, however, are responding with innovative programs. A community in Napa
Valley, CA, has developed new options for farm worker housing. Workers pay $12 a day for a bed and three meals. An assessment on
growers covers nearly half the costs, with rents and fundraising covering the remainder. In another example, Jupiter, FL, created a
central day-labor employment center to eliminate daily solicitation of work on the streets and to protect workers from abuses
associated with informal employment arrangements. However, these programs are available only to documented workers in most
cases. Farm worker representatives and producers are willing to enter into a dialogue
because they both need and want a safe, stable workforce, and the current climate is
undermining that workforce. “If we don’t make changes,” one participant noted, “the status quo will remain, and it
does no one any good.” As worker representatives noted, with today’s global workforce, the United States
could lead by example and devise a humane, sensible immigration program for guest
workers. The Pressures Producers Face In addition to the farm worker perspective, the symposium heard from the growers and
producers. Their story is one of equal frustration. The farmers and ranchers at the symposium represented a cross-section of
agriculture, from fruit and vegetables in the San Joaquin Valley of California, to cherries and apples of Washington State, dairies and
meatpackers in the Midwest, sheep and cattle in the West, and citrus growers in the Southeast. Their stories, however, all
shared one thing: a broken immigration system that results in labor shortages . A blueberry
farmerin Michigan crosses his fingers that he will have the labor to pick his blueberries in the four-to-six-week harvest season. His
workforce has shifted from mostly African Americans to Latinos, from legal to what he assumes are not legal. A third-generation
dairy processor who buys milk and makes cheese said he can no longer afford to “bleed slowly” and keep his head down. “We have to
do something about this issue,” he argued. A
wheat farmer noted that if the United States is to continue
to be the breadbasket to the world, agriculture producers must figure out how to shore up
harvest crews while keeping expenses down . Commodity agriculture, producers stressed, must
remain a low-cost producer if it is to feed 9 billion people in the coming decades . In addition to
reported struggles with the H-2A program, the U.S. agricultural system also has several exceptional
qualities and unique labor market dynamics that set it apart from most businesses . As one
producer said, “we don’t make widgets.” All labor markets must recruit workers, compensate workers
for their labor, and then retain the workers. Agriculture does all three things differently
from a typical business—and this leads to some of the challenges in finding a secure and
stable workforce. Agricultural producers do not have steady production schedules or a predictable source of materials.
Often they need workers in bursts, and different crops have different demands. Further, there is
no centralized information system to find workers and negotiate fees. Many producers advertise for workers by asking current
workers to refer friends or relatives, or by place ads locally (even on their mailboxes). Others advertise in the back of trade
magazines. Still others travel to Mexico to recruit directly. Increasingly, they rely on intermediaries (usually private labor
contractors) to bring in crews. All of this uncertainty leaves farmers tossing and turning at night,
wondering if they will have enough workers. And worry they should. The losses are
substantial if the producer misses the critical window of opportunity for harvest. A
producer with a 90-acre cherry orchard was three days late to harvest and suffered a multimillion-dollarloss. An apple producer picked Gala apples a few days late because of labor shortages, costing him a
significant income loss.
7. Perm do the plan and the condition
2AC Reform CP
1. Doesn’t solveA. Remittances- cooperation is key to facilitate worker return and
prevention of settlement- that’s MacNeil and Duvall
B. Immigration- migration is influenced by policies of both countriesabsent coordination undocumented migrants always get in- that’s Bickerton
C. H-2A’s fail- no one uses them because of complexity and regulation,
numerical restrictions and cost of sponsoring- a new agreement is keythat’s Nowrasteh
D. Gov to gov coop is key to employer acceptance- bureaucracy
DuVall 2 (Lindsay, Honors Scholar Seminar Chicago-Kent School of Law, THE GUEST WORKER
PROGRAM Earned Legalization & Reform: The Best Solution,
http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic%20Programs/Honors%20Scholars/2002/LindsayDuVall-paper.pdf, Spring 2002)
In order to effectively propose and analyze reform, there must be a framework of criteria against which
the reform can be evaluated. In other words, the reform must consider the viewpoints of each interested party,
workers, employers, and the U.S. and Mexico. U.S. workers will want to know how the reform will affect their wages and the
quality of their jobs. They will want to see reform that protects them first and that only allows the program to
come into play when there is a real shortage of labor.[94] They will also want to see reform that prevents or at least
decreases illegal immigration so that their working conditions and wages do not deteriorate. Employers will want to know
how they will be affected in terms of increased costs and restrictions. They will want to know how much it
will cost them to hire guest workers and how strictly they will be regulated by the INS, the DOL, and other
agencies involved in the process. Employers are concerned that if the bureaucracy is restrictive it might be
more hassle than it is worth.
2. Perm do both- double solvency
3. Unilateral program links to brain drain
Ghosh 2K (Bimai Ghosh is Senior Consultant to the International Organization for Migration and the
Director of the international project on migration manage- ment: 'New International Regime for Orderly
Movements of People (NIROMP)'. A former senior director in the United Nations system and an
academic, he led several inter-agency missions on migration, refugees, and development-related issues in
different regions. Ghosh is the author of numerous reports and publications on international economic,
political, and human rights issues with a focus on migration, development, and economic globalization.
Recent publications include Huddled Masses and Uncertain Shores: Insights into Irregular Migration
(1998) and Gains from Global Linkages: Trade hi Services and Movements of Persons (1997), Managing
Migration,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZlZYbhC5LSMC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=%22unilateral%22+AN
D+%22guest+worker%22+AND+%22bilateral%22+AND+%22Mexico%22&source=bl&ots=vnTWOvZ9jf
&sig=MATlk8kbBaCi3XdZuur4kR_pAg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HMrZUevfKcbKqwHU0ICgCg&ved=0CIEBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=
%22unilateral%22%20AND%20%22guest%20worker%22%20AND%20%22bilateral%22%20AND%20%
22Mexico%22&f=false, 8/3/0)
The new guest worker programmes for agriculture being entertained by the US Congress remain primarily
unilateral in their approach. A limited role for the Mexican government is envisioned and no incentives
arc extended. Instead, it is proposed that a fairly large number of Mexican workers should be available for US agriculture, and
that their return be ensured by withdraw- ing funds from their pay packets payable only upon their return to Mexico. This
has
been attempted in other countries and in Mexico, with little success, and it is certain that many
Mexican workers will choose to forfeit the with- holdings for a chance to remain in the USA.
4. Perm do the CP
5. Government to government coop is key to maintaining the program
DuVall 2 (Lindsay, Honors Scholar Seminar Chicago-Kent School of Law, THE GUEST WORKER
PROGRAM Earned Legalization & Reform: The Best Solution,
http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic%20Programs/Honors%20Scholars/2002/LindsayDuVall-paper.pdf, Spring 2002)
This paper proposes that the hybrid model is the reform necessary for remedying the guest worker program’s many ailments. The
problem with the current program as well as with past guest worker programs is that they focused solely
on the needs of the employers. In order for program reform to be effective, it must focus not only on the
needs of the employers in filling labor shortages, but also on the needs of the employees and on those of the
U.S. and Mexico in instituting and maintaining the program.
6. (insert relations or border smuggling addon)
2AC Auction CP
CP doesn’t solve small farms- hoarding
Czekalinski 13 (Stephanie, reports for the Next America initiative at National Journal.com, which analyzes
demographic changes nation-wide and examines related changes in policy and politics. Stephanie has covered the
experience and impact of immigration since 2004. Her work has resulted in changes at the local, state and federal
levels and a conviction in federal court. In 2008, she was a finalist for the Taylor Family Award for Fairness in
Newspapers. Two years later, she was a finalist for the Livingston Award for Young Journalists. Her work has
appeared in The Columbus Dispatch and its sister publication Fronteras de la Noticia. Czekalinski began her career
at the Lorain Morning Journal, in Lorain, Ohio, Could a Visa Auction Fix Immigration?,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/could-a-visa-auction-fix-immigration-20120517,
5/29/13)
But not everyone is convinced that a visa auction will make the immigration system more sensitive to the
economy’s need for labor. If you have an auction, an immigrant worker isn’t necessarily going to end up
where there’s a worker shortage, said David Leopold, incoming counsel for the American Immigration
Lawyers Association. Rather, that worker could end up with a company that can afford to win the auction,
possibly leaving smaller firms or non-profits out in the cold.
CP links to politics
Renshon 10 (Professor Stanley Renshon is coordinator of the Interdisciplinary Program in the Psychology of
Social and Political behavior, CUNY, A National Immigration Auction, Part III: Predictably Bad Consequences,
http://www.cis.org/renshon/immigration-auction-3, 9/19/10)
Notice here as well that the authors would make these new immigration auction permits "portable," meaning that immigrants could arrive in this
country and be able to change jobs. This is a fair requirement. The country did away with indentured servitude eons ago. However, this raises the
issues of: (1) why employers would want to hire someone without getting a lengthy commitment from them, and (2) how the government would
keep track of all the moving around and reporting that portability would require. Again, confidence here is somewhat strained by knowledge of
the government's past and present performance. There is also the very large question of the government making a yearly assessment of macro and
micro national labor needs. According to this plan, "the government could react by increasing the number of permits"
(emphasis added) in periods of economic expansion and presumably cut back on auction numbers when the
economy contracts. This is not a recipe for not relying on "the judgment of bureaucrats." It does precisely the
opposite. It makes immigrant numbers a yearly political battle sure to further divide the country and
exacerbate tensions.
CP fails- logistics
Renshon 10 (Professor Stanley Renshon is coordinator of the Interdisciplinary Program in the
Psychology of Social and Political behavior, CUNY A National Immigration Auction, Part I: A Very Bad
Idea, Stanley Renshon, http://www.cis.org/renshon/immigration-auction-1, 9/16/10)
"Replace" means just that to the authors. They would essentially do away with the present system and substitute a system in which, "the
government should hold regular auctions where companies can bid for permits to bring in foreign workers. Employers would bid highest for the
most-valued workers, creating a selection mechanism that wouldn't rely on the judgment of bureaucrats or the paperwork skills of immigration
lawyers." The last two words in this sentence are meant to appeal to those who might fantasize about following Shakespeare's advice on the
subject in his play Henry VI, but it is naïve to think that turning over immigration decisions over to large corporate
interests will negate lawyers' impact or be an improvement. The authors' suggested cure for what ails our
immigration system is a yearly national auction in which "companies would bid for permits to bring in
foreign workers." There would be two such auctions each year, one for high-skilled immigrants, the other for low-skilled immigrants. This
idea is a recipe for a national logistical nightmare. Think for a moment about what it would take in terms of
processing and reviewing applications for just 1,000 individual workers and then consider how that would
work with multiple millions applying for at least a million potential auction slots, or more. No disrespect intended, but
it's hard to imagine that either government or the thousands of business that might compete are up to the
administrative responsibility. Within each category of high- or low-skilled immigrants, who would decide who would be
admitted? Companies who won the bidding. And how would they "win"? By offering more money. The
authors think this is a great ideal to fill federal coffers, but it in effect stacks the deck in favor of larger
corporate interests and their particular business needs. On the lower end of the skill spectrum, one wonders
which business will be able or interested in bidding for their next immigrant employees. Larger restaurant chains or
national building developers may get into the bidding, but that new restaurant up the street from you probably won't. This difficulty is only the tip
of the proverbial iceberg. This proposal touts the benefits of what the authors propose while ignoring the fairly obvious and predictable negative
consequences.
1AR Doesn’t solve labor
CP doesn’t solve labor shortages
UKWP 10 (UK Work Permits, leading consultancy specialising in UK immigration, Immigration limit
and consultation: Our comment, http://www.uk-wp.com/2010/07/01/immigration-limit-and-consultation-ourcomment/, 7/1/10)
The auction system would mean the ability to recruit migrant labour was not based on a measure of an
employer’s “need”, but based on the ability to pay the highest price. Inevitably small companies and those
with restricted funding and cashflow would unduly suffer. Against these two alternatives, the “first come first served” option
seems to be fairer. However, we are still opposed to it and are opposed to the very idea of a rigid limit on immigration under Tier 2. Any limit
on migration through Tier 2 will inevitably result in unnecessary and harmful restrictions and delays for British
businesses, who will be forced to put their urgent staffing needs on hold : while they wait for the next CoS
allocation to become available, while they wait to see if and when a candidate will be selected from a pool, or
while they wait to discover that they have been unable to obtain their CoS quota through auction.
1AR CP Fails
CP fails- bureaucracy
Renshon 10 (Professor Stanley Renshon is coordinator of the Interdisciplinary Program in the Psychology of
Social and Political behavior, CUNY, A National Immigration Auction, Part III: Predictably Bad Consequences,
http://www.cis.org/renshon/immigration-auction-3, 9/19/10)
Rounding out the fantasy of a national immigration auction is the touted allure of having a system that, "wouldn't rely on the
judgment of [government] bureaucrats." Unfortunately, the actual proposal immediately negates that likelihood.
The proposal states that, "When prices rose, the government could react by increasing the number of
permits, better syncing immigration with the business cycle" (emphasis added). So much for keeping government
bureaucrats out of the process. Moreover, "because these visas would be tied to employment, immigrants
would have to leave the country if the economy deteriorated and they couldn't find work." And who would do
that? Presumably the government. They've done so well with removing those living here who are "out of
status" that it's hard to have confidence in this plan.
1AR Links to politics
CP links to politics
Brown 10 (Eleanor Marie Lawrence Brown, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University
School of Law and Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation, February 2010, “Visa as Property, Visa as
Collateral,” online: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=eleanor_brown)
The official posture of the US government is one of non-commodification in immigration. This is evidenced, in
part, by the public pronouncements of immigration policy-makers, and explains why, despite empirical evidence
from other countries of the potential benefits of auction systems,193 both primary and secondary markets for visas have received very
little traction in US policy-making circles. Indeed, even in the current global economic crisis, in which other countries have
auctioned visas to investors as a mechanism of jump-starting declining sectors of their economies, the United States has remained resistant to
such an approach.194 This official posture of non-commodification coincides with polling data on this issue, which
show that a majority of Americans oppose proposals to auction visas. The rationales offered by the polling
data mirror the anti-commodification rationales in the academic literature: visas, to the extent that they
signify potential access to citizenship, are understood by Americans to be quintessentially public assets ,195 in
part because even if visas only allow temporary affiliation, many applicants overstay and later receive amnesties that permit them to become
citizens. Thus, the receipt of a visa often signifies the first stage on a path to citizenship, and for this reason,
selling visas often is equated with selling access to a quintessentially public asset . Indeed, visas have even been referred
to as “public goods,” although this is clearly an unconventional utilization of the term. Analysts who have studied polling data
suggest that the public’s resistance to commoditizing visas arises in part from what students of cultural
cognition and behavioral economics have called a “framing problem.”196 Thus, even when confronted with
evidence demonstrating the potential value of auctions in resolving immigration dilemmas, socialpsychological processes lead individuals to assimilate evidence in a manner that is consistent with pre-existing
cultural frames that are dominant in the political marketplace.197 These cultural frames are hostile to a
market-based approach in the context of immigration and thus the average American voter appears unlikely
to be comfortable with the notion of utilizing the market as a primary method of visa allocation.198
Coop Key
Cooperation is key to migration management and regional competitiveness
Rosenblum 11 (Marc, Senior Policy Analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, Obstacles and
Opportunities for Regional Cooperation: The US-Mexico Case,
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/usmexico-cooperation.pdf, April 2011)
What are the prospects for cooperation at this time? On one hand, the underlying factors that favored cooperation during the 1990s
generally remain in place. Despite the intractability of migration policy, the overall US-Mexican relationship has never been closer.
With 75 million trucks and passengers entering the United States from Mexico in 2009, $250 billion in legal trade between the
countries, and about 30 million Hispanics of Mexican origin living in the United States, the two countries are simply too intertwined
to leave any issue of mutual concern off the bilateral agenda. Realistically, neither country can hope to
accomplish its core goals at the border — controlling crime and violence, countering terrorist threats,
preventing illegal entries, facilitating legal travel and cross-border trade — without close coordination and
cooperation with the other. Broader questions about US immigration policy, including how to manage
employment-based migration and what to do about the 11 million unauthorized immigrants already in the United States, are
also easier to answer if policymakers draw from a cooperative toolkit. The United States and Mexico have
a great deal to gain long-term by working together to manage migration policy as a tool for enhancing the
region's human capital, an engine for regional economic growth and increased global competitiveness.
a/t: other visas CP
Visas fail- regulation and illegals- the aff solves
Nowrasteh 13 (Alex, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, How to Make Guest Worker
Visas Work, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa719_1.pdf, 1/31/13)
Congress will consider how to create a new guest worker program as part of immigration reform. Other
analysts have spilled much ink on enforcement, amnesty, and legalization, so this policy analysis focuses on reform ideas
for creating an effective guest worker visa. Past guest worker visa programs like those used during World War I
and the Bracero Program provide examples of somewhat betterfunctioning programs. They were less
regulated, required fewer legal steps to hire guest workers, were more efficient, and placed a lower burden
on migrants as well. Expanding similar updated guest worker programs into nonagricultural work and higher skill
levels would provide an alternative migration path for many migrants who would otherwise consider
unlawful entry. The current guest worker visa system is hampered by expensive regulations, restrictive
laws, and an uncaring bureaucracy that makes the system unworkable for most American employers and
migrants who would like to work together. Specifically, Congress should incorporate these features into
any new guest worker program: ● Remove numerical quotas for temporary guest worker visas. ● Increase the
duration of guest worker visas. ● Allow guest workers to switch employers without legal penalty. ● Introduce
flexible start and end times for visas. ● Remove or streamline complex bureaucracy regulating wages and working
conditions of guest workers, like the Labor Condition Application, in favor of a fee-based approach and increased visa portability. ●
Remove requirements for worker-provided housing, transportation, and other nonpecuniary benefits. Allow workers and employers
to negotiate for benefits like other workers. ● Use bonds or reimbursements of mandatory accumulated guest worker deductions to
incentivize guest workers to return to their home countries at the end of their visa. ● Allow the same worker to return year after year
if there is demand for him. Only bar workers who are criminals, terrorists, or have serious communicable diseases. The mistake
of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which amnestied approximately 3 million unauthorized immigrants,
was that it did not create a large and flexible guest worker program. As a result, in the 27 years since then,
unauthorized immigrants continued to enter. Only a timely, cheap, and lawful way to enter and work in
the United States will stanch unauthorized immigration and grow our economy.
Unilat fails- bilateralism key to solve illegals and reentry
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
Finally, the perception that
Mexican labor migration to the United States was not amenable to control
through unilateral efforts by either government, the perception that led to the creation of the Bracero
Program, has been reaffirmed since the termination of the program. I83 Unilateral steps taken by the
United States, for example, to stem the tide of illegal immigration have proven ineffective. 184 In fact, the
United States experienced a significant increase in the pace of Mexican immigration in the 1970s and
1980s.185 In the 1990s, approximately 200,000 Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) came to the United States each year,186
and one to two million additional Mexicans (legal and illegal) worked at least seasonally in the United States each year. 187 The U.S.
response to the massive flow of unauthorized migration has focused on apprehending those attempting illegal entry. 188 Yet,
instead of deterring attempted illegal entries, the U.S. strategy has only caused migrants to pay
professional smugglers higher fees and to attempt crossing the border several times before successfully
entering. 189 There has, in turn, been a significant increase in the number of migrants who have died while attempting to gain
unauthorized entry.19O The U.S. strategy has also created an unintended incentive for unauthorized migrants
to remain in the United States once they have entered since re-entry is ever more difficult. 191
a/t: reform CP
Gov to gov coop is key to employer acceptance- bureaucracy
DuVall 2 (Lindsay, Honors Scholar Seminar Chicago-Kent School of Law, THE GUEST WORKER
PROGRAM Earned Legalization & Reform: The Best Solution,
http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic%20Programs/Honors%20Scholars/2002/LindsayDuVall-paper.pdf, Spring 2002)
In order to effectively propose and analyze reform, there must be a framework of criteria against which
the reform can be evaluated. In other words, the reform must consider the viewpoints of each interested party,
workers, employers, and the U.S. and Mexico. U.S. workers will want to know how the reform will affect their wages and the
quality of their jobs. They will want to see reform that protects them first and that only allows the program to
come into play when there is a real shortage of labor.[94] They will also want to see reform that prevents or at least
decreases illegal immigration so that their working conditions and wages do not deteriorate. Employers will want to know
how they will be affected in terms of increased costs and restrictions. They will want to know how much it
will cost them to hire guest workers and how strictly they will be regulated by the INS, the DOL, and other
agencies involved in the process. Employers are concerned that if the bureaucracy is restrictive it might be
more hassle than it is worth.
(IF VINAY DIDN’T PUT THIS AS THE 1AC INTERNAL LINK TO
REMMITANCES)
Agreements key to remittances and attractive wages
DuVall 2 (Lindsay, Honors Scholar Seminar Chicago-Kent School of Law, THE GUEST WORKER
PROGRAM Earned Legalization & Reform: The Best Solution,
http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic%20Programs/Honors%20Scholars/2002/LindsayDuVall-paper.pdf, Spring 2002)
Bilateral Agreements between the U.S. and Mexico Under the current H-2A program, U.S. employers are
given complete discretion as to where and how they recruit their workers.[139] This allows them to select the “best”
workers and nurtures a system where bribes lead to jobs. By involving Mexico with the guest worker
program through bilateral agreements, the two countries can regulate and facilitate recruitment,
remittances,[140] IRA-funds from wages, and the return of workers to Mexico.
Unilateral program links to brain drain
Ghosh 2K (Bimai Ghosh is Senior Consultant to the International Organization for Migration and the
Director of the international project on migration manage- ment: 'New International Regime for Orderly
Movements of People (NIROMP)'. A former senior director in the United Nations system and an
academic, he led several inter-agency missions on migration, refugees, and development-related issues in
different regions. Ghosh is the author of numerous reports and publications on international economic,
political, and human rights issues with a focus on migration, development, and economic globalization.
Recent publications include Huddled Masses and Uncertain Shores: Insights into Irregular Migration
(1998) and Gains from Global Linkages: Trade hi Services and Movements of Persons (1997), Managing
Migration,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZlZYbhC5LSMC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=%22unilateral%22+AN
D+%22guest+worker%22+AND+%22bilateral%22+AND+%22Mexico%22&source=bl&ots=vnTWOvZ9jf
&sig=MATlk8kbBaCi3XdZuur4kR_pAg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HMrZUevfKcbKqwHU0ICgCg&ved=0CIEBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=
%22unilateral%22%20AND%20%22guest%20worker%22%20AND%20%22bilateral%22%20AND%20%
22Mexico%22&f=false, 8/3/0)
The new guest worker programmes for agriculture being entertained by the US Congress remain primarily
unilateral in their approach. A limited role for the Mexican government is envisioned and no incentives
arc extended. Instead, it is proposed that a fairly large number of Mexican workers should be available for US agriculture, and
that their return be ensured by withdraw- ing funds from their pay packets payable only upon their return to Mexico. This has
been attempted in other countries and in Mexico, with little success, and it is certain that many
Mexican workers will choose to forfeit the with- holdings for a chance to remain in the USA.
Government to government coop is key
DuVall 2 (Lindsay, Honors Scholar Seminar Chicago-Kent School of Law, THE GUEST WORKER
PROGRAM Earned Legalization & Reform: The Best Solution,
http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic%20Programs/Honors%20Scholars/2002/LindsayDuVall-paper.pdf, Spring 2002)
This paper proposes that the hybrid model is the reform necessary for remedying the guest worker program’s many ailments. The
problem with the current program as well as with past guest worker programs is that they focused solely
on the needs of the employers. In order for program reform to be effective, it must focus not only on the
needs of the employers in filling labor shortages, but also on the needs of the employees and on those of the
U.S. and Mexico in instituting and maintaining the program.
Kritiks
2AC Institutional Microanalysis
Governmental engagement is key to bracero representation?
Pitti 5 (Stephen, Professor of History and American Studies, and Director of the Ethnicity, Race, and
Migration Program at Yale University, Repairing the Past: Confronting the Legacies of Slavery, Genocide,
& Caste, http://www.yale.edu/glc/justice/pitti.pdf, 10/27-29/5)
Racial and labor relations became complex global processes in the 20th century, and this paper focuses
attention on one international effort to repair the past, and to pay international workers wages that went
unpaid a half century ago. The history here continues to unfold, and its cast of characters continues to change. Its central
protagonists are ones not unknown to U.S. historians, but they remain players still rarely accorded center
stage: Ethnic Mexican agricultural workers, a group long racialized in the United States, and a sector that
has played important political and economic roles since World War II. Once transnational migrants who moved
back and forth across the international boundary, often with the intent to settle for good in Mexico, many eventually became
immigrants in the United States, exerting influence in communities as different as Los Angeles, Seattle, Salinas, and Philadelphia.
Rural economic poverty and backbreaking work of course also defined the 20th century for many of them,
and governmental policies in both the United States and Mexico shaped their social positions and legal
status. Those who remain alive in 2005 are now old, and many have passed away, documented in far too few published histories.
As a political group, however, these Mexican agricultural workers have found new voice within
formal governmental institutions, and within emerging immigrant rights and farmworker
organizations, thanks to the reparations impulse. The political dramas described here developed from the complex
factors that defined ethnic Mexicans in the United States by the late-1990s. They emerged, quite clearly, within the context of
changing debates about Mexican immigration in the last years of the Clinton and Zedillo administrations. They came about within
the context of longer discussions of immigrant rights in the United States, particularly those encapsulated by the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986, federal legislation in the United States that further militarized the border, arranged for a new
contract labor agreement that sent Mexican laborers into U.S. agriculture, and -- importantly -- offered amnesty and naturalization
to millions of mexicanos who could provide evidence that they had long resided in the United States. In IRCA’s aftermath, the
movement around Bracero rights was also guided in part by younger Mexican American politicos -- often
the children of immigrants -- who claimed some relationship to the Chicano movement that began during
the 1960s, and it has drawn support, and taken its political cues, from a broader, global political context -the one characterized by truth commissions, Holocaust litigation, and reparations campaigns . Finally, in
more recent times, these developments certainly reflected upon the Bush and Fox presidencies, upon public promises made for a
new era in U.S.-Mexico relations, upon critiques from the Left in both countries, and upon new concerns about the fate of Mexicans
(as voters in both countries!) concerned about the history of inattention accorded farmworkers in both Mexico and the United
States.
Political action on bracero is key to social justice
Pitti 5 (Stephen, Professor of History and American Studies, and Director of the Ethnicity, Race, and
Migration Program at Yale University, Repairing the Past: Confronting the Legacies of Slavery, Genocide,
& Caste, http://www.yale.edu/glc/justice/pitti.pdf, 10/27-29/5)
Such efforts have found considerable support among elected officials in California, Illinois, and other states over the
last few years, and despite little recognition of the Bracero Justice Movement by some institutions within the
United States (only two articles have appeared in the New York Times about this movement, for instance, with the most recent a
500-word account of Justice Breyer’s decision in 2002) there are countless good reasons for thinking more carefully
about this important feature of our recent past. In the first place, the cause of achieving repayment for
Mexican contract laborers has become, for many Latinos in the U.S., emblematic of recent efforts to think
transnationally about the meaning of racial and economic justice . In the second, this movement history might
remind us that it’s imperative to bring the Latino past history into national and international conversations
about the legacies of patterns (or programs) defined by racial discrimination, particularly given the growing
demographic and political importance of Latinos in all fifty states. And, finally, the bracero case insists that
matters related to labor and work, and to legal status and claims to longtime residency, should complicate
any easy formula for thinking about how justice might be accorded in the future.
The alternative fails and increases inequality
Lobel 7 (Orly, Assistant Professor of Law, University of San Diego. LL.M. 2000 (waived), Harvard Law
School; LL.B. 1998, Tel-Aviv University, THE PARADOX OF EXTRALEGAL ACTIVISM: CRITICAL
LEGAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS,
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/lobel.pdf)
The limits of the law as a means of effecting social change have been a key focus of legal thinkers over the past several decades. The
aggregate impact of emerging schools of thought challenging the value of legal reform in producing social
change has been the development of a contemporary critical legal consciousness — a conventional wisdom
about the relative inefficacy of law.1 Critical claims go further than simply expressing disappointment in
the capacity of the legal system to achieve the desired goals of a social movement . An argument that has become
increasingly prevalent in legal scholarship states that the law often brings more harm than good to social movements that rely on
legal strategies to advance their goals. The law entices groups to choose legal strategies to advance their social goals but ultimately
proves to be a detrimental path. The negative effect is generally understood as “legal cooptation” — a process by
which the focus on legal reform narrows the causes, deradicalizes the agenda, legitimizes ongoing
injustices, and diverts energies away from more effective and transformative alternatives. Consequently, the
argument proceeds, the turn to the law actually reinforces existing institutions and ideologies. As they engage with the law, social
reform groups become absorbed by the system even as they struggle against it. When examining closely the dominant set
of assumptions underlying recent critical scholarship, one must face the question: what is uniquely legal
about cooptation? This Article considers the claims oflegal cooptation as they have been developed vis-àvis former periods of social activism — primarily the New Deal labor movement and the 1960s civil rights
movement — in relation to recent scholarship that purports to provide alternatives to cooptive legal
processes. It traces the impact of critical understandings of the law to three strands of contemporary “extralegal” schools of
thought that operate under a critical legal consciousness. The Article argues that the limits of social change are not
confined to legal reform, but in fact are as likely (if not more so) to occur in the realm of extralegal
activism. Moreover, the very idea of opting out of the legal arena creates a false binary between social
spheres that in reality permeate one another. Under the contemporary axiomatic skepticism about the law, analysts often
bundle and collapse legal cooptation claims rather than differentiate among myriad, distinct sets of concerns. When claims about the
failures of legal reform are unbundled, they provide a window into our assumptions about the possibilities and rhythms of change in
general, not merely change via the path of the law. Accordingly, this Article asserts that contemporary critical legal
consciousness has eclipsed the origins of critical theory, which situated various forms of social action — all
of which potentially have cooptive as well as transformative effects — on more equal grounds. The inquiry
begins by delineating three periods of social reform activism, their relationship to legal reform, and their successes and failures as
perceived by legal scholars. Part II describes the first two periods, which have served contemporary thinkers as paradigmatic
moments for analyzing the failures of legal reform and the negative consequences that followed the decline of social activism. The
first period is the New Deal labor movement, which achieved statutory reordering of labor relations yet was ultimately criticized for
creating a hostile environment for collective bargaining and for leading to the sharp decline of unionism. The second period is the
civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which achieved widespread recognition for its legislative and judicial victories yet has
been widely critiqued for its limited success in eliminating racial injustice. In both cases, cooptation analysis focuses not simply on
the limits of the legal victories but also, and often primarily, on the pacification of the social movement and the decline of a reform
vision, which resulted from the perceived successes of legislative and judicial victories. Pointing to these two “failed successes,”
contemporary legal scholars express a now-axiomatic skepticism about law’s ability to produce social transformation. Drawing on
the critical scholarship that has developed in relation to these two periods, Part II unpacks the arguments about legal cooptation,
demonstrating that they are not monolithic but rather constitute distinct sets of claims, including concerns about resources and
energy, framing and fragmentation, lawyering and professional-ism, crowding-out effects, institutional limitations, and the
unsubstantiated legitimation of existing social arrangements. As a result of an emerging truism about the limitations of legal reform
— captured by the reference to legalism as the “hollow hope”2 — contemporary critics warn against a reliance on law,
courts, legal language, and lawyers in the struggles of social movements . Part III describes a third period, this one
involving extralegal activism, as it is represented and celebrated in legal scholarship. In mapping the landscape of this “alternative
scholarship,” three distinct types of extralegal strategies emerge: first, the redefinition of the purpose of the legal system as
promoting secondary goals rather than primary ones; second, the move away from the legal arena to an extralegal sphere of action,
often evoking the notion of civil society; and third, the expansion of the meanings of law and legality, building on earlier
understandings of the legal pluralism school of thought. After exploring the underlying assumptions of each of these
proposals with regard to the limits of law and the limits of change, this Article revisits the concept of
cooptation within the broader range of possibilities for social struggle. Rather than dismissing concerns
about legal cooptation, Part IV asserts that the emerging umbrella school of thought draws erroneous
conclusions from critical understandings and presents false alternatives in the gamut of law and social
change. A more accurate inquiry into the limits of change should cast doubt on the privileged role of
extralegal activism that is trumpeted in contemporary writings . This Article demonstrates how extralegal activism
proponents misrepresent alternative avenues of activism as solutions to cooptation concerns by overlooking the risks of cooptation
present in extralegal activism. Consequently, a counter “myth of engagement” is reified by the rejection of the
“myth of law.” Not only is the idea of avoiding legal strategies as a means of social change misdirected, but
such a construction also conceals the ways in which the law continues to exist in the background of the
envisioned alternatives. Thus, earlier critical insights about the ongoing importance of law in seemingly
unregulated spheres are lost in the contemporary message. Further, the idea of opting out of the legal
arena fails to recognize a reality of growing interpenetration and blurring of boundaries between private
and public spheres, for-profit and nonprofit actors, and formal and informal institutions. Most importantly, a theory of
avoidance contributes to a conservative rhetoric about the decline of the state, the necessities of
deregulation, and the inevitability of mounting inequalities. The Article reveals a contemporary false
equation of formal legal reform avenues with a conservative status quo and of informal — that is, extralegal —
avenues with transformative progress. The movement to extralegal activism has unwittingly aligned itself with concepts
such as civil society revivalism, informality, and nongovernmental norm generation. All of these concepts are associated with
decreasing commitments of the state, privatization, deregulation, and devolution of governmental authority in the social arena. All
three brands of extralegal strategies reflect not only disillusionment with and disappointment in the legal system as a potential
engine for social reform, but also imply path dependency with current economic realities and shifting commitments of the state in an
era of globalization. Since the critique of legal cooptation asserts that legal reform, even when viewed as successful, is never radically
transformative, it is equally crucial to ask what criteria are available for assessing the success of the suggested alternatives. As this
Article argues, the risks of extralegal cooptation are similar to the risks of legal cooptation. However, the
allure of an alternative model of progressive politics that would avoid the critical risks of cooptation has
prevented its advocates from scrutinizing it in the same way that legal strategies are routinely questioned.
Therefore, the new wave of extralegal politics risks entailing no more than a loser’s ex post selfmystification. Posing these challenges, Part V concludes that much of the contemporary alternative scholarship obscures the lines
between description and prescription in the exploration and formulation of transformative politics.
The alternative is self-defeating and fails to solve the problems with the
legal system
Lobel 7 (Orly, Assistant Professor of Law, University of San Diego. LL.M. 2000 (waived), Harvard Law
School; LL.B. 1998, Tel-Aviv University, THE PARADOX OF EXTRALEGAL ACTIVISM: CRITICAL
LEGAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS,
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/lobel.pdf)
In the following sections, I argue that the extralegal model has suffered from the same drawbacks associated with
legal cooptation. I show that as an effort to avoid the risk of legal cooptation, the current wave of
suggested alternatives has effects that ironically mirror those of cooptation itself. Three central types of
difficulties exist with contemporary extralegal scholarship. First, in the contexts of the labor and civil rights movements, arguments
about legal cooptation often developed in response to a perceived gap between the conceptual ideal toward which a social reform
group struggled and its actual accomplishments. But, ironically, the contemporary message of opting out of
traditional legal reform avenues may only accentuate this problem. As the rise of informalization (moving
to nonlegal strategies), civil society (moving to extralegal spheres), and pluralism (the proliferation of
norm-generating actors) has been effected and appropriated by supporters from a wide range of political
commitments, these concepts have had unintended implications that conflict with the very social reform
ideals from which they stem. Second, the idea of opting out of the legal arena becomes self-defeating as it
discounts the ongoing importance of law and the possibilities of legal reform in seemingly unregulated
spheres. A model encompassing exit and rigid sphere distinctions further fails to recognize a reality of
increasing interpenetration and the blurring of boundaries between private and public spheres, profit and
nonprofit sectors, and formal and informal institutions. It therefore loses the critical insight that law
operates in the background of seemingly unregulated relationships . Again paradoxically, the extralegal view of
decentralized activism and the division of society into different spheres in fact have worked to subvert
rather than support the progressive agenda. Finally, since extralegal actors view their actions with romantic idealism,
they fail to develop tools for evaluating their success . If the critique of legal cooptation has involved the argument that
legal reform, even when viewed as a victory, is never radically transformative, we must ask: what are the criteria for assessing the
achievements of the suggested alternatives? As I illustrate in the following sections, much of the current scholarship obscures the
lines between the descriptive and the prescriptive in its formulation of social activism. If current suggestions present themselves as
alternatives to formal legal struggles, we must question whether the new extralegal politics that are proposed and celebrated are
capable of producing a constructive theory and meaningful channels for reform, rather than passive status quo politics.
The alternative fails and cedes politics to conservatives
Lobel 7 (Orly, Assistant Professor of Law, University of San Diego. LL.M. 2000 (waived), Harvard Law
School; LL.B. 1998, Tel-Aviv University, THE PARADOX OF EXTRALEGAL ACTIVISM: CRITICAL
LEGAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS,
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/lobel.pdf)
A basic structure of cooptation arguments as developed in relation to the labor and civil rights movements has been to show how, in
the move from theory to practice, the ideal that was promoted by a social group takes on unintended content, and the group thus
fails to realize the original vision. This risk is particularly high when ideals are framed in broad terms that are open to multiple
interpretations. Moreover, the pitfalls of the potential risks presented under the umbrella of cooptation are in
fact accentuated in current proposals. Paradoxically, as the extralegal movement is framed by way of
opposition to formal legal reform paths, without sufficiently defining its goals, it runs the very risks it
sought to avoid by working outside the legal system. Extralegal paths are depicted mostly in negative
terms and as resorting to new alternative forms of action rather than established models . Accordingly, because
the ideas of social organizing, civil society, and legal pluralism are framed in open-ended contrarian terms, they do not
translate into specific visions of social justice reform. The idea of civil society, which has been embraced
by people from a broad array of often conflicting ideological commitments, is particularly demonstrative .
Critics argue that “[s]ome ideas fail because they never make the light of day. The idea of civil society . . . failed because it became too
popular.”164 Such a broadly conceived ideal as civil society sows the seeds of its own destruction. In former
eras, the claims about the legal cooptation of the transformative visions of workplace justice and racial
equality suggested that through legal strategies the visions became stripped of their initial depth and
fragmented and framed in ways that were narrow and often merely symbolic. This observation seems accurate in
the contemporary political arena; the idea of civil society revivalism evoked by progressive activists has been reduced to symbolic
acts with very little substance. On the left, progressive advocates envision decentralized activism in a third,
nongovernmental sphere as a way of reviving democratic participation and rebuilding the state from the
bottom up. By contrast, the idea of civil society has been embraced by conservative politicians as a means
for replacing government-funded programs and steering away from state intervention. As a result, recent
political uses of civil society have subverted the ideals of progressive social reform and replaced them with
conservative agendas that reject egalitarian views of social provision. In particular, recent calls to strengthen civil
society have been advanced by politicians interested in dismantling the modern welfare system. Conservative civil society revivalism
often equates the idea of self-help through extralegal means with traditional family structures, and blames the breakdown of those
structures (for example, the rise of the single parent family) for the increase in reliance and dependency on government aid.165 This
recent depiction of the third sphere of civic life works against legal reform precisely because state intervention may support newer,
nontraditional social structures. For conservative thinkers, legal reform also risks increasing dependency on social
services by groups who have traditionally been marginalized, including disproportionate reliance on public funds by
people of color and single mothers. Indeed, the end of welfare as we knew it,166 as well as the transformation of
work as we knew it,167 is closely related to the quest of thinkers from all sides of the political spectrum for
a third space that could replace the traditional functions of work and welfare . Strikingly, a range of liberal and
conservative visions have thus converged into the same agenda, such as the recent welfare-to-work reforms, which rely on myriad
non-governmental institutions and activities to support them.168
a/t: structural violence
The aff solves structural violence
Anderson 13 – Stuart Anderson is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and executive director of the National
Foundation for American Policy. (“How Many More Deaths? The Moral Case of a Temporary Worker Program”, March 2013,
http://www.nfap.com/pdf/NFAP%20Policy%20Brief%20Moral%20Case%20For%20a%20Temporary%20Worker%20Program%20
March%202013.pdf, Callahan)
Immigrant deaths at the border rose by 27 percent in 2012, according to U.S. Border Patrol data obtained by the
National Foundation for American Policy. The 477 immigrant deaths in 2012 represent the second highest
recorded total since 1998, eclipsed only by the 492 deaths in 2005.1 Most troubling, the rise in immigrant deaths
comes at a time when fewer people are attempting to enter illegally, as measured by the significant drop in
apprehensions at the border over the past several years . The evidence suggests an immigrant attempting to
cross illegally into the United States today is 8 times more likely to die in the attempt than approximately
a decade ago. Over the past 15 years more than 5,500 immigrants have died trying to enter America. This
tragic loss of life is a direct result of the absence of legal avenues for foreign nationals to work at jobs in
hotel, restaurants, construction and other industries. The current visa categories for agriculture (H-2A) and
nonagricultural work (H-2B) are considered cumbersome and are only for seasonal work, not the type of year-round jobs
filled by most illegal immigrants in the United States. DEATH AT THE BORDER How many people have to die? That
is the question grieving mothers, spouses and children must ask when yet another son, daughter or father
dies while entering the United States seeking work. So many people are dying that in Brooks County, Texas, NBC News
reports, “The rising number of unclaimed corpses marks a growing crisis for this cash-strapped county.”2 We know based on the
experience of the Bracero program that if provided a legal option workers would make the rational choice to work
legally than attempt a dangerous trek across the desert, often led by unscrupulous guides. Due to the lack of
legal temporary visas for lower-skilled jobs, the significant buildup of Border Patrol and border enforcement has
pushed those who want to work in America into increasingly remote and dangerous areas. Pointing to a rise in
immigrant deaths, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded, “This evidence suggests that border crossings have
become more hazardous since the ‘Prevention through Deterrence’ policy went into effect in 1995, resulting in an increase in
illegal migrant deaths along the Southwest border.
Solves agricultural problems- addresses human rights abuses
Bickerton 1 (Maria, Mara is a founding member of Bradshaw & Bickerton PLLC and formerly
practiced at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Maria has over 10 years of experience practicing employee benefits,
ERISA, executive compensation, and tax law. Maris is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for
employee benefit, Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the
Bracero Program, Lexis, March 2001)
Any plan for a bilateral legalized worker program would have to address the human rights and illegal and
permanent immigration problems of the Bracero Program. It would also have to overcome the fears of domestic labor
and persuade American workers that such a program would not adversely affect the domestic job market. Additionally, it would
have to overcome the extreme anti-immigrant attitude that has dominated U.S. public opinion in recent
years. Nonetheless, it appears that conditions are quite favorable for a new immigration agreement with
Mexico in light of the atmosphere of cooperation that exists, the confidence that the United [*918] States
is enjoying with a booming economy, and the existence of common migration goals between the two countries.
Many in Mexico have suggested that a new bilateral guest worker program, "operating within currently
existing migratory labor markets," could satisfy the migration goals of both Mexico and the United States
by replacing "highly exploited undocumented migrants" with regulated guest workers. n226 Legalizing
migrant laborers on a bilateral basis allows both governments to ensure adequate safeguards for labor.
With such protections, Mexican workers would have an incentive to remain within the program, the
Mexican government would have assurances that their citizens' human rights would not be violated, and
U.S. labor would be more likely to support the use of foreign labor. n227 U.S. growers should support the
program, even with safeguards for the laborers, because it would help satisfy their need for a "just-in-time
labor force." n228 For both countries, such a program would also promote the return of Mexican
immigrants to Mexico, minimizing "brain drain" n229 so that Mexico can benefit from the migrants' new
skills and conform to the seasonal fluctuations of the U.S. growers' demand for labor. n230 Of course, both
countries must insist that enforcement of the safeguards be taken seriously to avoid a repetition of the
worst aspects of the Bracero Program. Any bilateral migration agreement should contain mechanisms that
provide serious incentives for enforcement of workers' rights under the agreement . n231 For example,
commentators have argued that automatic monetary sanctions for breaches of rules in international
agreements can significantly strengthen the rights and obligations created by the agreement. n232 Including
this type of sanctions provision in any new bilateral migration program would penalize the United States if it were to ignore its
obligations under the agreement as it did under the Bracero [*919] Program. Thus, the experience with the Bracero
Program, while teaching us what mistakes to avoid, demonstrates that there are good prospects for a new
bilateral program today.
-- a/t: SLPC
This evidence is about the status quo H-2A program and how that makes
workers unable to switch employers—the aff is not H2As and also allows
workers to much more easily switch employers which solves this claim
a/t: serial policy failure
this card is terrible—it’s just listing all the times bills have failed in the
past—obviously durable fiat overcomes this—and they can’t say it results in
the aff because that steals the 1AC and makes it impossible to leverage our
offense—also justifies a new “perm do the alt”