Guest Workers Neg
AT: Agriculture Advantage
Top Level
1NC AT: Agriculture Advantage
No farm labor shortage – wages are decreasing while profits are increasing
CNBC 12
(“What the Invisible Farm Labor Shortage Is Really About” 11/29, pg online at
http://www.cnbc.com/id/50016592//sd)
Despite the absolute lack of evidence of anything approaching a farm-labor shortage, complaints about this
invisible menace continue to make headlines. Here's how a recent piece from the Washington bureau of Gannett begins: Farmers from
Arizona to New York are struggling to find enough people to harvest their crops this season, a shortage they blame on state and federal laws designed to crack down
on the migrant labor that makes up the bulk of the nation's seasonal farmworkers. "We see shortages in all parts of the country," said Kristi Boswell, director of
congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau. "Farmers are struggling with fewer bodies out there to harvest the crop. They're definitely stressed." Farmers
with labor-intensive crops or livestock, including fruit, vegetables, nuts, Christmas trees and dairy cows say they are being hit especially hard. "We've got neighbors
literally competing against each other just to have enough of a workforce to harvest their crops," Boswell said. Heaven forefend! Neighbors "literally competing
against each other." It's practically a civil war. The fact is that there is no data whatsoever to support the alleged farm labor crisis. The latest data, issued from the
Department of Agriculture on November 27, shows that labor
expenses on farms have increased just 0.7 percent over the
past year. Costs for hired labor, those who work on the farm long-term, are up just 0.5 percent. Costs for
contract labor, the harvest-time pickers, are up just 1.5 percent. In other words, labor costs are well-below the level of general price
inflation. In fact, farm labor costs are still below where they were in 2008 on a nominal basis. In real terms, labor costs are falling for
farmers. This doesn't mean all is well for the farmer. There are genuine challenges and for the first time in years, farm profits seem set to fall this year. The
Department of Agriculture is projecting farm revenue to come in at a record $448.5 billion, which is a 4.6
percent gain over last year. But expenses are rising for farms. The big increases in expenses are the cost of feed (up $12.2 billion,
or 13 percent), seed (up $2.1 billion, or 11.9 percent), fertilizer (up $1.6 billion, or 6.3 percent), and pesticides (up $1. 1 billion, or 9 percent). These
increases dwarf the $200 million increase in labor costs spread across the nation. If there were a labor
shortage, we'd see the price of farm labor rising rapidly. We just don't see that—indicating that there is
no shortage at all. There is, instead, a consist cry from the farm lobby for policy makers to adopt policies
aimed at lowering labor costs. Gannet reports, for example, that "the American Farm Bureau and other farm groups are working on a plan to
present to the new Congress that would allow more migrant laborers to work legally on U.S. farms." That's what all this noise is really about: enacting policies to
crush already low farm wages by allowing farmers to import more foreign workers.
No US ag collapse – they’re doing well now
Goodwin 2013, May 1, Barry Goodwin is reporter for the American Enterprise Institute, “More
subsidies for Prosperous farmers”, http://www.american.com/archive/2013/may/more-subsidies-forprosperous-farmers
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that farm income in 2013 will be more than double what it
was in 2009. The nation’s farmers are enjoying the benefits of high crop prices, massive crop insurance
subsidies, and technological advances that have made crops more resistant to drought. As a result,
farming’s record level of income far surpasses that of comparable non-farm sectors.Yet much of the
debate over new farm legislation seems oblivious to these facts. The latest farm bill would give farmers
even greater subsidies. In 2012, the Senate and the House failed to reach a consensus on a farm bill and
instead passed a compromise extension of expiring law. The hope was that the agricultural committees
would then develop a traditional omnibus farm bill package of legislation. The extension is set to expire
on September 30; House and Senate leaders have pledged to complete a bill this year and the House will
hold a markup this month. Today, as has increasingly been the case since the early 1980s, U.S. farmers
are protected from significant yield and price losses by a massive and heavily subsidized crop insurance
program. The program offers most producers the option to guarantee up to 85 percent of their
projected yield or revenue. The most popular form of crop insurance guarantees revenue and promises
to replace yield losses at the greater of the expected price at planting time or the actual price at harvest.
As crop prices and farm incomes have increased to record levels, so too have the revenues guaranteed
to farmers under these insurance contracts and the subsidies paid by taxpayers.
Alt cause to ag collapse—Bee shortages prevent pollination
Grossman 13
(Elizabeth, Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Declining Bee Populations Pose
A Threat to Global Agriculture” pg online at
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/declining_bee_populations_pose_a_threat_to_global_agriculture/2645///sd)
One of every three bites of
food eaten worldwide depends on pollinators, especially bees, for a successful
harvest . And in the past several months, a scramble in California’s almond groves has given the world a taste of what may lie in store for
food production if the widespread — and still puzzling — decimation of bee colonies continues. For much of the past 10 years, beekeepers,
primarily in the United States and Europe, have been reporting annual hive losses of 30 percent or higher, substantially
more than is considered normal or sustainable. But this winter, many U.S. beekeepers experienced losses of 40 to 50
percent or more, just as commercial bee operations prepared to transport their hives for the country’s largest pollinator event: the
fertilizing of California’s almond trees. Spread across 800,000 acres, California’s almond orchards typically require 1.6 million
domesticated bee colonies to pollinate the flowering trees and produce what has become the state’s largest
overseas agricultural export. But given the widespread bee losses to so-called “colony collapse disorder”
this winter, California’s almond growers were able to pollinate their crop only through an intense,
nationwide push to cobble together the ‘In the long run, if we don't find some answers, we could lose a lot of bees,’ says one expert.
necessary number of healthy bee colonies. “Other crops don’t need as many bees as the California almond orchards do, so shortages are not
yet apparent, but if trends continue, there will be,” said Tim Tucker, vice-president of the American Beekeeping Federation and owner of
Tuckerbees Honey in Kansas, which lost 50 percent of its hives this past winter. “Current
[bee] losses are not sustainable. The
trend is down, as is the quality of bees. In the long run, if we don’t find some answers, and the vigor continues to decline, we
could lose a lot of bees.” The gravity of the situation was underscored on Monday, when the European Commission (EC) said it intended to
impose a two-year ban on a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, now the world’s most widely used type of insecticide.
Neonicotinoids are one of the leading suspected causes of colony collapse disorder, and the European
Commission announced its controversial decision three months after the European Food Safety Agency concluded that the pesticides
represented a “high acute risk” to honeybees and other pollinators. The EC action will restrict the use of three major
neonicitinoids on seeds and plants attractive to bees, as well as grains, beginning December 1. “I pledge to my utmost to ensure that our
bees, which are so vital to our ecosystem and contribute over 22 billion Euros [$29 billion] annually to European
agriculture, are protected,” said European Union Health Commissioner Tonio Borg. The EC action comes as scientists and regulators
have grown increasingly concerned about the impact of colony collapse disorder on the world’s food
supply, given that the majority of the planet’s 100 most important food crops depend on insect
pollination . A recent international study of 41 crop systems on six continents showed that healthy populations of wild bees
are key to successful yields of crops ranging from pumpkins to grapefruit. Relying solely on domesticated
honeybees could ultimately put those crops at risk, scientists say. Wild bees also have been declining in many places. No one investigating the
issue is suggesting that neonicotinoids are the sole cause of current bee declines. Tucker, other beekeepers, and entomologists say that the
cause of colony collapse disorder is likely a combination of factors that includes the widespread use of pesticides and fungicides, as well as the
spread of viral pathogens and parasitic mites in beehives. While mites and diseases have long been known to cause significant declines in
domesticated bee populations, no single pathogen or parasite, say entomologists, appears to sufficiently explain the current rate of hive
collapse. A recent study that found unprecedented levels of agricultural pesticides — some at toxic levels — in honeybee colonies is prompting
entomologists to look more closely at the role of neonicotinoids in current bee declines. No one is suggesting that neonicotinoids are the sole
cause of current bee declines. Some studies have indicated that neonicotinoids can lead to a sharp decline in queen bees in colonies and can
also interfere with the ability of bees to navigate back to their hives. James Frazier, a professor of entomology at Pennsylvania State University,
said more research needs to be conducted into whether neonicotinoids, particularly in combination with other pesticides, may suppress the
immune system of bees at “sub-lethal” levels, enabling diseases to take hold. “This is uncharted territory,” said Purdue University associate
professor of entomology Christian Krupke. “We’ve never done pest management like this before.” While not downplaying neonicotinoids as a
potential culprit, Eric Mussen, an apiculturiust at the University of California, Davis, noted that the case against these pesticides is not clear-cut.
For example, honeybees are apparently doing fine in Australia, where neonicotinoids are widely used and varroa mites are not a problem.
Neonicotinoid use is common in Canada, but colony collapse disorder is not significantly affecting hives there. University of California
Honeybees are brought in to pollinate onion crops at a California farm. In the U.S., several national environmental
advocacy organizations and commercial beekeepers filed suit in March against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its
conditional registration of certain neonicotinoids, contending that the agency did not properly ensure environmental health protections,
particularly with respect to pollinators. The EPA is now reviewing its registration of neonicotinoids and has accelerated the review schedule due
“to uncertainties about these pesticides and their potential effects on bees.” The agency said in an email that it is working with beekeepers,
growers, pesticide manufacturers, and others to improve pesticide use, labeling, and management practices to protect bees and to thoroughly
evaluate the effects of pesticides on honeybees and other pollinators. As part of these efforts, the EPA is working with pesticide and agricultural
equipment manufacturers to reduce the release of neonicotinoid-contaminated dust during planting — a time when commercial bees are likely
to encounter the insecticide. In the U.S., neonicotinoids are currently used on about 95 percent of corn and canola crops; the majority of
cotton, sorghum, and sugar beets; and about half of all soybeans. They’re also used on the vast majority of fruit and vegetable crops, including
apples, cherries, peaches, oranges, berries, leafy greens, tomatoes, and potatoes. Neonicotinoids are also applied to cereal grains, rice, nuts,
and wine grapes. Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural
Resources, has estimated that neonicotinoids are used on approximately 75 percent of the acres devoted to these crops in the U.S. They are
also widely used on landscaping plants and urban trees and in numerous home garden pest-control products — all in places frequented by
bees, domesticated and wild. “There
is no place to go hide,” says New York beekeeper Jim Doan, a director of the
American Beekeeping Federation. “The outlook is not good.”
Ext – No Ag Labor Shortages
No labor shortages—increasing wages solves—no risk to Ag profits
Sowell 13
(Thomas, PhD in Economics at University of Chicago, Senior Fellow on public policy at the Hoover
Institute, “Who ‘Needs’ Immigrant Labor?” June 11, pg online at
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350684/who-needs-immigrant-labor-thomas-sowell//sd)
One of the most common arguments for allowing more immigration is that there is a “need” for foreign workers to do “jobs that Americans
won’t do,” especially in agriculture. One of my most vivid memories of the late Armen Alchian, an internationally renowned economist at UCLA,
involved a lunch at which one of the younger members of the economics department got up to go get some more coffee. Being a considerate
sort, the young man asked, “Does anyone else need more coffee?” “Need?” Alchian said loudly, in a cutting tone that clearly conveyed his
dismay and disgust at hearing an economist using such a word. A recent editorial on immigration in the Wall Street Journal brought back to me
the memory of Alchian’s response with a statement about “the
needs of an industry in which labor shortages can run as
high as 20 percent” — namely agriculture. Although “need” is a word often used in politics and in the
media, from an economic standpoint there is no such thing as an objective and quantifiable “need.” You
might think it obvious that we all need food to live. But however urgent it may be to have some food, beyond
some point food becomes not only unnecessary but even counterproductive and dangerous. Widespread obesity
among Americans shows that many have already gone too far with food. This is not just a matter of
semantics, but of economics. In the real world, employers compete for workers, just as they compete for customers for
their output. And workers go where there is more demand for them, as expressed by what employers offer to pay. Farmers
may wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is wholly
different from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a “need,” much less expect
government policy to meet that “need.” In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the most
obvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations — or
from unemployment. With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers “need”
would undoubtedly be less than what it would have been if there were more workers who are available
at lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico. It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers to
import workers for lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to
other Americans, including both financial costs, in a welfare state, and social costs, of which increased crime rates
are just one. Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. But
the price that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at the
supermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for the
produce. In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barely
noticeable. “Jobs that Americans will not do” are in fact jobs at which not enough Americans will work at the current wage rate that some
employers are offering. This is not an uncommon situation. That is why labor “shortages” lead to higher wage rates. A
“shortage” is no more quantifiable than a “need” when you ignore prices, which are crucial in a market economy. To discuss “need”
and “shortage” while ignoring prices — in this case, wages — is especially remarkable in a usually
market-savvy publication like the Wall Street Journal. Often shortages have been predicted in various
occupations — and yet have never materialized. Why? Because the pay in those occupations rose, causing
more people to go into those occupations and employers to reduce the number of people they “need” at the higher pay rates. Virtually every
kind of “work that Americans will not do” is in fact work that Americans have done for generations. In
many cases, most of the people doing that work today are Americans. And there are certainly many unemployed
Americans, available to meet farmers’ “needs” today without bringing in more foreign workers.
Squo Solves for Labor shortage- with increasing wages
Carney 2013, May 24, John Carney: senior editor for CNBC News, “Farmers Solve Labor Shortage by
Raising
Pay”
raising-pay.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/24/famers-solve-labor-shortage-by-
The Department of Agriculture reports: Farm operators paid their hired workers an average wage of
$11.91 per hour during the April 2013 reference week, up 4 percent from a year earlier. Field workers
received an average of $10.92 per hour, up 4 percent from a year earlier. Livestock workers earned
$11.46, up 51 cents. The field and livestock worker combined wage rate, at $11.10 per hour, was up 48
cents from a year earlier. Hired laborers worked an average of 40.3 hours during the April 2013
reference week, compared with 39.2 hours a year earlier. Maybe someone should tell the Partnership
for a New American Economy about this. It's just crazy enough that it may work!By the way, don't worry
about this bankrupting the great American farmer. Farm profits are expected to rise by more than 13
percent this year—to more than double what they were as recently as 2009.
Wages are the best indicator of labor shortages
Levine 9
(Linda, specialist in labor economics for the Congressional Research Service, “Farm Labor Shortages and
Immigration Policy” 11/9 pg online at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL30395.pdf//sd)
As previously stated, economic theory suggests that if the demand for labor is nearing or has
outstripped the supply of labor, firms will in the short-run bid up wages to compete for workers.
Consequently, earnings in the short-supply field would be expected to increase more rapidly than
earnings across all industries or occupations. The ratio of, in this instance, farm to nonfarm wages
would accordingly be expected to rise if the farm labor supply were tight.
No farm labor shortage – all the aff’s reports are subjective – prefer concrete data
Martin, ’07. Philip Martin is a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of
California, Davis. November 2007. Center for Immigration Studies. “Farm Labor Shortages: How Real?
What Response.” http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back907.html – clawan
For several years stories in the media have reported a farm labor shortage. This study examines this question and
finds little evidence to support this conclusion. First, fruit and vegetable production is actually rising.
Second, wages for farm workers have not risen dramatically. Third, household expenditure on fresh
fruits and vegetables has remain relatively constant, averaging about $1 a day for the past decade. Among the findings:
Production of fruits and vegetables has been increasing. In particular, plantings of very-labor intensive crops such as
cherries and strawberries have grown by more than 20 percent in just five years. The average farm worker makes
$9.06 an hour, compared to $16.75 for non-farm production workers. Real wages for farm workers increased one-half of one
percent (.5 percent) a year on average between 2000 and 2006. If there were a shortage, wages would be rising
much more rapidly. Farm worker earnings have risen more slowly in California and Florida (the states with the most fruit and vegetable
production) than in the United States as a whole. The average household spends only about $1 a day on fresh fruits and vegetables. Labor costs
comprise only 6 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh produce. Thus, if farm wages were allowed to rise 40 percent, and if all the costs
were passed on to consumers, the cost to the average household would be only about $8 a year. Mechanization could offset higher labor costs.
After the “Bracero” Mexican guestworker program ended in the mid-1960s, farm worker wages rose 40 percent, but consumer prices rose
relatively little because the mechanization of some crops dramatically increased productivity. Labor-saving mechanization can be difficult for
one farmer, since packers and processors are usually set up to deal either with hand-picked or machine-picked crops, but not both.
Government has a key role to play in facilitating mechanization. Introduction News reports and editorials suggest widespread farm labor
shortages. The Los Angeles Times described “a nationwide farm worker shortage threatening to leave fruits and vegetables rotting in fields.”1
The Wall Street Journal in a July 20, 2007, editorial claimed that “farmers nationwide are facing their most serious labor shortage in years.” The
editorial asserted that “20 percent of American agricultural products were stranded at the farm gate” in 2006, including a third of North
Carolina cucumbers, and predicted that crop losses in California would hit 30 percent in 2007. The Wall Street Journal editorial continued that,
since “growers can only afford to pay so much and stay competitive,” some U.S. growers are moving fruit and vegetable production abroad. The
New York Times profiled a southern California vegetable grower who rented land in Mexico to produce lettuce and broccoli because, the
grower asserted: “I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I did that [raise U.S. wages] I would raise my costs and I would not have a legal
work force.”2 These reports of
farm labor shortages are not accompanied by data that would buttress the
anecdotes, like lower production of fruits and vegetables or a rise in farm wages as growers scrambled for the
fewer workers available. There is a simple reason. Fruit and vegetable production is rising, the average earnings of farm workers are not going
up extraordinarily fast, and consumers are not feeling a pinch – the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables has averaged about $1 a day for most
households over the past decade. This Backgrounder reviews definitions of farm labor shortages, trends in the production of fresh fruits and
vegetables, farm worker earnings and consumer prices, and the ways in which growers would adjust to higher farm wages. The new Farm Bill
would spend $286 billion over the next five years on farm subsidies and food assistance, including assistance for specialty crops. Instead of
using tax funds to increase production of U.S. fruits and vegetables in ways that require migrant workers, it may be better to subsidize the
labor-saving mechanization needed to keep U.S. fruit and vegetable agriculture competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. Farm Labor
Shortages There is no economic or government definition of persisting shortage. In a market economy, demand
curves rank consumers by their willingness to pay a particular price for a commodity, and supply curves rank suppliers by their willingness to
sell at particular prices. In the familiar X-diagram, if demand exceeds supply, prices rise, reducing demand and increasing supply; if supply
exceeds demand, prices fall. Producers of fresh fruits and vegetables are very familiar with the price changes associated with these workings of
the market, especially with shifts in supply. Demand
and supply adjustments to price changes can occur with
considerable lags. For example, growers of perennial crops such as apples or oranges must decide if high prices are likely to persist
before making the investments necessary for additional production, since it may be three or more years between the time a tree is planted and
the grower harvests a first crop. Government intervention can slow the market adjustments that normally bring supply and demand into
balance. If there is a ceiling on the price of a commodity, there can be shortages, as with price-controlled apartments in New York City. If
suppliers are guaranteed high prices, there can be surpluses, as with some farm commodities. The labor market adjusts in the same way, using
wage changes to send signals about changes in supply and demand. Labor demand curves rank employers by the wages they are willing to pay
to fill particular jobs, and labor supply curves rank workers by their reservation wages, which are the wages needed to induce them to fill
particular jobs. As with farmers who must decide whether to plant more perennial crops in response to higher prices, there can be lags
between changes in the demand for labor and a supply response. For example, an IT-boom can sharply increase the wages of computer
programmers but not produce an immediate surge in programmers because it takes time to acquire the needed education and skills.
Government intervention also affects labor market adjustments. Farm and trade policies affect the demand for labor by encouraging new
plantings if tariff and other barriers to exports are reduced, as with apples and oranges sent to Japan and Korea. Government policies in areas
from education and training to welfare and minimum wages can affect the supply of workers by providing other options for those who would
otherwise fill seasonal farm jobs. However, the major government intervention that affects the farm labor market is immigration. According to
the most recent U.S. Department of Labor survey, over three-fourths of the hired workers employed on U.S. crop farms were born outside the
United States, usually in Mexico. The same survey found that 53 percent of crop workers were unauthorized.3 Media
reports of farm
labor shortages usually quote farm employers saying they have fewer workers than they want. For example,
a farm employer may claim a labor shortage if there is a crew of 30 working but a crew of 40 is preferred, or if the farmer asked for two crews
of workers today but contractors do not bring them until tomorrow.
Ext – US Agriculture Alt-Causes
Climate change causes drought and overheats crops—irrecoverable collapse of Ag
Lewis 13
(Thomas A, Instructor of Mass Communication at Frostburg State, The Daily Impact, “USDA Report
Foresees Collapse of Agriculture” 2/8/13 pg online at http://www.dailyimpact.net/2013/02/08/usdaforesees-collapse-of-agriculture///sd)
A new US Department of Agriculture report looking only at the threat of climate change implies that industrial agriculture
will be on its knees in 25 years. “We’re going to end up in a situation where we have a multitude of
things happening that are going to negatively impact crop production,” said Jerry Hatfield, lead author of the study.
“In fact, we saw this in 2012 with the drought.” Ever the cheerleader for industrial agriculture, the USDA insists that corporate
farmers will be fine for a couple dozen years as long as they increase irrigation, use genetically modified, drought-resistant seeds — and move.
After that time frame, however, the USDA report — the third annual Climate Assessment Report, just released in draft form for public review —
throws up its hands and admits that escalating
temperatures will stunt crops, reduce yields, stimulate weeds and
insects, overheat food animals, foster disease and — worst of all — reduce profitability. In other words, it will be
the end of the world as they know it. Okay, that’s snide. The report states flatly that within 25 years the cumulative effects of
global warming will become “a threat to the security of the United States.” The report [summarized in USA Today] is remarkable on two counts.
First, of course, is that the cheerleaders are losing their cheery confidence that we will somehow win this game. Second is how pessimistic they
become when looking at only one set of threats. According to the report, one
way to fight climate change, which already has half
the country locked in a vicious drought, is to increase irrigation. Right. And their likely advice to the millions who will
be starving when the water runs out and the crops fail: you should eat more. What about topsoil loss, which
continues to accelerate despite billions spent on conservation half-measures? What about the rise of
pesticide-resistant weeds, bugs and bacteria? What about the poisoning of rivers and lakes, and the dead zones in
the oceans? Add all these effects to the report’s slender survey and it’s hard to imagine getting through 25 years before it gets
serious. Still, can we expect Big Ag to change its ways now that its own team has issued a report as brutal in its outlook as this one? Hardly.
Because the same government that paid for the report gives them cheap insurance against crop failure. Cheap
cheap flood insurance — is
crop insurance — like
a product so ruinous to the insurer that no private company will touch it.
Immigration Can’t Solve Ag
Immigration process is not quick enough to stop shortages—alt causes
Sumption 11
(Madeleine, Masters in Public Policy at University of Chicago, senior policy analyst at the Migration
Policy Institute, “Filling Labor Shortages through Immigration: An Overview of Shortage Lists and their
Implications” Feb, pg online at http://migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=828//sd)
A second, though perhaps less troubling, challenge is timeliness. Labor market conditions are somewhat variable but data
sources — and shortage lists — respond with a time lag. The United Kingdom and New Zealand, for instance, update
their shortage lists every six months, while others (such as Ireland) adjust the list periodically without a specific
timetable. By the time the data is analyzed (sometimes months after it was collected) and a profession added to the shortage
list, and by the time foreign workers have applied for the jobs, obtained visas, and arrived in the
destination country, the recruiting difficulties they were supposed to alleviate may have disappeared. For
their part, existing workers might have responded to signs of high demand and trained to enter the
profession. Alternatively, economic conditions might have changed , decimating demand in cyclical industries. In cases
where hiring was difficult precisely because of a business cycle boom, a downturn could reduce employment demand quite
fast. These realities mean that policymakers who expect immigrants to respond in real time to skills
shortages as they emerge and promptly return home as the shortages recede are likely to be
disappointed. The challenges inherent in measuring labor shortages, together with the issues of accuracy and
timeliness, means that the actual number of shortage occupations might not automatically adjust to the
economic cycle — a concern for some policymakers.
AT: Ag Key Economy
Ag not key to the economy and it’s resilient
US Embassy 8
(“A SERVICE ECONOMY” 4/8 pg online at
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2008/04/20080415222038eaifas0.9101831.html
#axzz2Y6bE2bbc//sd)
Services produced by private industry accounted for 67.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2006, with real
estate and financial services such as banking, insurance, and investment on top. Some other categories of
services are wholesale and retail sales; transportation; health care; legal, scientific, and management services;
education; arts; entertainment; recreation; hotels and other accommodation; restaurants, bars, and other food
and beverage services. Production of goods accounted for 19.8 percent of GDP: manufacturing—such as computers, autos,
aircraft, machinery—12.1 percent; construction, 4.9 percent; oil and gas drilling and other mining, 1.9 percent; agriculture, less
than 1 percent. Federal, state, and local governments accounted for the rest—12.4 percent of GDP. The most rapidly expanding sectors
are financial services; professional, scientific, and technical services; durable goods manufacturing, especially computers and electronic
products; real estate; and health care. Decreasing
their share of GDP growth are agriculture and mining and some
other kinds of manufacturing, such as textiles. "Low-value, commodity-based manufacturing is disappearing
from the United States, moving to developing nations where routine manufacturing can be performed at
low cost," the Council on Competitiveness says. Yet the United States remains the world's top manufacturing country, its factories producing
goods worth $1.49 trillion in 2005, 1.5 times the level in the next country, Japan. And the value of U.S. agricultural production
trails that of only China and India. Even though agriculture now has a small share of GDP, farmers remain
economically and politically powerful forces. In 2002 the market value of U.S. farm production amounted to more than $200
billion, including $45 billion for cattle and calves; nearly $40 billion for grains, such as corn and wheat, and oilseeds such as soybeans; nearly
$24 billion for poultry and eggs; $20 billion for milk and other dairy products; and $12 billion for hogs and pigs. Even though the United States
has more than 2 million farms,
a relatively tiny number of big corporate farms dominate—1.6 percent of farms in 2002
accounted for half of all sales. Despite its overall trade deficit, the United States has a surplus in agriculture. U.S. farm exports in
2007 are forecast at $78 billion, with the largest share going to Asian countries, although Canada and Mexico account for the
largest share of recent growth in agricultural exports. About one-fourth of U.S. farm output is exported. The United States
also maintains a trade surplus in services, $79.7 billion in 2006. The biggest U.S. services export category was travel by foreigners to the United
States, $85.8 billion that year. In contrast, the United States runs a large and growing deficit in merchandise goods trade. While the United
States exported more than $1 trillion in goods in 2006, it imported more than $1.8 trillion worth. By far the top imports that year were autos
and auto parts, $211.9 billion, and crude oil, $225.2 billion. The top sources of U.S. imports were Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany.
Among the top U.S. exports in 2006 were autos and auto parts, semiconductors, and civilian aircraft. The top U.S. export destinations were
Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom. In 2000-2006, even though U.S. goods exports increased 33 percent, U.S.
goods
imports went up even faster, 52 percent; the goods deficit nearly doubled over those years. The $758.5
billion trade deficit amounted to 5.7 percent of 2006 GDP, a level viewed as unsustainable by many
economists because it relies on continuing inflows of foreign investment to pay for it. But what makes the U.S.
economy so dynamic?
AT: Food Security/Prices Impacts
1NC AT: Food Security Impact
US ag can’t resolve global food security – regional investments are key
OGFS, 9. Office of Global Food Security, US Department of State, September 28, 2009. “Global Hunger
and Food Security Initiative: Consultation Document.”
http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/129952.htm – clawan
The United States alone cannot meet the global need to reduce hunger and promote food security. And
foreign assistance alone will not end hunger or eliminate under-nutrition. We must draw on significant investments
from other donors, the private sector, partner countries, and citizens themselves. Foreign assistance
must play a key role in strengthening public institutions that catalyze private investment rather than hold it back. It must also
invest in the experience of the small-scale farmers and business that can succeed by providing them with loans to jumpstart
operations. The most effective food security strategies come from those closest to the problems—not
governments or institutions thousands of miles away. In the past, our efforts have been undermined by a
lack of coordination, limited transparency, uneven monitoring and evaluation, and relationships with recipient
countries based more on patronage than partnership. Going forward, we will emphasize consultation and careful analysis of impact
and make corrections as we go. While we will increase our own efforts, success will ultimately rest on the shoulders of the farmers
and entrepreneurs who wake up each day committed to grow their future. It also will rest on the national and local leaders
in their countries who must foster environments where investments in agricultural development can thrive, with zero tolerance for the petty corruption
and polices that restrict agriculture-led growth.
US ag not key – UK food production solves
Defra, ‘8. Department for Environment, the UK government department responsible for policy and
regulations on environmental, food and rural issues. Our priorities are to grow the rural economy,
improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health.Food and Rural Affairs. July 2008.
“Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World.” http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/DEFRAEnsuring-UK-Food-Security-in-a-changing-world-170708.pdf – clawan
UK food production needs to respond to growing global demand for food 4.21. We need to feed a
growing world population in a way that does not degrade the natural resources on which farming and
food production ultimately depend. 4.22. UK production is of course crucial to our food supply, but it is not on its own
sufficient for UK food security. We should encourage a sufficient volume of domestic production for the food supply chain as a whole, and that means continuing to
ENSURING THE UK’S FOOD SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD 20 encourage a market-driven, efficient and environmentally sustainable farming sector producing
what consumers want. 4.23. Domestic farming will need the capacity to respond to changes, including to climate and market changes. These changes will mean
using different crops and varieties, and building capacity to deal with evolving risks and threats including volatile prices, adverse weather, and pests and disease,
while at the same time providing assurance over production methods and a proper, risk-based use of agro-chemicals. The
Government is
committed to supporting UK food and farming 4.24. Defra has as one of its departmental strategic
objectives “a thriving farming and food sector with an improving net environmental impact", and
promoting a strong domestic farming sector alongside stakeholder partners is central to Defra’s work. 4.25. Farming's economic and
environmental performance are inextricably linked, and we need to make progress across both fronts in order to meet the global challenges ahead - including
feeding a growing world population in a way that does not degrade the natural resources on which farming and food production ultimately depends. This is one of
the central principles of the Government's Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy. 4.26. Defra’s spends half its research budget on supporting the farming and food
sectors. £27.5 million is aimed at resource management in the farming and food industries, including energy and water use and additional activity on climate change
mitigation and adaptation. 4.27. The Rural Development Programme for England will invest £3.9 billion in England's farming industry and rural areas over 20072013; this funding will help secure environmental goods that the market does not currently reward including: ƒ £3.3 billion to support farmers delivering
environmental land management, forestry schemes, uplands and energy crops; ƒ £300 million to help improve farming's competitiveness and sustainability; and ƒ
£300 million to support the wider rural economy and communities. ENSURING THE UK’S FOOD SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD 21 The
Government is
also supporting research on the best ways to respond to growing competition for land 4.28. Defra, working
together with the Department for Communities and Local Government, are joint sponsors of an independent Foresight Land Use Futures project which was
launched in April 2008. The
project will explore how society’s use of land could evolve over the next 50 years and
how Government needs to respond. The Government is supporting the farming industry in its fight
against diseases and pests 4.29. The Government is working with food producers and processors to help
prevent animal and plant diseases disrupting food supplies. Defra is spending £405 million on preventing and controlling animal
diseases. Steps
taken by the Government and industry together in recent years to prevent outbreaks and
spread of disease have helped to ensure that plant and animal diseases in the UK do not have a major or
prolonged impact on food production and supply. The arrival of diseases like bluetongue show some of the challenges we face. 4.30.
Defra is working with the farming industry to develop new arrangements for cost and responsibility sharing. This will provide an opportunity for
Government and the farming industry to reach better decisions on the prevention, control and
eradication of plant and animal diseases that command the widest possible support. The Government is working with the farming industry to
ensure there are enough workers with the right skills
Food insecurity doesn’t cause conflict – no correlation and alt causes
Maxwell, ’12. Daniel Maxwell, Research Director for Food Security and Complex Emergencies;
Professor; MAHA Director. 13-14 SEPTEMBER 2012. “Food Security and Its Implications for Political
Stability: A Humanitarian Perspective.”
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs_high_level_forum/documents/FS-ImplicationsPolitical_Stability-Maxwell.pdf – clawan
Several potential conclusions emerge from this discussion. First, the causal relationship between food security and political
stability in humanitarian emergencies is complex and difficult to generalize that is to say that food insecurity can be caused by
conflict/political instability, and political instability can be caused by food insecurity. Militarized conflict an extreme form of political instability has
clearly been a major driver of humanitarian emergencies, particularly since the end of the cold war, with high levels of food insecurity a common consequence of
these emergencies. However, at the same time, many of the local drivers of conflict have been related to control over land and other natural resources, which are
ultimately linked to people s livelihoods and therefore to their food security (Alinovi, Hemrich, & Russo, 2008). In most of these emergencies,
it isn t really
possible to specify the independent and dependent variables in the relationship. The relationship can be understood in
any given context, but it is circular and iterative, not linear. And, it should also be noted, that there isn t always any particularly
demonstrable relationship between the two. Substantial levels of food insecurity can exist without there
being any driver related to political instability, and without necessarily causing major political instability.
Hence, a certain amount of caution is justified regarding any general theory of the link between the two. Second, there are some common drivers
of both political instability and food insecurity. Climate change is at least partly implicated for both in the Darfur conflict, for
example: as rainfall patterns changed, nomadic camel herders had to migrate farther and farther southwards to find dry season grazing and water, which brought
them increasingly into conflict with other ethnic and livelihoods groups and made the lack of a designated homeland or Dar for the nomadic groups more evident
(Young et al., 2005). Needless to say, the Darfur conflict was quickly politicized by other actors predominantly the ruling party in Khartoum for their own purposes,
so it would be wrong to blame the Darfur crisis predominantly on climate change. Nevertheless, it likely played a crucial underlying role. Increasing frequency of
drought and climate variability is equally implicated in food security crises elsewhere. It seems unlikely that there will be any change in the
foreseeable future in a number of drivers of food insecurity: the volatility of short-term weather impacts and medium-term climate change impacts, the
volatility of global and local food prices, or the number of localized conflicts (ripe for manipulation the way Darfur or Somalia were). In other words, the
number of localized food security crises is unlikely to decrease. This has major implications for both humanitarian preparedness
and response and for policy makers worried more broadly about the implications for political stability, notwithstanding the caution raised above about generalizing
the relationship between food insecurity and political stability. The social protection responses rolled out on a national scale in Ethiopia, and piloted in a number of
other countries have certainly made progress in providing a safety net but the jury is still out on whether such programs actually offer a broadly accessible ladder
out of poverty and chronic food insecurity. It is likely that substantially
more resources will be required to achieve the latter
objective at scale, and the infrastructure and capacity needed for implementation are likely inadequate in
the most affected countries.
1NC AT: Food Prices Impact
Food price impacts exaggerated – experts agree
BBC 12 (October 15th, Food price crisis: What crisis?, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19715504)
And yet most experts agree the situation is nothing like as dire as it was four years ago, nor in fact two years
ago when droughts again hit food production hard, sending prices to record highs. Prices are measured against expectations, and harvests have
not been as bad as many had feared.
More importantly, stocks are in better shape. Perhaps most importantly, key
producers, in particular Russia, have not imposed the kinds of export bans that helped trigger previous price
hikes. These were particularly damaging as the world has become more dependent for its grain on the Commonwealth of Independent
States, which includes some of the world's biggest producers of wheat, including Russia, Kazakhstan and unofficial member Ukraine. "Big
producers have been battered by drought but they are honouring their export contracts," says James Walton, chief economist at food experts
IGD. "If Russia or central Asian countries were going to do something, they would probably have done it by now." The Agricultural Market
Information System, which was established last year and allows the world's major food producers to work off common data as well as providing
a forum for discussion, has played an important part. "Governments are shying away from restrictive measures; supplies are not as bad and
inventories are not as bad," says Abdolreza Abbassian, senior economist at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. "Recent
experiences have made people a little over sensitive, but [the situation] does not look as bad [as 2008]".
In fact, according to Mr Abbassian, there is no shortage of rice, despite patchy harvests, while
inventories of wheat are good, and much higher than in 2007. Sugar production in Brazil has also been
much better than expected, while China has generally had a good growing season, Mr Walton
adds.There is also less pressure on prices from biofuels, a "big factor" in the 2008 price spikes, Mr
Abbassian says, when a record high for the price of oil drove demand for alternative fuels. Corn and
sugar, for example, are used extensively in biofuels - in the US, 40% of all corn production goes into
making ethanol. Not only is the oil price well below those highs, but the UN says fewer crops are being
diverted towards biofuels. Overall, then, fears of an impending food price crisis would appear to be
exaggerated. "There has been a lot of talk about food prices at the UN, the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank, and the general feeling is we are not in the same situation we were in in 2008,"
says Marc Sadler, senior agriculture economist at the World Bank.
Farmers and governments check high food prices
Wang 12 (Weijing; Are High Food Prices Good or Bad? http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs//blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego
ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp
_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_ p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&) HS
People normally think high food prices are bad, or at least bad to net consumers, although good to net
producers. As many small holders and the poor are the net consumers, they are vulnerable to high food
prices. The memory of 2008 food crisis is still fresh to many people: the high food prices exaggerated
poverty and pushed more than 100 million people into hunger in 2008 (WFP, 2008). In the recent southsouth cooperation workshop in Beijing however, it was argued that high food prices were not always
bad. When the prices go up, it hurts farmers, but farmers will quickly have coping strategy and produce
more. They become producers and benefit from the high prices. This opinion is likely to be consistent
with Chinese government’s food prices policy. The objective of food price policy is to keep the food
prices growing moderately. The rationale is to provide enough incentives for farming, and gradually
increase farmers’ income, but not too radical to cause food crisis. I think it seems a good blueprint but
the question is how well for government to create an environment to allow the prices grow moderately?
And if there is a pressure of volatility of food prices , how well could the government, the community,
the producers and the consumers prevent and prepare for it?
Food price spikes inevitable – speculation and droughts outweigh production
Lagi and Bar-Yam ‘12 Marco Lagi, Yavni Bar-Yam and Yaneer Bar-Yam, researchers at MIT’s New
England Complex Systems Institute; “UPDATE July 2012 — The Food Crises: The US Drought;” July 23,
2012; publ. by New England Complex Systems Institute
http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodprices/updatejuly2012/food_prices_july_2012.pdf RMJ
Recent droughts in the midwestern United States threaten to cause global catastrophe driven by a
speculator amplified food price bubble. Here we show the effect of speculators on food prices using a validated quantitative model that
accurately describes historical food prices. During the last six years, high and fluctuating food prices have lead to
widespread hunger and social unrest. While the spring of 2012 had a relative dip in the food prices, a massive drought in the
American midwest in June and July threatens to trigger another crisis. In a previous paper, we
constructed a model that quantitatively agreed with food prices and demonstrated that, while the
behavior could not be explained by supply and demand economics, it could be parsimoniously and
accurately described by a model which included both the conversion of corn into ethanol and speculator
trend following. An update to the original paper in February 2012 demonstrated that the model previously published was predictive of the ongoing price
dynamics, and anticipated a new food crisis by the end of 2012 if adequate policy actions were not implemented. Here we provide a second update, evaluating the
effects of the current drought on global food prices. We find that the
drought may trigger the expected third food price bubble
to occur sooner, before new limits to speculation are scheduled to take effect. Reducing the amount of
corn that is being converted to ethanol may address the immediate crisis. Longer term, market stabilization requires
limiting financial speculation. 1A global crisis in food prices is widely recognized [1], and the vulnerability of the limited food supply to environmental and other
disruptions is a matter of ongoing concern. Recent food price peaks in 2007-8 and 2010-1 have resulted in food riots and are implicated in triggering widespread
revolutions known as the Arab Spring [2]. The underlying vulnerability of the global food supply system is being tested again this summer by a severe drought in the
Midwestern United States which is responsible for a large portion of the global food supply [3, 4, 5, 6]. In a paper published in September 2011 [7], we
built a
quantitative model that, for the first time, was able to precisely match the monthly FAO food price index
over the last 8 years. The model showed that, of all the factors proposed to be responsible for the recent
dramatic spikes and fluctuations in global food prices, rapid increases in the amount of cornto-ethanol
conversion and speculation on futures markets were the only factors which could justifiably be held
responsible. Each of these causes is due to particular acts of government intervention or deregulation.
Thus, while the food supply and prices may be vulnerable to global population increases and environmental change, the existing price increases are due to specific
governmental policies. In
order to prevent further crises in the food market, we recommended the halting of
government support for ethanol conversion and the reversal of commodities market deregulation,
which enables unlimited financial speculation. Since the publication of our analysis, a few changes in these directions have been made. At
the end of 2011, ethanol subsidies were allowed to expire [8, 9]. However, a governmentguaranteed demand for 37% of the US corn crop is still in place [10]. It is
unclear what effect this partial change in policy will have on the percentage of corn converted to ethanol, currently about 40%. New position limits on speculative
activity by the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission are scheduled to come into effect by the end of 2012, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act [11, 12]. It
remains to be seen how effective these new regulations will be, as there are those who consider them too watered-down [13], and market participants are seeking
to dilute them further [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. In a subsequent update published in February 2012 [18], we showed that the model continued to fit current data, up to
January 2012, which had not been available at the time of the construction of the model. We further observed that extrapolating
model prices
into the future yielded the prediction of another speculative bubble starting by the end of 2012 and causing
food prices to rise even higher than recent peaks. 2This season, the American Midwestern agricultural region
has experienced debilitating droughts and high temperatures, the most severe in at least 50 years,
leading to rapidly rising corn and wheat prices in anticipation of a poor yield [4, 5]. Here we include this as a shock in our
established model. We find that through the mechanism of speculative activity, the drought may trigger the third
massive price spike to occur earlier than otherwise expected, beginning immediately, and sooner than
could be prevented by the anticipated new regulations. This spike may raise prices well beyond an
increase justified by the reduced supply caused by the droughts. In Fig. 1 we plot our model predictions for different scenarios.
The central comparison is between the drought triggered speculative bubble (red line) compared to the same shock with the speculator and ethanol model [7],
without the effects of the current drought (yellow line) with the effects of the current drought (red line), and with the effects of the drought, but with speculation
reduced (green line). In all cases, corn-to-ethanol conversion is considered to be constant after Jan 2012 and stock prices and bond prices are considered to be
constant after July 2012. For the red and green line, drought is modeled as a shock in equilibrium prices (+3%) in July 2012. In all cases, the new optimized
parameters for the fit up to July 2012: ksd = 0.089, ksp = 1.25, µequityγ 0 = −0.074, µbondsγ 0 = −15.4. The speculation parameter after July 2012 is reduced to ksp =
0.3 for the green line. 3reduced speculation (green line). While
the drought only causes a limited price shock, the impact on
prices is amplified by the speculative activity. This shows the role of speculators using the current level
of market speculation as validated by prior analysis of food prices. The speculative bubble is modeled starting from a price
shock driven by the drought, which is expected to occur based upon existing grain price increases [5] though it has not yet been specified by the FAO. The price
increase then causes the upcoming price spike to come sooner than would have otherwise occurred. The level of earlier riot-inducing bubbles is reached before the
end of 2012 and prices continue to rise much higher. Without
the drought (yellow line), the rise in prices would be just as
dramatic, but is predicted to occur several months later, possibly in time for the new regulations to prevent it. On the other hand, if speculation
were to be curbed immediately, starting from July 2012, the model shows (green curve) that the price increase due to the drought
would be far smaller, and would not lead to another dramatic price spike. An alternative intervention, eliminating the
government mandated ethanol quota for this year [20], would would result in a new market shock and could cause a sudden drop in prices. This may alleviate the
immediate concerns though its effect is subject to speculator driven band wagon effects.
Ext – US Ag Fails
No spillover of U.S. tech – tech barrier, intellectual property, and regulations
Pardey and Alston, ’10. Philip G. Pardey is professor of science and technology policy in the
Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. Julian M. Alston is a professor in the
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics of the University of California, Davis, where he
teaches graduate and undergraduate classes in microeconomic theory and the analysis of agricultural
markets and policies. January 2010. “U.S. Agricultural Research in a Global Food Security Setting.” A
Report of the CSIS Task Force on Food Security. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and
analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change.
http://csis.org/files/publication/100111_Pardey_USAgriRes_Web.pdf - clawan
Underfunding of agricultural R&D in developing countries is clearly problematic, and the stage is set for
the problem to worsen. In addition to the distinctive features of developing countries described above, the inadequacy of agricultural
knowledge stocks may be exacerbated by changes occurring in developed countries. Although the most immediate and tangible effect of the
new technologies and ideas stemming from research done in one country is to foster productivity growth in that country, the new technologies and ideas often spill
over and spur sizable productivity gains elsewhere in the world. In the past, developing countries benefited considerably from technological spillovers from
developed countries, in part because the bulk of the world’s agricultural science and innovation occurred in rich countries.13 Increasingly,
spillovers
from developed countries may not be available to developing countries in the same ways or to the same
extent. Decreasing spillover potential is caused by several related market and policy trends in developed countries. First, the types of
technologies being developed may no longer be as readily applicable to developing countries as they were in
the past. As previously noted, developed country R&D agendas have been reoriented away from productivity gains
in food staples toward other aspects of agricultural production, such as environmental effects, food quality, and the medical, energy, and
industrial uses of agricultural commodities. This growing divergence between developed-country research agendas and
the priorities of developing countries implies fewer applicable technologies that would be candidates for adaptation to
developing countries. Second, technologies that are applicable may not be as readily accessible because of
increasing intellectual property protection of privately owned technologies and, perhaps, more important, the expanding scope
and enforcement of biosafety regulations. Different approaches may have to be devised to make it possible for countries to achieve
equivalent access to technological potential generated by other countries. Third, those technologies that are applicable and
available are likely to require more substantial local development and adaptation, calling for more
sophisticated and more extensive forms of scientific R&D than in the past. The requirement for local adaptive research
is also likely to be exacerbated as changes in global and local climate regimes add further to the need for
adaptive responses to those changed agricultural production environments. In some instances developing countries may also have to extend their own
agricultural R&D efforts farther upstream, to more fundamental areas of the science. These new pressures for self-reliance in agricultural research are coming at a
time when many developing countries, along with developed countries, are finding it difficult to sustain the current rates of investment in agricultural research.
US alone can’t resolve – multilateral institutions solve best
OGFS, 9. Office of Global Food Security, US Department of State, September 28, 2009. “Global Hunger
and Food Security Initiative: Consultation Document.”
http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/129952.htm – clawan
U.S. assistance cannot reach every country that needs assistance; multilateral institutions provide an
opportunity to partner with the global community to make a global impact. Multilateral institutions can
efficiently deliver global resources for food security, complement bilateral activities, and strengthen in-country donor coordination
processes. Multilateral development banks and funds, such as the World Bank, the regional development
banks, and the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) also have important comparative advantages that
complement bilateral programs. For example, they can undertake large-scale transportation projects or support intra-regional transportation corridors that boost
trade flows and reduce the costs and time to ship inputs and crops. In addition, multilateral institutions such as the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
and the World Food Program (WFP) have significant technical experience that can be leveraged to help implement a multi-stakeholder strategy. Multilateral
institutions, such as the UN High Level Task Force, will also play an important global coordination role.
US measures don’t solve – they only result in the exploitation of the South by the
North
Gimenez, 8. Eric Holt-Giménez, Ph.D., is Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and
Development Policy and analyst for the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy.
October 23, 2008. “The world food crisis: what is behind it and what we can do.”
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/09/editorials/holt-gimenez.htm – clawan
The destruction of southern food systems occurred through a series of northern economic development
projects: The Green Revolution (1960-90) was a campaign led by the international agricultural research centers that aimed to
modernize farming in the developing world. Impressive gains in national productivity were accompanied
by the steady monopolization of seed and input markets by northern corporations. The highly celebrated Asian and
Mexican "miracles" masked the loss of 90% of agro-biodiversity, the massive reduction of water tables, salinization and erosion
of soils, and the displacement of millions of peasants to fragile hillsides, shrinking forests, and urban slums. Excluding China, the Green Revolution
increased food per capita by 11%. However, the number of hungry people also increased by 11%. Structural
Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the 1980s-90s imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund followed, dismantling marketing boards,
eliminating price guarantees, closing entire research and extension systems, breaking down tariffs, and
deregulating agricultural markets. Southern countries were flooded with subsidized grain from the U.S.
and Europe that was sold at prices far under the costs of production. This destroyed national agricultural
markets and tied southern food security to global markets dominated by rich northern countries. Regional
free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization "The idea that developing countries should feed themselves is an anachronism from a bygone era. They
could better ensure their food security by relying on U.S. agricultural products, which are available, in most cases at lower cost." U.S. Agriculture Secretary John
Block, 1986 The rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) cemented the policies of the Structural Adjustment Programs in international treaties that overrode
national laws. WTO
rules, like the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the General Agreement on Trade in Services,
further consolidated northern control over southern agricultural economies. The global South was forced
to strip away genuine protections for smallholders and local producers to open its markets to northern goods while northern
markets remained largely protected through a combination of both tariff and non-tariff barriers.
Regional free trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA, pushed through by the North, continued trade liberalization,
forcing southern farmers out of business and making countries of the South dependent on northern
food imports.
American aid fails to resolve food shortages – the entire process is dominated by selfinterest
Gimenez, 8. Eric Holt-Giménez, Ph.D., is Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and
Development Policy and analyst for the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy.
October 23, 2008. “The world food crisis: what is behind it and what we can do.”
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/09/editorials/holt-gimenez.htm – clawan
World food aid in 2007 reached its lowest level since 1961 (5.9 million tons), precisely when more people than
ever are going hungry. Why? Because when prices are high—and food is unavailable to the poor—food aid
decreases. When prices are low—and food is abundant—food aid increases. Sound backward? That is because food aid responds to grain
prices on the international market—not to the food needs of poor countries. When the price of cereals
is low, northern countries and transnational grain companies seek to sell their commodities through food aid programs.
When the price is high, they prefer to sell their grains on the international market. When more people suffer from
hunger, less food aid arrives. Global food aid is dominated by U.S. food aid , whose objective since 1954 has been
to "lay the basis for a permanent expansion of our exports of agricultural products with lasting benefits
to ourselves and peoples of other lands." Apart from other geopolitical goals, food aid functions as a sponge to absorb
commodities surpluses in the North and dispose of it at prices below the cost of production in the South.
Food aid is monopolized by four companies that control 84% of the transport and delivery. Further, 50-90% of global food aid is conditioned on bilateral trade
agreements. USAID, for example, forces recipient countries to accept genetically modified grains. In 2007, 99.3% of U.S. food aid was "in-kind," that is, food
procured in the United States and shipped to recipient countries (rather than provisions of cash or coupons for purchasing food closer to recipients). The
crippling of food systems in the global South opened up entire continents to the expansion of industrial
agri-foods from the North. This expansion devastated local agro-biodiversity and emptied the countryside
of valuable natural and human resources. But as long as cheap, subsidized grain from the industrial North kept flowing, the industrial agri-foods
complex grew, consolidating control of the world's food systems in the hands of fewer and fewer grain, seed, chemical, and petroleum companies. Today three
companies, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill, and Bunge control 90% of the world's grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls one-fifth of seed
production, while Bayer Crop Science, Syngenta, and BASF control half of the total agro-chemical market.
Warming makes food insecurity inevitable
Vidal ’13 John Vidal, environment editor for The Guardian; “Climate change: how a warming world is a
threat to our food supplies;” Apr 13 2013; The Guardian: The Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/13/climate-change-threat-food-supplies RMJ
Drought, rocketing bread prices, food and water shortages have all blighted parts of the Middle East. Analysts at the Centre for American
Progress in Washington say a combination of food shortages and other environmental factors exacerbated the already tense politics of the
region. As the Observer reports today, an
as-yet unpublished US government study indicates that the world needs
to prepare for much more of the same, as food prices spiral and longstanding agricultural practices are
disrupted by climate change. "We should expect much more political destabilisation of countries as it bites,"
says Richard Choularton, a policy officer in the UN's World Food Programme climate change office. "What is
different now from 20 years ago is that far more people are living in places with a higher climatic risk; 650 million
people now live in arid or semi-arid areas where floods and droughts and price shocks are expected to have the most impact. "The
recent crises in the Horn of Africa and Sahel may be becoming the new normal. Droughts are expected to
become more frequent. Studies suggest anything up to 200 million more food-insecure people by 2050
or an additional 24 million malnourished children. In parts of Africa we already have a protracted and
growing humanitarian disaster. Climate change is a creeping disaster," he said. The Mary Robinson climate justice
foundation is hosting a major conference in Dublin this week. Research to be presented there will say that rising incomes and growth
in the global population, expected to create 2 billion more mouths to feed by 2050, will drive food prices higher by 4050%. Climate change may add a further 50% to maize prices and slightly less to wheat, rice and oil seeds. "We know
population will grow and incomes increase, but also that temperatures will rise and rainfall patterns will
change. We must prepare today for higher temperatures in all sectors," said Gerald Nelson, a senior
economist with the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington. All of the studies suggest the
worst impacts will be felt by the poorest people. Robinson, the former Irish president, said: "Climate change is already having a domino effect
on food and nutritional security for the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. Child malnutrition is predicted to increase by 20% by 2050.
Climate change impacts will disproportionately fall on people living in tropical regions, and particularly on the most vulnerable and marginalised
population groups. This is the injustice of climate change – the worst of the impacts are felt by those who contributed least to causing the
problem." But from Europe to the US to Asia, no population will remain insulated from the huge changes in food production that the rest of the
century will bring. Frank Rijsberman,
head of the world's leading Cgiar crop research stations, said: "There's a
lot of complacency in rich countries about climate change. We must understand that instability is inevitable. We
already see a lot of refugees. Perhaps if a lot of people come over on boats to Europe or the US that would wake them up."
Ext – UK Solves Food Security
UK ag industry solves best for environment – proactive initiatives to respond to
climate change
Defra, ‘8. Department for Environment, the UK government department responsible for policy and
regulations on environmental, food and rural issues. Our priorities are to grow the rural economy,
improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health.Food and Rural Affairs. July 2008.
“Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World.” http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/DEFRAEnsuring-UK-Food-Security-in-a-changing-world-170708.pdf – clawan
4.47. Defra is already taking action to help ensure UK farmers and food producers are aware of how they
are likely to be affected by climate change and what they need to do to manage the risks, both
economic and environmental. A cross-Government Adapting to Climate Change Programme has been set up, to bring together work already
underway, and to co-ordinate and drive forward the development of 26 www.berr.gov.uk. The differences and similarities between energy security and food
security are set out in Defra, Food Security and the UK: an evidence and analysis paper, pp. 73-4 27 www.defra.gov.uk ENSURING THE UK’S FOOD SECURITY IN A
CHANGING WORLD 26 Government's work on adaptation in the future. We will shortly launch an Adapting to Climate Change website, which will provide further
information about this Programme and which will also help users find out more about how the climate is changing, and what they can do to adapt. 4.48. Defra
has also launched a new project, as part of its Farming for the Future programme, to specifically address climate change
adaptation by agriculture. The overarching aim of the project is to make the agriculture sector
environmentally and economically sustainable in a changing climate; and to make agricultural ecosystems resilient to climate
change by protecting, restoring and enhancing ecosystem services (e.g. biodiversity, water purification, flood management). This will
help both to maintain the current multiple benefits we obtain from agricultural land and to manage the broader
impacts of climate change on the UK as a whole. The project is supported by a continuing programme of
research on agriculture and climate change.
UK ag industry key to global food security – international aid and food markets
Defra, ‘8. Department for Environment, the UK government department responsible for policy and
regulations on environmental, food and rural issues. Our priorities are to grow the rural economy,
improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health.Food and Rural Affairs. July 2008.
“Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World.” http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/DEFRAEnsuring-UK-Food-Security-in-a-changing-world-170708.pdf – clawan
5. Conclusion 5.1. The UK currently enjoys a high level of national food security, which reflects the diverse and abundant supply
of foodstuffs available in our supermarkets. We produce much of our food ourselves, and because the UK is a developed economy, we are able to
access the food we need on the global market. 5.2. The recent increases in global food prices have, however, focused the attention of
Governments around the world on short-term supply and long-term challenges to our food system. Rising global demand, climate change, high oil prices and new
pressures on land such as biofuels have undermined global food security. These pressures are compounded by trade distorting subsidies and protectionist policies
imposed in the US, EU and other countries 5.3. To
address the global food price increases, the UK has committed to a
substantial aid package to help the most vulnerable countries and called on the G8 to take coordinated
action. The G8 has agreed to invest over $10 billion to meet not just immediate humanitarian needs – including increases in food aid – but to
improve food security and increase agricultural productivity over the longer term. This needs to be done in an
environmentally sustainable way to maintain the natural resource base for the future. It makes sense to encourage food production in Africa, as a lack of production
globally will force up prices which will affect consumers in the UK too. 5.4. The UK believes that effectively
functioning markets are
fundamental to ensuring global food security. The Government is committed to continuing to liberalise markets through the Doha
Development Round of trade negotiations and reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. 5.5. We believe that global food security means everyone having
enough to eat, and we have committed to substantial investment in research and development to enable developing countries to improve their food production.
Climate change presents one of the greatest threats to increasing agricultural productivity and the Government is leading the EU and the world in tackling climate
change. In addition, we are investing in research and development and capacity building to increase resilience in countries that will be most affected by climate
change. ENSURING THE UK’S FOOD SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD 28 5.6. One
of the most important contributions the UK can
make to global, and our own, food security is having a thriving and productive agriculture sector in the
UK, operating in a global market and responding to what consumers want. The Government is
committed to supporting the agricultural sector including through investment in research and
development, support on skills and ensuring the UK benefits from EU support under Rural Development Programmes.
Ext – AT: Food Prices Impact – Inevitable
Any change in food prices causes millions to die; food price death is inevitable
Rodrik 10 (Dani; Harvard Professor of EconomicsAre high food prices good or bad for poverty?
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2010/11/are-high-food-prices-good-or-bad-forpoverty.html) HS
But you would hardly know it from reading what NGOs and international organizations have produced
on the topic. (For my past instances of blowing off steam on the subject, see this and this.) As Johan F.M.
Swinnen notes in a new essay these basic principles are well known, [yet] we do not find them reflected
in most arguments put forward in the food policy debate. For example, there has been hardly any
mentioning of the benefits of low food prices for urban consumers and net consuming rural households
during the pre-2006 low price era, and there has been very little emphasis in more recent statements on
the benefits for producers in poor countries from high food prices. In 2005, Oxfam International wrote:
US and Europe[‘s s]urplus production is sold on world markets at artificially low prices, making it
impossible for farmers in developing countries to compete. As a consequence, over 900 millions of
farmers are losing their livelihoods. Three years later, following a substantial rise in food prices, Oxfam
International’s view was that: Higher food prices have pushed millions of people in developing countries
further into hunger and poverty. There are now 967 million malnourished people in the world…. It is
unfair to single out Oxfam since organizations like the World Bank, OECD, and the FAO have not been
much better. So here is the World Bank in 1990: The combination of depressed world prices and
developing country policies which tax agriculture relative to industry have discouraged farm output and
hence lowered rural incomes. Because the majority of the world’s poorest households depend on
agriculture and related activities for their livelihood, this … is especially alarming. And the World Bank in
2008: The increase in food prices represents a major crisis for the world’s poor. (All these cites come
from Swinnen’s article.) In other words, the news on the food prices front is always bad for the world’s
poor, regardless of whether prices are rising or falling. Why do these institutions always accentuate the
negative? Swinnen argues the reason has to do with international organizations’ incentives to capture
media attention, capitalize on “sudden shocks,” and emphasize the negative in the “news” (to which
people seem to pay more attention). Whatever the reason, it makes for bad public policy.
Ext – AT: Food Prices Impact – High Prices Good
High food prices help long term economic sustainability
FAOUN 08 (HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY: THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE AND BIOENERGY; http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload /foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08inf-1-E.pdf) HS
The current commodity (agricultural and non-agricultural) price boom brings opportunities for increased
government revenue and private sector income in exporting countries. At the same time, it presents a
challenge as to how governments can best allocate windfall gains between consumption and
investment. Thus, decisions made during the price boom are decisive for economic growth during
periods of low prices. Several research efforts have identified a “resource curse”, meaning natural
resourceabundant countries tend to grow more slowly than resource-scarce countries. However recent
research points out that the impact on long-term growth varies with the type of export commodity
(Collier and Goderis, 2007; Collier, 2007). Specifically for the African context, the resource curse relates
primarily to oil and non-agricultural commodity price booms, while booming prices on agricultural
commodities may, in fact, lead to higher economic growth both in the short and long run. Where the
public sector derives a large share of its revenue through taxation of pricevolatile non-agricultural
commodities, research has shown that such revenues are allocated in an unbalanced way that favours
short-term consumption or relatively unproductive investment rather than savings and sound
investments that will protect the economy during periods of lower prices. As a result, short-term growth
is reversed when prices decline in the long run. On the other hand, agricultural export commodities
compete for land and other input factors with other crops, thus limiting opportunities for rent seeking.
Additionally, farmers make expenditure and investment decisions for additional income generated by an
agricultural commodity boom that consider long-term consumption paths, investment opportunities,
etc. This tends to lead to both short-term economic growth and longer-term economic growth. The
policy implication is that the present agricultural commodity price boom provides an important
opportunity for stimulating both short- and long-term growth if it is not, imprudently, taxed away and if
the public sector provides the necessary resources in the form of public goods which will increase
agricultural productivity.
Ext – AT: Food Prices Impact – Alt-Causes
Alt cause to Ag price spike – Laundry list
Banse et al 08 (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture; Why Are Current World Food Prices So High?
http://www.agripressworld.com/_STUDIOEMMA_UPLOADS/downloads/opr24Y32.pdf) HS
What explains the recent increase in agricultural prices? A combination of record low global inventory
levels, weather induced supply side shocks, surging outside investor influence, record oil prices and
structural changes in demand for grains and oilseeds due to biofuels have created the high prices. The
question is whether it is a coincidence that the past and current high price levels coincide with high oil
prices or whether other reasons for the current price peak are more important. 12 Effects on the supply
side • Poor harvests in Australia, Ukraine and Europe for wheat and barley. According to FAO statistics,
these three regions contributed on average 51% of total world barley production and 27% of total world
wheat production for the period 200592006. Figure 8 Deviation from trend in yields (wheat and coarse
grains) in tons/ha Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats. • Lower harvests in wheat and barley are more
than compensated by a bumper harvest for corn worldwide. o Therefore, world cereal production
increased in total even in 2007. o The bumper harvest in corn kept corn prices low and the wheat9corn
spread increased significantly (see Figure 3). o Only recently have corn prices also strongly increased. 13
• Higher energy prices lead to higher food prices as costs (e.g. fertilizer, processing, and transport)
increase. Higher transport costs induce higher price effects as distances increase. • CAP policies such as
mandatory set9aside regulation or production quota restrained supply. Furthermore, there was a
change from price to income support and compensatory payments became decoupled, set aside was
introduced and export subsidies were diminished. Some of these measures limited supply within the EU.
However, the general aim of the last CAP reforms was an enforcement of farmers’ ability to react to
market signals instead of following policy signals given by market price support. Measures aimed to
restrict supply, e.g. production quota or set9aside requirements, are instruments designed for a world
with declining prices, but which may act to reinforce prices in case of food shortages. • Low prices in the
last decades did not provide an incentive to invest in productivity enhancing technologies.
Population increases create a larger demand
Banse et al 08 (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture; Why Are Current World Food Prices So High?
http://www.agripressworld.com/_STUDIOEMMA_UPLOADS/downloads/opr24Y32.pdf) HS
Long run drivers of demand (based on Scenar 2020, Nowicki et al., 2006) 1 Population and
macro9economic growth are important drivers of demand for agricultural products. In past years, rapid
population growth has accounted for the bulk of the increase in food demand for agricultural products,
with a smaller effect from income changes and other factors (Nowicki et al., 2006)2 . The world’s
population growth will fall to about 1% in the coming ten years. Continued economic growth is expected
over the coming period in almost all regions of the world (see Figure 4). Expected population
developments in period 200592020 • The world’s population growth will fall from 1.4% in the
199092003 period to about 1% in the coming ten years. This is mainly due to birth or fertility rates,
which are declining and are expected to continue to do so. • Almost all annual population growth will
occur in low and middle income countries, whose population growth rates are much higher than those
in high income countries. • Europe’s share in world population has declined sharply and is projected to
continue declining during the 21st century. • Population growth in Europe is very low (0.3% yearly for
EU915) or slightly negative (90.2% for EU910). • The uncertainty with regard to birth and death rates at
world or regional level is not too large. However, migration flows between countries and regions are
much more uncertain.
Climate Change creates high food prices
WWI 07 (World Watch Institute; Climate Change The Unseen Force Behind Rising Food Prices;
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5434) HS
That sneaking suspicion you get every time you arrive at the grocery checkout counter is right: food
generally costs more than it did just 12 months ago. According to a recent statement presented to the
U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, the Consumer Price Index, a measure of average prices for
household and consumer goods, is projected to rise from 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent by year’s end. Prices
are expected to remain high as global food production struggles to keep pace with the rising demand for
commodities such as wheat and corn. While governments and consumers decry the steady increase in
food prices, groups like the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are taking a harder
look at some of the factors contributing to this rise—including the role of climate change. Changing
climatic conditions, in particular the decline in water availability, are forcing farmers to continually adapt
their agricultural production. According to the FAO, climate change has both environmental and
socioeconomic outcomes for agriculture: changes in the availability and quality of land, soil, and water
resources, for example, are later reflected in crop performance, which causes prices to rise. Climate
change has been attributed to greater inconsistencies in agricultural conditions, ranging from moreerratic flood and drought cycles to longer growing seasons in typically colder climates. While the
increase in Earth’s temperature is making some places wetter, it is also drying out already arid farming
regions close to theEquator. This year’s Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment
report states that “increases in the frequency of droughts and floods are projected to affect local
production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes.” The decline in production in
the face of growing demand can drive up prices in markets that may lack the technology to fight
environmental hazards to overall production. Such has been the case in Australia, where the oncefruitful food-production regions of New South Wales have been subject to a severe drought for the last
five years. There is evidence of shifting rainfall patterns in the region, and a growing number of
Australians now view this as a repercussion of climate change. The crop failures, economic hardship in
rural communities, and subsequent jump in food prices are forcing the country to reassess its approach
to climate change and to consider increasing food imports, a move that would drive prices up further.
Speaking on the issue last year, Mike Rann, the premier of South Australia, remarked, “what we’re
seeing with this drought is a frightening glimpse of the future with global warming.”
Weather disasters increases food prices
Arko 11 (Adria; California Climate & Agriculture Network; What’s up with rising food prices;
http://calclimateag.org/what%E2%80%99s-up-with-rising-food-prices/) HS
It’s likely that the higher prices of your whole-grain bread haven’t gone unnoticed. According to the
USDA Economic Research Service your weekly grocery basket of food is costing you about 4 to 5 percent
more than it did this time last year. Even with these prices, compared to what food shoppers in other
parts of the world are experiencing, we are getting off lucky. According to a recent report by the UN
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) global food prices have risen 37 percent from mid-2010.
What’s behind the steep rise in food prices? There are a number of different factors, but studies are
showing that an important contributor to high food prices is climate change. For the past several years,
higher temperatures, a shift in seasons, more extreme weather events, including flooding and droughts,
are hurting food production. The result of which is an unmet demand for food staples, resulting in
higher food prices. Many of the recent failed harvests around the world that have led to food shortages
and higher prices were a result of weather disasters. This year, drought in China followed by devastating
floods disrupted world wheat production. Last year, blistering heat waves in Europe and Russia led to
fires that engulfed many agricultural fields and limited world food supplies. Many scientists believe that
some of these intense weather events were caused or worsened by human-induced climate change. A
recently released study links human greenhouse gas emissions with extreme rainfall in the Northern
Hemisphere. Extreme rain events can reduce yields and sometimes can ruin a whole harvest. This, of
course, can impact the global food supply, driving up food prices. Extreme rain events aren’t the only
way that agriculture is being impacted by climate change. Harvests have been negatively impacted by
rising temperatures. Researchers have recently compared crop yields to rising temperatures. The result?
Lower yields. When corn experiences temperatures of 84 degrees and soy 86 degrees, yields can fall
dramatically. While beach-goers may be celebrating the warmer days, farmers are struggling to keep
their production levels high, which may be reason to worry. The issue of climate change and its impacts
on agriculture has real consequences for food shoppers around the world and at home. Food prices are
up. And with it comes greater instability, poverty and for many, thinner pocket books during already
tough economic times. That’s why California, as our leading agricultural state, must embrace a plan that
leads us toward assisting agriculture in addressing climate change and its impacts. We need better
research, technical experts to help in the fields and conservation-oriented programs to assist farmers in
addressing what’s to come – less water, changes in weather patterns and new pests – to name a few.
Oil prices is the main correlation for food price spikes
Barth 6/20 (Woody; Columnist for the Hill; The real cause of rising food
prices;http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/306313-the-real-cause-of-rising-foodprices) HS
There is a debate churning regarding what factors play a role in driving up the cost of food, with some
blaming the Renewable Fuel Standard for spikes in prices. But because our margins rely so narrowly on
these inputs, we know better than anyone that the culprit for increasing food prices isn’t corn prices or
ethanol production, as some would have us believe. In fact, the prices of most of our business inputs are
dependent on our nation’s addiction to fossil fuels, and specifically to oil. The cost of food is almost
entirely made up of things like transportation and packaging, and the prices of these inputs increase as
oil prices rise. The average distance food travels from source to plate is 1,500 miles – and with unstable
gas prices, the cost of transportation adds up quickly. Because it is actually these production costs that
dictate food prices, we see that oil prices drive up food prices in a near-perfect correlation. Some may
claim that newly discovered U.S. reserves of oil and natural gas will help insulate the United States
against volatile oil prices. But the reality is that because oil is an internationally traded commodity, oil
price fluctuations are a global phenomenon. Increases in non-OPEC production (including here in the
U.S.) simply allow OPEC producers to withhold portions of their supply, thereby keeping the total world
supply artificially scarce and prices high. Increased transportation costs not only negatively affect supply
chain costs for food shipment, they also affect personal transportation decisions. In an industry with
notoriously high rates of turnover, rising gasoline prices mean higher barriers for our workers to even
get to work, and increasing financial stresses when they can’t. Breaking this dependence on an
unpredictable world market for limited oil supplies can only be achieved by creating oil alternatives such
as ethanol and advanced biofuels. Conveniently, these same renewable fuels also offer us a solution to
combating the deleterious effects of climate change – their combustion produces up to 60 percent
fewer emissions than gasoline. The RFS has already been highly instrumental in combating rising gas
prices, saving consumers $1.09 on every gallon of gasoline in 2011. For small businesses like ours, every
penny in reduced costs allows us to invest in our operations and our employees. Our nation’s
dependence on oil is raising those input costs, and while ethanol may not be a silver bullet, it is one of
the only alternatives to oil that exists, and is a step in the right direction.
Alt cause – ONLY speculation and ethanol can explain food price spikes – best
economic models
Lagi et al. ‘11 Marco Lagi, Yavni Bar-Yam, Karla Z. Bertrand, and Yaneer Bar-Yam, researchers at MIT’s
New England Complex Systems Institute; “The Food Crises: A quantitative model of food prices including
speculators and ethanol conversion;” Sep 21, 2011; publ. NECSI
http://necsi.edu/research/social/food_prices.pdf RMJ
A parsimonious explanation that accounts for food price change dynamics over the past seven years can be based upon
only two factors : speculation and corn to ethanol conversion. We can attribute the sharp peaks in 2007/2008 and
2010/2011 to speculation, and the underlying upward trend to biofuels. The impact of changes in all other factors is small
enough to be neglected in comparison to these effects. Our analysis reinforces the conclu- sions of some
economic studies that suggest that these factors have the largest influence [2, 152]. Our model provides a direct
way to represent speculators, test if they can indeed be responsible for price e ects, and determine the magnitude of those e ects. Our
back- ground check of the pricing mechanisms of the spot food price market confirms that futures prices
are the primary price-setting mechanism, and that the duration of commodity bubbles is consistent with
the delay in supply and demand restoring forces. Despite the artificial nature of speculation-driven price increases,
the commodities futures market is coupled to actual food prices, and therefore to the ability of
vulnerable populations – especially in poor countries – to buy food
Speculation explains food prices – they’re not tied to supply
Lagi et al. ‘11 Marco Lagi, Yavni Bar-Yam, Karla Z. Bertrand, and Yaneer Bar-Yam, researchers at MIT’s
New England Complex Systems Institute; “The Food Crises: A quantitative model of food prices including
speculators and ethanol conversion;” Sep 21, 2011; publ. NECSI
http://necsi.edu/research/social/food_prices.pdf RMJ
The role of speculation in commodity prices has been considered for many years by highly regarded economists [78, 79]. There is a long history
of speculative activity on commodity markets and regulations were developed to limit its e ects [123{125]. Recently, however, claims have been
made that there is no possibility of speculator in uence on commodity prices because investors in the futures market do not receive
commodities [75, 76]. We have investigated this claim by asking individuals who set prices at granaries (the spot market) and who monitor the
prices at the
US Department of Agriculture how they determine the prices at which to buy or sell [83, 84]. They state that
spot market prices are set according to the Chicago Board of Trade futures exchange, assuming that it re ects
otherwise hidden global information, with standard or special increments to incorporate transportation costs, pro ts, and when circumstances
warrant, slight changes for over- or under-supply at a particular time in a granary. Thus
the futures market serves as the
starting point for spot market prices. The conceptual temporal paradox of assigning current prices based
upon futures is not considered a problem, and this makes sense because grains can be stored for
extended periods. If commodities futures investors determine their trading based upon supply and demand news, the use of the futures
market to determine spot market prices, discounting storage costs, would be a self-consistent way of setting equilibrium prices [126{128]. But if
investors are ine ective in considering news or are not motivated by supply and demand considera- tions, deviations from equilibrium and
speculative bubbles are possible. When prices depart from equilibrium, accumulation or depletion of inventories may result in an equilibrium
restoring force. This impact is, however, delayed by market mechanisms. Since producers and consumers generally hedge their sales and
purchases through the futures market, trans- actions at a particular date may immediately impact food prices and decisions to sell and buy, but
impact delivery of grains at a later time when contracts mature. The primary nancial consequences of a deviation of prices from equilibrium do
not lead to equilibrium- 12restoring forces. Producers, consumers and speculators each have gains and losses relative to the equilibrium price,
depending on the timing of their transactions, but the equilibrium price is not ibdenti ed by the market. Pro ts (losses) are made by speculators
who own futures contracts as long as futures prices are increasing (decreasing), and by producers as long as the prices are above (below)
equilibrium. When prices are above equilibrium con- sumers incur higher costs which may reduce demand. Producers may increase production
due to higher expected sales prices. The result of this reduction and increase is an expected increase in inventories after a time delay: an
agricultural or nancial planning cycle, which may be estimated to be six months to a year [85, 86]. Finally, the feedback between in- creased
inventories and price corrections requires investors to change their purchases. First the information about increased inventories must become
available. Even with information about increasing inventories, the existence of high futures prices can be interpreted as a sig- nal of increased
future demand, further delaying market equilibration. Speculatively driven bubbles can thus be expected to have a natural duration of a year or
longer (see Fig. 4). (We note that it is possible to relate trend following speculators to the \supply of storage" concept in which current
inventories increase due to higher expected future prices [129, 130]. However, in doing so we encounter paradoxes of recursive logic, see
Appendix D.) We
review the empirical evidence for the role of speculation in food prices, which includes the
timing of the food price spikes relative to the global financial crisis, the synchrony of food price spikes
with other commodities that do not share supply and demand factors, the existence of large upwards
and downwards movement of prices consistent with the expecta- tions of a bubble and bust cycle,
statistical causality analysis of food prices increasing with commodity speculator activity, and an inability
to account for the dynamics of prices with supply and demand equations despite many economic
analyses. We add to these an explicit model of speculator dynamics which quantitatively ts the price dynamics. The mechanisms of
speculator-driven food price increases can be understood from an analysis of the global consequences of the nancial crisis. This analysis
connects the bursting of the US real estate market bubble and the nancial crisis of 2007-2008 to the global food price increases [131, 132].
Figure 4 shows the behavior of the mortgage market (housing prices), stock market (S&P 500), and several commodities: wheat, corn, silver, oil,
and the FAO food price index. The
increase in food prices coincided with the financial crisis and followed the
decline of the housing and stock markets. An economic crisis would be 13expected to result in a
decrease in commodity prices due to a drop in demand from lower overall economic activity. The observed
counterintuitive increase in commodity prices can be understood from the behavior expected of investors in the aftermath of the collapse of
the mortgage and stock markets: shifting assets to alternative investments, particularly the commodity futures market [133{135]. This creates a
context for intermittent bubbles, where the prices increase due to the arti cial demand of investment, and then crash due to their inconsistency
with actual supply and demand, only to be followed by another increase at the next upward uctuation. The absence of learning behavior can be
explained either by the \greater fool theory," whereby professionals assume they can move their assets before the crash and leave losses to
less skilled investors, or by the hypothesis that traders are active for just one price cycle, and that the next cycle will see new traders in the
market. Even without a quantitative analysis, it is common to attribute rapid drops in prices to bubble and crash dynamics because the rapid
upwards and downward movements are di cult to reconcile with normal fundamental supply and demand factors [2, 136, 137]. In
addition
to the timing of the peak in food prices after the stock market crash, the coin- cidence of peaks in
unrelated commodities including food, precious and base metals, and oil indicates that speculation
played a major role in the overall increase [138]. An explanation of the food price peaks in 2008 and
2011 based upon supply and demand must not only include an explanation of the rise in prices of
multiple grains, including wheat, corn and rice, but must separately account for the rise in silver, oil and
other prices. In contrast, speculator-driven commodity bubbles would coincide after the nancial crisis
because of the synchronous movement of capital from the housing and stock markets to the commodity
markets. Moreover, the current dominant form of speculator investment in commodity mar- kets is in index funds [77], which do not di
erentiate the behavior of di erent commodities, as they are aggregate bets on the overall commodity market price behavior. Such investor
activity acts in the same direction across all commodities, without regard to their distinct supply and
demand conditions. The relative extent to which each type of commodity is a ected depends on the weighting factors of their
representation in index fund investing activity compared to the inherent supply and demand related market activity. Recently, the growth of
commodity investment activity has been studied in relation to commodity prices [2, 15, 78, 80]. Since index fund investments are almost
exclusively bets on price increases (i.e. \long" rather than \short" investments), the investment activity is 14an indication of pressure for price
increases. Increases in measures of investment have been found to precede the increases in prices in a time series (Granger) causality analysis
[15, 80]. (An
OECD study claiming that speculation played no role [139, 140], has been discounted due to
invalid statistical methods [141].) Granger causality tests also show the influence of futures prices on
spot market prices [81]. The causality analysis results provide statistical evidence of a role of speculative
activity in commodity prices. However, they do not provide quantitative estimates of the magnitude of the in uence.
Food crises are profitable—no incentive to distribute and speculation keeps prices
high
Holt-Giménez 8
(Eric, Ph.D., Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and analyst for
the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. “The world food crisis: what is behind it and
what we can do” 10/23 pg online at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5611//sd)
The World Food Program's description of the global food crisis raises the specter of a natural disaster
surging over an unaware populace that is helpless in the face of massive destruction. With billions of people at
risk of hunger, the current food crisis is certainly massive and destructive. But the reasons so many people have limited
access to food are anything but "natural." On the contrary, decades of skewed agricultural policies, inequitable trade,
and unsustainable development have thrown the world's food systems into a volatile boom and bust
cycle and widened the gap between affluence and poverty. Though hunger is coming in waves, not everyone will "drown" in famine. In fact,
the world's recurrent food crises are making a handful of investors and multinational corporations very rich—even
as they devastate the poor and put the rest of the planet at severe environmental and economic risk. The surge of so-called food
"riots" not only in poor countries like Haiti, but in resource-rich countries like Brazil—and even in the industrialized nations of Europe and the
United States—reflects the fact that people are not just hungry, they are rebelling against a dangerous and
unjust global food system. The food crisis is anything but silent, and—as long as we are aware of its true causes—we are not helpless.
The World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the World Food Program, the Millennium Challenge, The Alliance for a Green Revolution in
Africa, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and industrial giants like Yara Fertilizer, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Syngenta, DuPont, and
Monsanto, carefully avoid addressing the root causes of the food crisis. The
"solutions" they prescribe are rooted in the same
food aid, de-regulated global trade in
agricultural commodities, and more technological and genetic fixes. These measures only strengthen the
corporate status quo controlling the world's food. For this reason, thus far, there has been little official
leadership in the face of the crisis. Nor has there been any informed public debate about the real reasons the numbers of hungry
people are growing, or what we can do about it. The future of our food—and fuel—systems are being decided de
facto by unregulated global markets, financial speculators, and global monopolies.
policies and technologies that created the problem in the first place: increased
Major alt causes to global food prices: climate change, oil prices, meat production,
speculation, and monopolization
Holt-Giménez 8
(Eric, Ph.D., Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and analyst for
the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. “The world food crisis: what is behind it and
what we can do” 10/23 pg online at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5611//sd)
The dramatic reversal of the global trend in cheap food quickly became known as the "global food
crisis." The proximate causes are well-known: Poor weather—back-to-back droughts in major wheat-producing
countries in 2005-06.
Climate change will continue to impact food production in unpredictable ways Low
grain reserves—national grain reserve systems were dismantled in the late 1990s. Because nations now depend on the global market for
their grains, global reserves are down from 115 to 54 days worldwide. This provokes price volatility High oil prices —
increasing twofold over the last year pushes up prices of fertilizers (3X), transport (2X) in the food system Increasing
meat consumption worldwide—the result of explosive growth in industrial feedlots. Apart from high consumption in the industrial
North, there has been a doubling of meat production and consumption in developing countries—mostly from grain-fed
feedlots that displace small producers and consume seven lbs. of grain for every pound of meat produced
Agrofuels —the diversion of 5% of the world's cereals to agrofuels has increased grain prices. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture claims agrofuels are responsible for anywhere from 5-20% of grain price increases. The International Food Policy
Speculation —deregulation and poor
oversight have contributed to the speculative bubbles in the futures markets. Following the sub-prime
mortgage meltdown, investors searched for places to put their money. When they saw food prices going
up, they poured investments into commodities futures, pumping up the price of grains and worsening food price
inflation. The root causes The food crisis is a symptom of a food system in crisis. Bad weather, high oil prices, agrofuels, and speculation
Research Institute (IFPRI) has put it at 30%. A leaked World Bank report claimed it was 75%.
are only the proximate causes of a deeper, systemic problem.
The root cause of the crisis is a global food system that is
highly vulnerable to economic and environmental shock . This vulnerability springs from the risks,
inequities, and externalities inherent in food systems that are dominated by a global industrial agri-foods
complex. Built over the past half-century—largely with public funds for grain subsidies, foreign aid, and international agricultural
development—the industrial agri-foods complex is made up of multinational grain traders, giant seed, chemical,
and fertilizer corporations, processors, and global supermarket chains.
Food shortage does not increase food prices
Holt-Giménez 8
(Eric, Ph.D., Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and analyst for
the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. “The world food crisis: what is behind it and
what we can do” 10/23 pg online at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5611//sd)
For decades, family farmers and communities around the world have resisted the destruction of their native seeds.
They have worked hard to diversify their crops, protect their soil, conserve their water and forests, and establish local gardens, markets,
businesses, and community-based food systems. There
are tens of thousands of highly-productive, equitable, and
sustainable alternatives to the present industrial practices and corporate monopolies holding the
world's food hostage, and literally millions of people working to advance these alternatives in this time of need. What is missing
is the political will on the part of government, industry, and finance to support these alternatives. The food
crisis is affecting over three billion people—half the world's population. The trigger for the present crisis was food price
inflation. The World Bank reported that global food prices rose 83% over the last three years and the FAO cited a
45% increase in their world food price index over just nine months. The Economist's food price index stands at its highest
point since it was originally formulated in 1845. As of March 2008, average world wheat prices were 130% above their
level a year earlier, soy prices were 87% higher, rice had climbed 74%, and maize was up 31%. While grain prices have come down
slightly, food prices are still high, and because low-income and poor families are faced with higher fuel and
housing costs, they are still unable to buy sufficient food. The crisis of food price inflation is simply the most recent tip of a
slow-moving iceberg. While food rebellions across the globe have only recently made headlines, governments have been
promising to end hunger for over 30 years: 1974—500 million hungry people in the developing world. The World Food
Conference pledges to eradicate child hunger in 10 years. 1996—830 million hungry people. The World Food Summit pledges to reduce the
number of hungry people by half by 2015. 1996—12% of the U.S. population is hungry. U.S. Farm Bill increases food nutrition programs (Food
Stamps, Women and Children in need,) and food banks augment donations of government surplus with local and industry-donated food. 2000
Millennium Summit—World leaders pledge to reduce extreme poverty and hunger by half by 2015. 2002—850 million hungry people. The
World Food Summit+5 admits to poor progress on the Millennium Development goals. 2008—862 million hungry people. The FAO High-Level
Conference on World Food Security announces that instead of reducing the ranks of the hungry to 400 million, hunger has increased. The World
Bank re-calculates its projections for extreme poverty upward from one billion to 1.4 billion. Over three billion people live on less than $2 a day.
2008—12% of the U.S. population is still hungry. Despite $60 billion yearly in government food nutrition programs and the explosion of over
50,000 food banks and food pantries across the nation, one in six children in the United States go hungry each month and 35 million people
cannot ensure minimum daily caloric requirements. The food crisis appeared to explode overnight, reinforcing fears that there are just too
many people in the world. But according to the FAO, there were record grain harvests in 2007. There
is more than enough food in
the world to feed everyone. In fact, over the last 20 years, world food production has risen steadily at over 2% a
year, while the rate of global population growth has dropped to 1.14% a year. Population is not
outstripping food supply. People are too poor to buy the food that is available. "We're seeing more people hungry
and at greater numbers than before," said World Hunger Program's executive director Josette Sheeran. "There is food on the shelves
but people are priced out of the market." Clearly, global hunger was a growing problem even before the media picked up on the
present food crisis. However, the U.S. government, the international aid institutions, and the mainstream media weren't calling it a "global
crisis." That
is because food prices were still on a steady, 30-year downward trend. Development institutions
promised that eventually, as the promised benefits from globalization trickled down, the poor would be able to
buy the food they lacked. Not until the dramatic displacement of food crops by fuel crops began in 2006 did the FAO begin to warn of
impending food shortages. But in the winter of 2007, instead of shortages, food price inflation exploded on world markets—
in spite of that year's record harvests. As a result, the number of hungry people jumped dramatically to 982 million in just one
year. In the United States, 57 million people (a sixth of the national population) classified as "near poor" are now food insecure. The rebellions
that quickly spread across the globe took place not in areas where war or displacement made food unavailable, but where available food was
too expensive for the poor.
Alt causes to high food prices: natural disasters, fertilizer and oil costs, and increased
ethanol production
Holt-Giménez 8
(Eric, Ph.D., Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and analyst for
the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. “The world food crisis: what is behind it and
what we can do” 10/23 pg online at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5611//sd)
While the food crisis sent grain prices on the global market skyrocketing, farmers growing the grain won't see much of this windfall for long.
Why? As George Naylor of the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) puts it, "Farmers don't trade in grain; grain companies trade in grain." The
spectacular increase in the price of corn (from $2 to as high as $8 a bushel) was quickly followed by an increase in the price of farm inputs.
Profit margins are rapidly thinning for both conventional and organic farmers. In general, farmers report that
their costs are
increasing faster than prices for their goods. Farmers receive less than 20 cents of the food dollar, out of
which they must pay for production costs that have increased by 45% since 2002. The prices of most fertilizers
have tripled over the last 18 months. Urea, the most common nitrogen fertilizer, has risen in price from an average of $281 per ton in
January 2007 to $402 in January 2008, then to $815 in August, an increase of 300%. Diesel prices to farmers have increased 40% over
the last two years. Agrofuel—specifically corn-based ethanol—was once considered a good way to add value to corn in order to improve
farm incomes. Unfortunately, the farmer-owned cooperatives that initially ensured returns to farmers are quickly being
taken over by industry. According to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the ethanol industry's lobbying group, of 134 operational
ethanol processing plants in the United States, 49 are presently farmer-owned associations, accounting for 28% of the nation's total capacity.
This is rapidly changing. Out of
a total of 77 plants now under construction, 88% are owned by large
corporations. When completed, the farmer-owned percentage of total plant capacity will fall to less than
20% (note: RFA and the USDA were recently accused of underreporting the number of ethanol plants under construction, so the degree of
corporate control may actually be higher). Just five corporations control roughly 47% of all ethanol production in the United States. ADM and
POET, the two largest corporate ethanol producers, control 33.7% of all ethanol production. The top 10 producers together control an
estimated 70%. Because of the economies of scale of its plants, and the fact that it can dominate the grain market in both food and fuel crops,
ADM is emerging as the hegemonic player in the United States. While other ethanol companies are struggling with shrinking margins due to
high corn prices, ADM has strengthened its market share, as well as its profits. Organic
farmers are also reporting an increase
in their input costs (organic fertilizer, seeds, and plastics used for irrigation,) and general costs such as electricity and water.
Many organic milk producers can no longer find organic feed grains. Some small-scale producers selling at farmers' markets have seen an
increase in customers and in the short run, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farmers appear to be better off (because their consumers
help shoulder production costs), but this could shift due to anxiety over next year's crop or the overall economy. In
the Midwest and the
South this year's crisis is compounded by flooding and hurricanes, forcing re-planting and a decrease in
crops to farmers' markets or local distribution. Because of the high volatility of prices, the NFFC warns that we are "one drought
away from $10 dollar (a bushel) corn." Because of the market's high volatility, we are also a bust away from $2 a bushel corn,
which would be just as devastating.
Speculation and climate change are the key factors of high food prices
Dapice 11
(David, Yale Global, Associate Professor of economics, “The Looming Food Crisis” Feb 18 pg online at
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/looming-food-crisis//sd)
Seventh, for those inflation hawks, the only way that loose money causes inflation is through this
speculative channel. Money supply and loans in the US are scarcely growing; there’s immense spare labor and capital in the system,
even adjusting for skills and different types of demand. If low interest rates are causing inflation, it’s due
to speculative purchases of commodities, more than their use. In conclusion, increasing food prices is a major problem,
especially in poor nations with large urban populations. The increases cause political instability, bad economic decisions
and real hardship. The US contributes to this problem with its ethanol program; to a lesser extent, China
does, too, with stockpiling. If climate continues to move toward extreme temperatures, droughts and floods, growing food will be
more expensive and uncertain. If climate continues to move toward extreme temperatures, droughts and floods,
growing food will be more expensive and uncertain. In any case, farmland is lost to urban growth, and
water is pumped excessively from many aquifers. While technology and investments help offset these negatives, it’s not
clear if they’ll be enough to push agricultural growth along at past rates. Increasing food research and development would
be a wise precautionary move.
Ext – AT: Food Prices Impact – SQ Solves
Increased international production and crop shift checks high prices – empirics prove
Banse et al 08 (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture; Why Are Current World Food Prices So High?
http://www.agripressworld.com/_STUDIOEMMA_UPLOADS/downloads/opr24Y32.pdf) HS
High prices are their own worst enemy. Increased profit margins entice entrepreneurial investment,
which results in increased production. Lower market prices inevitably follow. The ‘invisible hand’ of
Adam Smith ensures that winners’ gains and losers’ losses will be temporary, as entrepreneurs correct
market imbalances. In the USA, in the 2008 spring planting farmers are shifting from maize to wheat and
soybeans, setting the prices of the latter on a downward trajectory and stabilising the price of the
former. - Higher prices induce more production as planted areas increase and available arable land will
be used more intensively. Therefore, the current situation is not structural and as a result prices will go
down again. However, first stocks have to be built up again. Both effects take some time. In Brazil and
Russia there are ample opportunities as additional land can be taken into production, whereas in many
other countries production can only be higher due to intensification. According to USDA analyses,
Russia, Ukraine and Argentina can become one of the world’s top grain exporters. - R&D investments in
agriculture (e.g. yields, etc) become more profitable with higher food prices. - Strategic stocks are
essential to limit price volatility in world agricultural markets, but they are costly.
Food Prices CP
Text: The United States Federal Government should end Free Trade Agreements on
agriculture, establish a price floor for domestic food, increase tariffs on biofuels, and
regulate speculation on food prices.
The Counterplan solves high food prices and saves US ag—we have a single advocacy
for all our mechanisms
Holt-Giménez 8
(Eric, Ph.D., Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and analyst for
the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. “The world food crisis: what is behind it and
what we can do” 10/23 pg online at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5611//sd)
Solving the food crisis—fixing the food system The official prescriptions for solving the world food crisis call for more of the
same policies that caused the crisis in the first place: e.g., more subsidies, greater reliance on food aid, more
free trade, and more Green Revolutions (now read: gene revolutions). Expecting the institutions that built the current food
system to solve the food crisis is like asking an arsonist to put out a forest fire. More corporate welfare, more free trade, and
more technological "fixes" are good news for an industrial agri-foods complex seeking to prolong
windfall profits and further consolidate monopoly power, but it will do nothing to re-structure our environmentally
vulnerable and economically inequitable global food system. To solve the food crisis we need to fix the
food system. That entails re-regulating the market, reducing the oligopolistic power of the agri-foods
corporations, and building agro-ecologically resilient family agriculture. We need to make food
affordable by turning the food system into an engine for local economic development in both rural and urban areas. These tasks are
not mutually exclusive—we don't have to wait to fix the food system before making food affordable, marketing fair, or farming viable.
In fact, the three need to work in concert, complementing each other. Localize food power! 1) Support domestic food production
internationally based on social, ecological, and economic justice and the right to healthy food. We need to re-negotiate
Free Trade Agreements and remove agriculture from the WTO. The World Food Program should
purchase food locally at fair prices and distribute food to those in need; such practices would avoid
"dumping" of cheap grains and feed more people. In the United States, food policy councils can localize and
rationalize local food systems. Safety nets for low-income people should be improved to ensure
adequate access to fresh, healthy food. Food banks should be supported to source fresh, healthy food from local
farmers and through state-level commodities programs. Support independent community-based food businesses at home and abroad. 2)
Stabilize and guarantee fair prices to farmers, workers, and consumers by re-establishing floor prices and
publicly-owned national grain reserves at home and abroad. In the words of the NFFC [ We need] a long-term vision for
preserving our food security and food sovereignty—much more than simply answering agribusiness's
pleas for cheap commodities. A prudent reserves policy that stabilizes commodities prices would reduce
controversial farm subsidy payments by ensuring prices do not collapse ... [this will] benefit consumers and farmers
instead of leaving our fates to the whims and dictates of unstable, global markets. Create living wages and
demand full workers' rights for farm workers, food processing workers, and food service workers so that everyone can afford
healthy food. 3) Halt agrofuels expansion. Suspend international agrofuels trade and investment. Maintain
current tariffs on all agrofuels imports to the United States to curb expansion of agrofuels imports that
threaten the food supplies of developing countries, as well as the dwindling reserves of the world's biodiversity. Halt any
expansion of government-supported biofuels programs and immediately revise all renewable fuels mandates, tax
incentives, and other subsidies. Any support for domestic production of bioenergy must at least ensure: communities' right to local food and
renewable energy; a significant net life-cycle reduction of greenhouse gases; local ownership of bio-refineries by farmers and other community
members; fair prices for farmers and a living wage and humane treatment of farm workers and other laborers; incentives for regional and
ecologically appropriate feedstocks that enhance biodiversity; and a substantial improvement in environmental quality and the maintenance of
existing conservation programs. The call for an agrofuels moratorium in Europe has forced European Commission officials to acknowledge the
dangers of agrofuels expansion, leading to a re-evaluation of Europe's own agrofuels mandates. A coalition of progressive environmental and
social justice groups in the United States recently launched a global call for a U.S. Moratorium on agrofuels (See:
http://ga3.org/campaign/agrofuelsmoratorium .) 4) Re-regulate
finance sector investment in food commodities.
Institutional investors have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the commodities futures
markets, driving up food and energy prices to historic levels . Even though prices have dropped in recent
weeks, regulatory loopholes still remain ready to introduce extreme market volatility, political instability, and
much human suffering. To lower international food prices and protect our social interests, the Commodities
Futures Trading Commission must use its authority to curb excessive speculation in commodities futures and r eestablish strict position limits on speculators (which were successful until removed by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000). We
must r egulate and bring transparency to all trading. We can also removing damaging speculative influence on commodities
prices by prohibiting participation in commodities markets by those who do not produce, manufacture, or take physical delivery of the
commodities. We must create a solidarity
the United States and around the world.
economy that puts compassion and care for one another ahead of short-term profits, in
US-Brazil Coop Solves Ag
U.S.-Brazilian ag cooperation resolves global food security – leadership and tech
Caldwell, ’11. Jake Caldwell is the Director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade & Energy at American
Progress. March 18, 2011. “A U.S.-Brazil Alliance to Strengthen Global Food Security.” Center for
American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2011/03/18/9256/a-u-sbrazil-alliance-to-strengthen-global-food-security/ - clawan
Rising food prices hit the world’s poor extremely hard. The World Bank estimates that the spike in food prices since June has placed
44 million people into extreme poverty. The good news is the United States and Brazil are well-positioned to help reverse
these trends. They are the largest economies in the Western Hemisphere and they are recognized global
agricultural superpowers. The United States is the largest agricultural exporter in the world and Brazil is
ranked third. The two nations are also ranked number one (United States) and two (Brazil) in the production and export of soybeans, beef, and poultry, and
they are major producers of corn, cotton, and pork. They both share impressive records in agricultural research and
innovation. Confronting the rise in current food prices and achieving lasting global food security will require long-term investment in developing countries’
agricultural development. The United States and Brazil will also need to impart lessons learned—some good, some not-so-good—from their respective experiences
increasing food production. Brazil has made remarkable progress in agriculture development in the last 40 years. Strengthening
U.S.-Brazil links
on food security creates an opportunity to assess and draw on Brazil’s efforts in agricultural production.
Several of the methods and conditions the United States and Brazil have used are simply not practical
elsewhere. Clearly, exclusive reliance on the large-scale, energy-intensive industrial agriculture model that the United States and Brazil are frequently
associated with will neither be sustainable nor appropriate for boosting agricultural production in the vast majority of the world. Nonetheless, the Brazilian
experience—explained in brief in the next section—can help guide ongoing efforts to boost agricultural development in
the developing world as an essential component of meeting the world’s food security needs. That experience
should be combined with an emphasis on meeting local agriculture needs with local knowledge, sustainable techniques,
and less resource-intensive farming in developing countries.
Brazilian model for development can benefit global ag – efficiency and sustainability
Caldwell, ’11. Jake Caldwell is the Director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade & Energy at American
Progress. March 18, 2011. “A U.S.-Brazil Alliance to Strengthen Global Food Security.” Center for
American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2011/03/18/9256/a-u-sbrazil-alliance-to-strengthen-global-food-security/ - clawan
Brazil is in economic overdrive. The economy grew in 2010 at a rate of 7.5 percent, and Brazil is now the seventh-largest economy in the world.
Brazil’s growth in the agricultural sector is even more impressive. It made the successful transition from
a net food importer in the 1970s to a net food exporter powerhouse. The value of Brazil’s crops grew 300 percent in the last
16 years. Brazil is nearly the physical size of the United States and it is blessed with substantial land and water resources. But the
majority of its agricultural production gains in recent years have been a result of boosting yields and less
a result of increased land use. The country is undoubtedly using more land for agriculture. Land under cultivation has increased by one-third and
numerous challenges remain to ensure biodiversity conservation is not overrun by agriculture and deforestation in the cerrado and Amazon regions. In general,
however, agricultural
production is 10 times the level of land use. Grain production in the cerrado increased 129.7 percent from
1991 to 2007 but the corresponding area cultivated increased by only 25.9 percent. Brazil’s success increasing yields is less about
importing and attempting to replicate other nations’ identical agricultural successes of the past. That
approach rarely works. Brazil’s achievements are instead more noteworthy for blending agricultural research and innovation with
actual conditions on the ground. As Brazil developed its agricultural sector, both the private and public sector dedicated
resources to agricultural research and the United States provided considerable support. Brazil focused on
enhancing soil quality, low-technology cross-breeding of plant varieties, and a willingness to explore innovative techniques such as no-till agriculture that results in
more nutrient and carbon-rich soil. Brazil
has also made impressive commitments to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions 36 percent to 39 percent by 2020 by reducing deforestation by 80 percent in the Amazon and 40 percent in the cerrado savannah. Brazil can
put this knowledge and experience to use in helping the rest of the developing world enhance its
agricultural development.
Agriculture collaboration solves best – global tech assistance and adaptation to
climate change
Caldwell, ’11. Jake Caldwell is the Director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade & Energy at American
Progress. March 18, 2011. “A U.S.-Brazil Alliance to Strengthen Global Food Security.” Center for
American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2011/03/18/9256/a-u-sbrazil-alliance-to-strengthen-global-food-security/ - clawan
Today’s rising global food prices are a harbinger of things to come. FAO experts estimate global agricultural productivity must
double in 40 years to keep pace with increased demand and a projected global population of 9.1 billion in 2050. Climate change’s impact on
agriculture and development in developing countries is projected to be particularly acute. More than 1
billion of the world’s poor depend on agriculture for their livelihood and it is predicted that severe crop losses
leading to food shortages in Africa and South Asia will happen in a much shorter timeframe than previously anticipated. Agriculture
productivity is a fundamental building block of economic development and poverty reduction in many
developing countries. The United States and developed countries have neglected investment in agricultural development and small farmers in developing countries
for too long. Investment in agriculture programs has shrunk to 3.5 percent of all U.S. overseas development assistance from 18 percent in 1979. Agricultural
productivity growth in developing countries has dropped below 1 percent. Greater
collaboration on food security between the
United States and Brazil can reverse this dangerous course. For starters, they will need to rethink the
sustainability of exporting industrial-level, energy-intensive agriculture productivity to developing countries. This
approach is unlikely to meet global food security needs over the long term in a resource-constrained world. A more
diverse strategy is needed. Instead, the United States and Brazil should provide technical assistance, training, and
financial incentives to developing countries to enhance food security and adapt to the destructive impacts of climate change.
The two nations should focus on agricultural production that preserves the soil and water supply, promotes
crop diversification, encourages local agricultural knowledge and the role of women farmers, and reduces dependence on fossil
fuels and other high-cost inputs. It will be vital for the private and public sector in the United States and Brazil to fund agricultural research to increase food
production yields, conserve biodiversity, and combat pests and disease in a safe and transparent manner. The United States and Brazil are also the global leaders in
the production and export of biofuels. They have a mutual interest in ensuring that future biofuels production moves forward in a sustainable manner in a world
experiencing growing competition for grain and natural resources. The next generation of biofuels does have a role to play in diversifying the energy needs of the
United States and Brazil and other countries. But ongoing progress will require action to ensure biofuels are done smarter and better. The United States and Brazil
should strive to produce advanced biofuels that deliver measurable lifecycle greenhouse gas reductions, use feedstocks grown sustainably or nonfood-based
feedstocks, and are produced in closed containers or on semiarable land that minimizes competition with food or feed. The two countries should collaborate
immediately to leverage funding, increase private investment, coordinate trade policy, and expedite the deployment of technology to spur advanced biofuels
development in developing countries. Coming together The
United States and Brazil have an opportunity and a responsibility
to lead the fight against one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century: food security. Making the world more food secure is an urgent but
achievable goal, and the 50th anniversary of the Alliance for Progress is a fitting moment to strengthen this joint effort. In the medium term we can expect global
food prices to remain high due to increased demand, low stocks, high oil prices, and increasing vulnerability of harvests to the impacts of climate change. The world
food system must transform to meet these challenges. An emboldened strategic partnership on food security between the United States and Brazil will require an
honest assessment of conventional resource-intensive past practices. Only the best ideas that meet local needs and contribute to increasing yields and sustainable
production should be deployed in developing countries. Together,
the United States and Brazil can strengthen agricultural
investment and development in developing countries to meet the needs of a growing world population.
Words must be turned into action.
AT: Brazilian Soy Impact
Alt Cause: US Soybean decline a result of weather patterns
ISU, 3/12/13, Iowa State Univ., [Card quotes Chad Hart, an ISU Extension and Outreach grain markets specialist and associate professor
of economics] Brazil to overtake US as top soybean produce, http://phys.org/news/2013-03-brazil-soybean.html
An Iowa State University grain markets expert said this week that a combination of long-term trends and
recent weather patterns are responsible for putting Brazil in a position this year to overtake U.S.
soybean production for the first time. A report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture released Friday predicted that Brazil's
soybean production would eclipse the United States. Chad Hart, an ISU Extension and Outreach grain markets specialist and associate professor
of economics, said USDA predicted a similar scenario earlier in the year and updated its forecast on Friday.
Hart said the general
trend in recent years has pointed toward Brazil eventually surpassing the United States, but he said the
2012 drought that withered much of the prime U.S. farmland hastened Brazil's ascent among the
world's top soybean producers. "This has been building over a long period of time, but this year will be a milestone," Hart said.
"The United States has been the dominant producer of corn and soybeans for quite some time. For Brazil to ramp up dramatically and catch us,
it shows the changing global conditions behind the crop markets."
Status Quo Solves Deforestation- Brazilian Government Regulations
BBC, 12, [Card quotes Brazilian Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira], http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20512722
The destruction of Amazon rainforest has reached its lowest level since monitoring began 24 years ago,
the Brazilian government says. Environment minister Izabella Teixeira said it was thanks to government
action against offenders. Figures show the rate of deforestation fell 27% in the year to July compared
lowest deforestation rate since Brazil began its monitoring," Ms Teixeira told a press conference. "I
believe that it is the only good piece of environmental news." Deforestation rates in the Amazon have been declining
since 2004 but critics say recent changes to Brazil's forest protection code could reverse that trend. “Start Quote Environment minister Izabella
Teixeira Regrettably we have noticed that in states that didn't used to have an aggressive level of deforestation there has been a rise”
Environment minister Izabella Teixeira The latest data from the National Institute of Space Research relates to a period before a change in the
code which environmentalists say eases the protection designed to prevent deforestation - a claim the government disputes.
Status Quo Solves Deforestation- Brazil implementing new model of sustainable
development
BBC, 12, [Card quotes Brazilian President, Dilma Rousseff, on Environmental Policy] Brazil President Rousseff 'proud' of forest protection,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18396917
Brazil enjoys the "privilege" of having the world's biggest rainforest and can be proud of its conservation
efforts, President Dilma Rousseff has said. Ms Rousseff was speaking just days before the UN sustainable
development conference begins in Rio de Janeiro. Speaking on her regular Monday radio broadcast, Ms
Rousseff highlighted data showing deforestation at a record low. She recently vetoed parts of a forest law but critics
say the bill still relaxes environmental rules too much. Ms Rousseff said she was proud that Brazil had managed to curb
deforestation of the Amazon region. She said it was "the result of the government's strong action" in
policing environmental crimes and promoting less aggressive development policies. "It's important too
that we have offered alternatives... to people who live in the rainforest, so they can be productive and
earn their living without destroying the environment." Brazil had begun to design and implement a new
model of sustainable development, she said, one that would be presented during the Rio+20 summit. The
preparatory phase of the meeting, held 20 years after the first Earth Summit in Rio, begins on Wednesday. The main government delegations
will be in the city between 20-22 June.
Alt Cause to Deforestation- Cattle Ranching
Butler 12, Rhett A Butler, [President and Editor-in-chief of mongabay.com, WildMadagascar.org, co-founder of Tropical Conservation
Science, an open-access academic journal, Tropical Forest Network, Rhett Butler has advised a wide range of organizations, including
governments, multilateral development agencies, media outlets, academic institutions, foundations, and private sector entities. He has been an
information source for the BBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, Fox News, National Geographic, the Wall Street Journal, Fortune Magazine, Business Week,
Bloomberg, the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, Reuters, Voice of America, the Associated Press, the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times,
the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Forbes, among others.] http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html
Cattle ranching is the leading cause of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. This has been the case since at least
the 1970s: government figures attributed 38 percent of deforestation from 1966-1975 to large-scale cattle ranching. Today the figure is closer
to 60 percent, according to research by Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (INPE) and its Agricultural Research Corporation
(Embrapa). Most of the beef is destined for urban markets, whereas leather and other cattle products
are primarily for export markets. Brazil is today the world's largest exporter and producer of beef. Much
of its expansion has taken place in the Amazon, which currently has more than 80 million head of cattle,
up from 26.6 million in 1990 and equivalent to more than 85 percent of the total U.S. herd. The Brazilian
Amazon has more than 214,000 square miles of pasture, an open space larger than France.
Alt Cause to Deforestation- Infrastructure development.
Butler 12, Rhett A Butler, [President and Editor-in-chief of mongabay.com, WildMadagascar.org, co-founder of Tropical Conservation
Science, an open-access academic journal, Tropical Forest Network, Rhett Butler has advised a wide range of organizations, including
governments, multilateral development agencies, media outlets, academic institutions, foundations, and private sector entities. He has been an
information source for the BBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, Fox News, National Geographic, the Wall Street Journal, Fortune Magazine, Business Week,
Bloomberg, the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, Reuters, Voice of America, the Associated Press, the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times,
the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Forbes, among others.] http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html
Road construction in the Amazon leads to deforestation. Roads provide access to logging and mining
sites while opening forest frontier land to exploitation by poor landless farmers. Brazil's TransAmazonian Highway was one of the most ambitious economic development programs ever devised, and
one of the most spectacular failures. In the 1970s, Brazil planned a 2,000-mile highway that would bisect the massive Amazon
forest, opening rainforest lands to (1) settlement by poor farmers from the crowded, drought-plagued north and (2) development of timber and
mineral resources. Colonists would be granted a 250-acre lot, six-months' salary, and easy access to agricultural loans in exchange for settling
along the highway and converting the surrounding rainforest into agricultural land. The plan would grow to cost Brazil US$65,000 (1980 dollars)
The
sediments of the Amazon Basin rendered the highway unstable and subject to inundation during heavy
rains, blocking traffic and leaving crops to rot. Harvest yields for peasants were dismal since the forest soils were quickly
to settle each family, a staggering amount for Brazil, a developing country at the time. The project was plagued from the start.
exhausted, and new forest had to be cleared annually. Logging was difficult due to the widespread distribution of commercially valuable trees.
Rampant erosion, up to 40 tons of soil per acre (100 tons/ha) occurred after clearing. Many colonists, unfamiliar with banking and lured by easy
credit, went deep into debt.
Adding to the economic and social failures of the project, are the long-term
environmental costs. After the construction of the Trans-Amazonian Highway, Brazilian deforestation
accelerated to levels never before seen and vast swaths of forest were cleared for subsistence farmers
and cattle-ranching schemes. The Trans-Amazonian Highway is a prime example of the environmental
havoc that is caused by road construction in the rainforest.
Brazilian Agriculture expansion inevitable- room to grow
Cordonnier 11, Dr. Michael Cordonnier [Ph.D. in agronomy from Michigan State University, involved in global crop production for more
than 35 years, conducted agricultural experiments in central Brazil, development of the soybean industry in South America] Brazil Land
Utilization,
http://www.soybeansandcorn.com/Brazil-Land-Utilization
During the 2009-10 growing season, Brazil is expected to harvest a combined 138 million tons of grain,
which represents about 6% of the world's total estimated grain production of 2.2 billion tons. Brazil's
agricultural production is already quite diverse and there is still ample room to grow. Brazil is the world's second
largest producer of soybeans, third in corn, first in coffee, first in sugar, first in orange juice, first in ethanol and first in a number of meats and
fruits. The ex Minister of Agriculture, Roberto Rodrigues, feels Brazil could surpass 300 million tons of grain production within ten years.
Whether it becomes the world's leading agricultural producer by the year 2020 or a decade later is not
the point, the fact that it will reach that lofty point sometime in the future is inevitable. The key to this
potential expansion is abundant land resources. Depending on how the calculations are done, the
amount of land available for agricultural expansion in Brazil could be range from 60 to 200 million
hectares and this does not include Amazon Rain Forest or other protected areas. Brazil has about 175 million
hectares of formed pastureland in addition to natural pasture and native Cerrado. Brazilian scientists have been working for over a decade on
how best to convert some of what they call "degraded pastureland" into productive crop production. They feel this is the best way for Brazil to
expand its agriculture because then they can "have their cake and eat it too." If done correctly, Brazil could greatly expand their agricultural
production without every clearing another hectare of virgin rain forest. In fact, they feel that Brazil could double row crop production without
clearing any additional land, but the government must make this a priority.
Impact Overstated- Secondary Forests
Salon, 9, Salon.com, No author given, Quotes Biologist Joe Wright, http://www.salon.com/2009/08/17/rainforest_recovery/
In the past, scientists scorned the “secondary forests,” as the new growth is called. There is no doubt that they
are not nearly as spectacular as the species-rich primary forests, with their giant trees, which are often centuries old; and they are not home to
nearly as many animal and plant species. But now a growing number of biologists are interested in this previously ignored vegetation.
According to a United Nations study, the ecological importance of these new forests, which are “growing dramatically” all over the world, is
“undervalued.”
Is the rain forest truly recovering from overexploitation? And could it be that the
consequences of deforestation are not as devastating as environmentalists have been preaching for
years? “There are more secondary than primary rain forests in most tropical countries today,” explains
American biologist Joe Wright. “On the whole, the amount of land covered by vegetation is stable.” In
tropical countries, in particular, rural flight and urbanization have led to more and more farmers
abandoning their fields, allowing new vegetation to grow rampant on the fallow ground. “The numbers
speak for themselves,” Wright says.
Offense
US Ag Bad – Relations
Strong US agricultural system hurts US relations with other countries
Edwards, 9 (Chris, Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at Cato and editor of
www.DownsizingGovernment.org, June 2009, “Agricultural Subsidies,” CATO Institute,
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies)
4. Farm Subsidies Damage U.S. Trade Relations. Global stability and U.S. security are enhanced when less developed
countries achieve stronger economic growth. America can further that end by encouraging the reduction of trade barriers.
However, U.S. and European farm subsidies and agricultural import barriers are a serious hurdle to making
progress in global trade agreements. U.S. sugar protections, for example, benefit only a very small group of U.S. growers but are
blocking broader free trade within the Americas. The World Trade Organization estimates that even a one-third drop in all
tariffs around the world would boost global output by $686 billion, including $164 billion for the United States.30
Trade liberalization would boost the exports of U.S. goods that are competitive on world markets,
including many agricultural products, but U.S. farm subsidies and protections stand in the way of that
goal.
Agriculture Bad – Environment
Expanding agriculture devastates the environment – kills ecosystems and biodiversity
EEA, ’12. European Environment Agency, an agency of the European Union. Our task is to provide
sound, independent information on the environment. We are a major information source for those
involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the
general public. November 6, 2012. “Food security and environmental impacts.”
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/agriculture/greening-agricultural-policy/food-security-andenvironmental-impacts – clawan
*Note: Eutrophication: the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients
(as phosphates) that stimulate the growth of aquatic plant life usually resulting in the depletion of
dissolved oxygen
Agriculture is one of the main sectors affecting the environment through its direct impacts on land cover and ecosystems, and
on global and regional cycles of carbon, nutrients and water. At the global level, agriculture contributes to climate
change through emission of greenhouse gases and reduction of carbon storage in vegetation and soil.
Locally, agriculture reduces biodiversity and affects natural habitats through land conversion, eutrophication,
pesticide inputs, irrigation and drainage. Unsustainable agricultural practices may also lead to direct environmental feed-backs such
as soil erosion and loss of pollinators (because of excessive pesticide application). Nutrient loading (mainly by phosphorus and
nitrogen) is a major and increasing cause of biodiversity loss and ecosystem dysfunction. Most detailed information is available
for nitrogen. Estimates show that the total amount of reactive nitrogen in the environment has doubled globally since the pre-industrial era, and more than tripled
in Europe. This is primarily due to fossil fuel combustion and the application of industrially produced nitrogenous fertilisers. Excess
reactive nitrogen
causes air pollution and eutrophication of terrestrial, aquatic and coastal ecosystems. Agriculture contributes 50–80 % of the total
nitrogen load transported into Europe’s freshwater ecosystems and, ultimately, coastal waters and seas (Figure 2). Figure 2. Diffuse emissions of nitrogen to
freshwater from agriculture, Source: EEA 2010. The European environment – state and outlook 2010: freshwater quality, European Environment Agency. Despite
substantial reductions in nitrogen pollution from key polluting sectors and sources over the last two decades, critical nitrogen loads are still being exceeded
throughout much of Europe. It is estimated that in 2010 more than 40 % of sensitive terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem areas were subject to atmospheric
nitrogen deposition above the critical loads (Figure 3). Figure 3. Exceedance of the critical nitrogen loads for eutrophication in Europe (as average accumulated
exceedances). Note: figures for 2010 are model based and were computed using the 2008 Critical Loads Database hosted by the Coordination Centre for Effects
(CCE). Source: CSI-005 indicator, based on Hettelingh et al. (2008). A critical load is defined as 'a quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants
below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge' (UNECE, 2004). The
environmental pressures from agriculture are reflected in loss of natural capital. The conservation status
of agricultural habitats protected under the Habitats Directive is worrying and considerably worse than average. Only 7 % of the
assessments showed a favourable conservation status compared to 17 % for all habitat types. Half of the agricultural habitats are
considered to be in a bad status. Lake and river ecosystems fare slightly better, but their conservations status is also worse than average. As
for the marine environment, all habitats in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea are considered to be in a bad or
inadequate state.
Amazon Defo Good Turn
Amazon Deforestation Good- Solves food Shortages
Mongobay 08, 'Soy King' says Amazon deforestation could help solve global food crisis mongabay.com April 28, 2008 [Card quotes
Blairo Maggi, Governor of Matto Graso] http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0428-brazil.html
Clearing the Amazon rainforest for soy farms will help address the global food crisis, said Blairo Maggi, the
governor of Brazil's chief soy-producing state, according to the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper. In comments published Friday, the Mato Grosso
governor defended the recent surge in Amazon deforestation. "With
the worsening of the global food crisis, the time is
coming when it will be inevitable to discuss whether we preserve the environment or produce more
food. There is no way to produce more food without occupying more land and taking down more trees,"
Maggi told Folha de Sao Paulo. "In this moment of crisis, the world needs to understand that the country
has space to raise its production."
Food Shortages lead to extinction within the century
Kelly 10, Tara Kelly, New York Times, [Card quotes Professor Julian Cribb, Writer, The Coming Famine, specialises in the communication of
science, agriculture, mining, energy and the environment, newspaper editor, scientific editor at The Australian newspaper, national awareness
director for CSIRO, and president of national professional bodies for agricultural journalism and science communication.]
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/07/impending-crisis-earth-to-run-out-of-food-by-2050/
In a new book, The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It, Professor
Julian Cribb argues a catastrophic global food shortage will hit by mid-century. His predictions paint a
glum picture of the perfect storm that could threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people:
Populations will grow to 9.2 billion by 2050 and in turn double today’s global food requirement and
outstrip growth in food output. Combined with unpredictable extreme weather patterns, droughts will
haunt those most vulnerable and lead to crop failures, food riots and war. Food prices will inevitably
spike with a rising demand for protein foods such as meat, milk, fish and eggs. Growing shortages of
water and less productive land to yield crops will further hinder the world’s future food production.
“The world has ignored the ominous constellation of factors that now make feeding humanity
sustainably our most pressing task – even in times of economic and climatic crisis,” writes Professor
Cribb. But Professor Cribb isn’t the only scientist clamoring for politicians to take climate change seriously. In a recent study by the
ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, it warned of a potential mass extinction as the number
of ocean dead zones – waters starved of oxygen – increase at an accelerating pace. The Tyndall Centre
for Climate Change Research also put out a study that shows the increasing likelihood of frightening
changes to rainfall, water supplies, weather systems, sea levels and crop harvests by the end of the
century.
AT: Illegal Immigration Advantage
Top Level
1NC AT: Illegal Immigration Advantage
Illegal immigration is down
Nasser 12 [Haya el Nasser; USA Today; More Mexicans returning home, fewer immigrating to U.S.;
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-23/mexican-immigration-united-states/54487564/1; Demographic reporter for
USA Today]
The influx of Mexicans, which has dominated U.S. immigration patterns for four decades, began to
tumble in 2006 and 2007 as the housing bust and recession created a dearth of jobs. At the same time, the number of
Mexicans returning to their native country along with their U.S.-born children soared.¶ Stricter border
enforcement, more deportations and tough state immigration laws such as the Arizona statute being challenged
before the Supreme Court on Wednesday probably also contributed to the shift, says Jeffrey Passel, lead author of
the report. The study analyzed data from censuses and a variety of other sources in both countries.¶ STORY:
Supreme Court weighs fate of immigration law¶ "There was a suspicion that people were going back" but results of the Mexican census
confirmed it, he says. "They point to a fairly large number of people going back to Mexico."¶ From 2005 to 2010, 1.4
million Mexicans came to the USA— down by more than half from the 3 million who came from 1995 to 2000. From 2005 to 2010 , the
number of Mexicans who moved from the USA to Mexico rose to 1.4 million, roughly double the number
who had done so 10 years before.¶ Passel says the data suggest that the return flow to Mexico probably
surpassed the incoming flow in the last two years
Mexican border not key – US-Canada border is vastly less secure
Mora, 11 (Edwin Mora, a economist, professor and pro-independence leader in Puerto
Rico, “Canadian Border Bigger Terror Threat Than Mexican Border, Says Border Patrol
Chief”, May 18 2011, CNS News, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/canadian-borderbigger-terror-threat-mexican-border-says-border-patrol-chief, //nikp)
The U.S.
Customs and Border Protection agency has apprehended more suspected terrorists on the
nation’s northern border than along its southern counterpart, CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin said Tuesday. “In terms of
the terrorist threat, it’s commonly accepted that the more significant threat ” comes from the U.S.Canada border, Bersin told a hearing of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security. Bersin
attributed the situation, in part, to the fact that the U.S. and Canada do not share information about people placed on
their respective “no-fly” lists. As a result, individuals deemed a threat who fly into one country may then
cross the land border into the other. “Because of the fact that we do not share no-fly [list] information and the Canadians will not,
we are more than we would like confronted with the fact where a [person designated as a] no-fly has entered Canada and then is arrested
coming across one of our bridges into the United States,” he said. As it screens air travelers, the Department of Homeland Security’s
Transportation Security Administration places individuals
who are considered a threat to aviation on a no-fly list, which
is a subset of the terrorist watchlist. Bersin’s comments came after the subcommittee’s ranking Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of
Texas, asked him about the relative numbers of people apprehended along the northern and southern borders. He responded that the
detentions and arrests along the border with Canada were “a small, small fraction” when compared to the
number apprehended in the south. "That doesn’t mean that we don’t face significant threats” along the northern
border, he added. CBP figures for fiscal year 2010 indicate that 447,731 illegal crossers were apprehended along the southwest border and
7,431 along the U.S.-Canada border. Cornyn noted during the hearing that the FY2010 arrests along the southwest border included 59,000
individuals from countries other than Mexico. Last March, the senator told a conference on border security that of those 59,000 people, 663
came “from special-interest
countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen and from
countries that have been designated by the U.S. Department of State as state-sponsors of terror – Cuba,
Iran, Syria, and Sudan.” Speaking to reporters after Tuesday’s hearing, Bersin said his agency has recorded more cases of
people with suspected terrorist backgrounds or links to terror organizations entering the U.S. from
Canada than from Mexico. “That doesn’t mean that we’re not looking for it on both borders, south and
north,” he said. Bersin said people who are on the no-fly list for a variety of reasons may enter Canada,
“because they’re entitled under Canadian laws to do so, and then they attempt to cross into the United
States” by way of bridge or tunnel border crossings. “CBP officers have stopped that,” he said, but without quantifying the
number of suspected terrorist arrests by CBP. Bersin told reporters Canadian authorities do not act on no-fly list information provided by the
U.S. government if it affects a Canadian citizen. This, he said, creates a security gap. “Under the Canadian charter – as that’s been interpreted to
me – they do not believe that they can accept information that would affect Canadian citizens, and therefore don’t. “But we’re constantly
working with our Canadian partners to develop mechanism and modes of information exchange [so] that, as far as legally possible, we can close
that gap. And we’ll continue to do that.” ‘Known presence of terrorist organizations’ A December 2010 report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that “ the
risk of terrorist activity is high ” on the northern border. The report
noted that according to the assessment of the U.S. Border Patrol – a component of CBP – only
32 of the nearly 4,000 miles of
the U.S.-Canada border “had reached an acceptable level of control” in 2010. The rest, it said, were “ defined
as vulnerable to exploitation due to issues related to accessibility and resource availability and, as a
result, there is a high degree of reliance on law enforcement support from outside the border zone.” The
GAO report also noted that in the Blaine sector – the Border Patrol sector that includes Oregon and the western half of Washington state –
there is a “ known presence of terrorist organizations ” near the border. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Director John Morton, who testified alongside Bersin Tuesday, told the Senate panel that his agency has about 1,500 enforcement and
removal officers on the northern border – the “largest law-enforcement footprint of any U.S agency in Canada.” “We removed about 47,000
illegal aliens from the northern border region, roughly half of whom are criminal offenders,” added Morton. The
issue of drugsmuggling over the northern border also came up during the hearing. In his prepared remarks, Bersin said that CBP
interdicts around 40,000 pounds of illegal drugs each year at and between points of entry along the northern border.
Aff can’t solve border security – the border patrol sucks
Barry 13 (Tom, January 9, 2013, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC. “With the Resurrection of Immigration Reform We'll Hear a Lot About Securing Our
Borders, But What Does It Really Mean?” http://www.alternet.org/immigration/resurrectionimmigration-reform-well-hear-lot-about-securing-our-borders-what-does-it)
The ambiguity and expansiveness of the new border security mission is paralleled by the Border Patrol’s
apparent inability to evaluate the threats and risks to border security and to assess the degree to which
the border is secure. The Border Patrol has squandered much of the goodwill, trust and credibility that
resounded to its border control mission after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The billions of
dollars wasted in flawed high-tech projects, and the agency’s unwillingness to subject its many new
border-security initiatives to cost-benefit evaluations and risk-based assessments, have given rise to
new skepticism about border policy. The Border Patrol rightly links its security mission to an assessment
of risks and threats and to a new risk-management commitment. Yet, as has been the practice of the
Border Patrol both before and after 9/11, there is no evidence that the agency has instituted rigorous
risk-based strategies for its operations and resource distributions. The Border Patrol implicitly equates
numbers and threats. In the post-9/11 lexicon, all illegal entries are defined as threats. Rather than
undertaking traditional threat assessments, the Border Patrol has dumbed down its definitions of
threats and risks. Its risk-based, intelligence-driven strategy, therefore, identifies the areas of highest
risk as the areas of the border with the highest number of illegal entries. *Securing the Border Against
Foreign Terrorists* * *The Border Patrol asserts that its main mission is to protect the homeland against
terrorists and terrorist weapons. The joint mission of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and
Border Patrol states: We are the guardians of our Nation’s borders. We are America’s frontline. We
safeguard the American homeland at and beyond our borders. We protect the American public against
terrorists and the instruments of terror. Inexplicably, the agency has never included terrorism protection
as a performance indicator. Nor has the Border Patrol offered any evidence that its “intelligence-driven”
border security programs actually focus on terrorists and terrorist networks.
Border security is fine now – tech and deterrence
Alden 12 (Edward, Winter 2012, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow- writer for the Council on Foreign
Relations, CATO institute.“Immigration and Border Control”
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-8.pdf)
For the past two decades the United States, a country with a strong tradition of limited government, has been pursuing a widely popular
initiative that requires one of the most ambitious expansions of government power in modern history: securing the nation’s borders
against illegal immigration. Congress and successive administrations— both Democratic and Republican—have increased
the size of the Border Patrol from fewer than 3,000 agents to more than 21,000, built nearly 700 miles
of fencing along the southern border with Mexico, and deployed pilotless drones, sensor cameras, and
other expensive technologies aimed at preventing illegal crossings at the land borders. The government has
overhauled the visa system to require interviews for all new visa applicants and instituted extensive background checks for many of those
wishing to come to the United States to study, travel, visit family, or do business. It now requires secure documents—a passport or the
equivalent—for all travel to and from the United States by citizens and noncitizens. And border
officers take fingerprints and run
other screening measures on all travelers coming to this country by air in order to identify criminals,
terrorists, or others deemed to pose a threat to the United States. The goal is to create a border control system that ensures
that only those legally permitted by the government to enter the territory of the United States will be able to do so, and that they will leave the
country when required. The ambition of such an undertaking is little appreciated. For most of its history, the United States had only the loosest
sort of border controls. Scrutiny of most visa applicants was cursory; few checks were done on incoming airline passengers; and it was possible
to walk freely across almost any portion of the more than 7,500 miles of land borders with Mexico or Canada (Alden 2008). That began to
change gradually in the 1980s with the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico, and then more rapidly in the early 1990s following a
political outcry from U.S. border states, especially California. The
border control effort was greatly accelerated after the
9/11 attacks, becoming the primary mission of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created in 2003. Yet some two decades
along, border control remains a work in progress. Most Americans remain unconvinced that border security is improving; a Rasmussen poll
taken in May 2011 found that two-thirds of the public believe the border with Mexico is not secure. While budget constraints will slow the
extraordinarily rapid growth of border enforcement, the Obama administration and Congress are determined to continue tightening border
control and further reducing illegal entries An in-depth stocktaking of the costs and benefits of this effort to date is long overdue. But at least
three interim conclusions can be reached. First, the U.S. borders
are far harder to cross illegally than at any time in
American history, and the number of people entering illegally has dropped sharply. Evading border
enforcement has become more difficult, more expensive, and more uncertain than ever before. But border
control will always remain imperfect; it is not possible for the United States to create a perfectly secure border, and that should not be the goal.
Ext – US-Canada Alt-Cause
US-Canada border is very vulnerable to terrorists
Shahid, 11 (Aliyah Shahid, daily news staff writer, “Canadian border poses bigger
terror threat to U.S. than Mexico border: report”, February 2 2011, NY Daily News,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/canadian-border-poses-bigger-terrorthreat-u-s-mexico-border-report-article-1.134552, //nikp)
Worried about terrorists sneaking into the United States? You might want to look north. It turns out that even as
Mexico grapples with drug and gang violence, the U.S.-Canadian border poses a bigger terror risk , according to a new
government report. Just
32 of the 4,000 miles - less than 1% - along the northern border have an "acceptable
level" of security, according to the Government Accountability Office report, released Tuesday. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) called
the report "absolutely alarming" during a news conference on Capitol Hill. He fears the northern border provides
" easy passage into America by extremists, terrorists and criminals whose purpose it to harm the
American people." Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who released the report alongside Lieberman, said potential crossers include
illegal immigrants, criminals trafficking humans and drugs, and, potentially, terrorists. The report by the
watchdog arm of Congress said federal officials can only detect illegal border crossings along 1,007 miles of the
border, and blasted federal agencies for not cooperating with each other. It also found that illegal crossings by terrorists are
more likely to occur across the northern border than the southern border. A spokesman for the Department of
Homeland Security said the agency has taken steps to secure the northern border, like deploying more border patrol agents and adding better
technology and infrastructure. He also said the department was working to address the GAO's findings. Collins called the report "shocking" and
said Homeland Security was distributing money to the southern border "to the detriment" of the northern border. "It
is very clear from
this report that the United States remains very vulnerable," she said.
Terrorists exploit gaps in border security
Cilluffo 9 (Frank J. Cilluffo , winter 2009, Chaired two committees on Homeland Defense
(Counterterrorism and Cyber Threats and Information Assurance) at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington, D.C. “Terrorism and the Canada-U.S.Border”
http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/310/1/Terrorism%20and%20the%20Canada%2
0US%20Border.pdf?1)
Roughly two hundred million people cross the Canada-U.S. border every year.3 Because there is so
much legitimate traffic crossing the Canada-U.S. border, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the complexity
of the challenge of assuring border security. There are 135 land border points along the CanadaU.S.
border, 140 inland offices, 203 airports (including 13 international airports), 187 commercial vessel
clearance points and 313 small marine points.4 With so many potential access points,5 one might expect
“aspiring” terrorists to test what they believe to be the weakest links in the chain. Yet the border may
also prove to be our saving grace by offering us an added opportunity to defeat terrorist plots. However,
this is going to require vigilance on both sides. As Jeffrey Simpson has commented, “[I]n various ways
not yet known, the world’s ‘longest undefended border’ is going to be reviewed.
Canadian border security key to prevent terrorism
Riley ’06 K. Jack Riley, VP of Natl Scty Rsch Divsn @ RAND, PhD in public policy; “Border Security and
the Terrorist Threat;” Aug 2006, RAND corp.;
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/2006/RAND_CT266.pdf RMJ
Technology is not a substitute for trained, professional security personnel. It was not technology that caught Ahmed
Ressam in 1999. It was good, old-fashioned security experience that resulted in Ressam’s capture and the disruption of the attack.
x
False documents are the currency of the terrorist trade. Ressam was able to falsify a passport that
got him on a plane to Canada. Once in Canada, he was able to create another passport that allowed him to travel to Afghanistan, where he was
trained in one of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps. Perhaps most important, he was able to create a new identity that allowed him to avoid
The border threat is not
just a southern phenomenon; there is threat from the north. As early as 1998, Canada’s Special Senate Committee
on Security and Intelligence labeled Canada “a ‘venue of opportunity’ for terrorist groups: a place where they may
raise funds, purchase arms, and conduct other activities to support their organizations and their terrorist
activities elsewhere. Most of the major international terrorist organizations have a presence in Canada.
Our geographic location also makes Canada a favorite conduit for terrorists wishing to enter the United
States, which remains the principal target for terrorist attacks worldwide.”4 More recently, the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service acknowledged in its 2004–2005 annual report that “[a] relatively large number of
terrorist groups [is] known to be operating in Canada, engaged in fundraising, procuring materials,
spreading propaganda, recruiting followers and conducting other activities.”5
being arrested while the authorities sought “Ahmed Ressam.” x
x
Our allies face many of the same border security problems as the United States faces. In 1994, the
year that Ressam entered Canada, there were some differences in how the United States and Canada handled asylum claims. However,
Canadian and U.S.
officials confronted many similar issues at that time, including a shortage of personnel to patrol the
vast physical borders, an inability to ensure that immigrants and asylumseeking individuals complied with the terms of their entry, and
no reliable system for ensuring that international travelers were traveling with valid passports. U.S. border security is thus, to some
extent, a hemispheric, if not international, issue.
Ext – Border Patrol Sucks
Aff can’t solve counterterrorism – internal DHS inefficiencies and redundancy tank
solvency
Risen, ’12. James Risen is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist for The New York Times who
previously worked for the Los Angeles Times, citing Congressional report, October 2, 2012. “Inquiry Cites
Flaws in Counterterrorism Offices.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/inquiry-cites-flaws-inregional-counterterrorism-offices.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 – clawan
One of the nation’s biggest domestic counterterrorism programs has failed to provide virtually any
useful intelligence, according to Congressional investigators. Their scathing report, to be released Wednesday, looked at problems in regional
intelligence-gathering offices known as “fusion centers” that are financed by the Department of Homeland Security
and created jointly with state and local law enforcement agencies. The report found that the centers “forwarded intelligence of uneven
quality — oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy
Act protections, occasionally taken from already published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism.”
The investigators reviewed 610 reports produced by the centers over 13 months in 2009 and 2010. Of these, the report said, 188 were never published for use
within the Homeland Security Department or other intelligence agencies. Hundreds
of draft reports sat for months, awaiting
review by homeland security officials, making much of their information obsolete. And some of the reports appeared
to be based on previously published information or facts that had long since been reported through the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Congressional
investigators also found that the reports were often derided by homeland security analysts who reviewed the work. “I see nothing to be gained by releasing this
report,” one analyst wrote repeatedly on several draft reports. “This report does not provide the who, what, when, where, how,” another official complained about
a document. The investigators also discovered that federal
officials cannot account for as much as $1.4 billion in taxpayer
money earmarked for fusion centers and that some of the centers listed on paper by the Homeland Security Department do not even exist. The
report also lays out problems in protecting citizens’ privacy as the centers gathered and disseminated intelligence. The Department of Homeland
Security provided only one week of training to officials assigned to sift through tips and uncorroborated
information about American citizens that came into their offices. In a 2009 e-mail discovered by the Senate investigators, one department official warned
that the fusion centers were collecting information on Americans “without proper vetting,” and were “improperly reporting this information through homeland
information reporting channels.” More broadly, the
flaws uncovered by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations raise
questions about the role of the Department of Homeland Security in the nation’s fight against terrorism,
and whether the department can ever live up to its original purpose of “connecting the dots” to prevent another surprise like the Sept. 11 attacks. The report on the
dysfunctional nature of the fusion centers makes clear that in
the decade since the department was created, Homeland
Security has not carved out a clear counterterror mission that does not overlap with those of other agencies. Top officials of the
Homeland Security Department have known about the problems for years, but hid an internal department report on the program’s flaws from Congress while
continuing to tell lawmakers and the public that the fusion centers were highly valuable and that they formed the centerpiece of Homeland Security’s counterterrorism efforts. A 2010 internal assessment by the department discovered, for instance, that four of its claimed 72 fusion centers did not exist, even as
department officials kept using the 72 figure publicly with Congress. Homeland Security officials disputed the findings of the Senate investigators. Matthew
Chandler, a department spokesman, said the Senate report “is out of date, inaccurate and misleading.” He said the investigators “refused to review relevant data,
including important intelligence information pertinent to their findings.” When it was created, the Department of Homeland Security was supposed to function as a
central clearinghouse for terrorism-related intelligence, to solve what was supposed to be one of the big problems identified in the government’s failure to prevent
9/11 — a lack of intelligence sharing between the F.B.I., the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies. But almost immediately, the George W. Bush
administration created other
organizations to do much the same thing. Today, the central clearinghouse is the
National Counterterrorism Center, part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Department officials soon began angling to find
something else to do. They hit on the idea of taking charge of intelligence sharing between the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies,
and by 2006, fusion centers were being set up across the country. However, state
and local law enforcement agencies already were
working with the F.B.I. in regional counterterror units called Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which were responsible for handling
terrorism-related criminal cases. The fusion centers quickly became a black hole for taxpayer money, the Senate investigators
found. The fusion centers were run by state and local officials, but were funded through grants to states from the Federal Emergency Management Agency with
little oversight. That made it easy for state
and local officials to divert the federal money earmarked for the centers to
other things, including sport utility vehicles and dozens of flat-screen televisions for use by state and local agencies.
Border security is insufficient – 87% of terrorists get in and most come through
airports
Smarick and LaFree ’12 Kathleen Smarick and Gary D. LaFree, National Consortium for the Study of
Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, U Maryland; “Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the
United States: Lessons for Protecting against Dangerous Entrants;” Nov 2012
http://www.start.umd.edu/start/publications/START_BorderCrossingsTerroristAttacks.pdf RMJ
Analyses of these newly collected data revealed trends in these border crossings by individuals indicted on federal terrorism charges. The
border crossers were most often U.S. citizens entering back into the United States, most often via an
airport (rather than a seaport or a land port of entry). Almost all were male, and a large majority was married. According to
U.S. court documents, only a minority had previous arrests. There was notable variation in the points of origin
for these border crossers, with trips originating all around the world. Researchers found that 87% of the known border crossings
attempted by these indictees were successful, allowing the individuals to enter or exit the United States.
Analyses of these data indicate that bordercrossings were more likely to be prevented in winter months (December-January-February), but that
this seasonal trend was not statistically significant. Similarly, the
type of POE used by a traveler was not significantly
related to the likely success of the crossing, nor were entrants more or less likely to succeed than those exiting the country
Ext – SQ Solves Border Security
Squo solves US-Mexico border terrorism
State Dept ‘12 OFFICE OF THE COORDINATOR FOR COUNTERTERRORISM; Country Reports on Terrorism 2011: Chapter 2. Country
Reports: Western Hemisphere Overview; 7/31/12; State Dept; http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/ RMJ
Overview: The
Mexican government remained vigilant against domestic and international terrorist threats.
It increased law enforcement and counterterrorism cooperation with the United States and other
neighbors and took steps to enhance control of its northern and southern borders. No known
international terrorist organization had an operational presence in Mexico and no terrorist group
targeted U.S. citizens in or from Mexican territory. There was no evidence of ties between Mexican
criminal organizations and terrorist groups, nor that the criminal organizations had political or territorial
control, aside from seeking to protect and expand the impunity with which they conduct their criminal activity. Legislation and Law
Enforcement: The Mexican government continued to improve the abilities of its security forces to counter
terrorism. The United States supported these efforts by providing training and equipment to Mexican law
enforcement and security agencies, sharing information, and promoting interagency law enforcement
cooperation. The United States also supported Mexican efforts to address border security challenges along its
southern and northern borders and its ports. The U.S. and Mexican governments implemented programs to share information and
jointly analyze transnational threats; promote information and intelligence sharing; deploy enhanced
cargo screening technologies; and strengthen passenger information sharing. U.S. and Mexican officials also
continued coordinated efforts to prevent the transit of third country nationals who may raise terrorism
concerns. On the U.S.-Mexico border, officials increased coordination of patrols and inspections and improved
communications across the border. On the Mexico-Guatemala-Belize border, Mexico deployed
additional security forces and implemented biometric controls. Mexico remained a critical partner
nation in the Department of State's Antiterrorism Assistance program, which began to shift its focus from protection of
national leadership training to border security, preventing safe havens, and protecting critical targets. The Mexican government
aided U.S. efforts to disrupt an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. U.S.
officials arrested Iranian-American Manssor Arbabsiar in New York on September 29 after the Mexican government denied him entry to Mexico
and he was returned to the starting point of his journey. Arbabsiar had planned to contact a Mexican criminal organization on behalf of
elements of the Iranian government. Countering Terrorist Finance: Mexico is a member of the Financial Action Task Force
(FATF) and the Financial Action Task Force of South America Against Money Laundering, a FATF-style regional body. As a result of the
announcement of a National Strategy for the Prevention and Elimination of Money Laundering and Financing for Terrorism in 2010, Mexico
issued a number of Anti-Money Laundering/Counterterrorist Finance (AML/CTF) regulations that strengthen
reporting requirements and expand the range of financial entities covered under AML/CTF provisions. In April, the government
proposed to amend the Federal Criminal Code to expressly establish that corporate entities are liable for
crimes, including cases of terrorist financing, committed by their legal representatives. For further information on money laundering and
financial crimes, we refer you to the 2011 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), Volume 2, Money Laundering and Financial
Crimes: http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/index.htm. Regional and International Cooperation: Through the Organization of American
States' Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism and the Central American Integration System, Mexico
has led regional efforts
to strengthen capacities to increase security and prevent terrorism by promoting consultation,
increasing law enforcement cooperation, and strengthening border controls.
Immigration Doesn’t Solve Econ
Doesn’t solve econ– immigration impact negligible
Steve Malanga is a Contributing Editor to City Journal and a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute., Summer 2006, How Unskilled
Immigrants Hurt Our Economy, http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html
As foreign competition and mechanization shrink manufacturing and farmworker jobs, low-skilled
immigrants are likely to wind up farther on the margins of our economy, where many already operate. For example,
although only about 12 percent of construction workers are foreign-born, 100,000 to 300,000 illegal immigrants have carved a place for
themselves as temporary workers on the fringes of the industry. In urban areas like New York and Los Angeles, these mostly male illegal
immigrants gather on street corners, in empty lots, or in Home Depot parking lots to sell their labor by the hour or the day, for $7 to $11 an
hour. That’s far below what full-time construction workers earn, and for good reason. Unlike the previous generations of immigrants who built
America’s railroads or great infrastructure projects like New York’s bridges and tunnels, these day laborers mostly do home-improvement
projects. A New York study, for instance, found that four in ten employers who hire day laborers are private homeowners or renters wanting
help with cleanup chores, moving, or landscaping. Another 56 percent were contractors, mostly small, nonunion shops, some owned by
immigrants themselves, doing short-term, mostly residential work. The day laborer’s market, in other words, has turned out to be a boon for
homeowners and small contractors offering their residential clients a rock-bottom price, but a big chunk of the savings comes because lowwage immigration has produced such a labor surplus that many of these workers are willing to take jobs without benefits and with salaries far
Because so much of our legal and illegal immigrant labor is concentrated in such fringe,
low-wage employment, its overall impact on our economy is extremely small. A 1997 National Academy
of Sciences study estimated that immigration’s net benefit to the American economy raises the average
income of the native-born by only some $10 billion a year—about $120 per household. And that meager
contribution is not the result of immigrants helping to build our essential industries or making us more
competitive globally but instead merely delivering our pizzas and cutting our grass. Estimates by probelow industry norms.
immigration forces that foreign workers contribute much more to the economy, boosting annual gross domestic product by hundreds of billions
of dollars, generally just tally what immigrants earn here, while ignoring the offsetting effect they have on the wages of native-born workers.
AT: Guest Workers Key Border
Border reform key – ensures security and a starting point for legislation
Barr, 7/3 – Bob Barr is a former federal prosecutor and a former member of the United States House
of Representatives. He represented Georgia's 7th congressional district as a Republican from 1995 to
2003 (“’A’ Is For ‘Amnesty’ -- And ‘Amnesia’”, 7/3/13,
http://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2013/07/03/a-is-for-amnesty---and-amnesian1633158/page/full)
Throughout the history of human civilization, wherever there were established cultures and populations, there were borders – the Great Wall
of China to protect against invaders; stone walls to protect European cities from the time of the Roman Empire to the Middle Ages; stockades
that protected early American settlers from Indian attacks; and barbed wire fences stretching across the plains of Texas to protect roaming
herds of cattle from rustlers. Strong
borders make good neighbors; also, safe homelands. Yet, preservation of the
homeland does not appear to be the true focus of supporters of the so-called “immigration reform” bill recently
passed by the U.S. Senate. Rather than craft a bill that actually modernized our immigration process to reflect
today’s economic, fiscal and social conditions, the Senate pieced together a massive slab of legislation, loaded with pork, and
aimed more at appeasing special interest groups than fixing serious deficiencies in our immigration system. Worse still, at the core of the
legislation’s attempt at reform is a pathway to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. There is no denying
the number of illegal aliens in the United States must be addressed, but “reform” does not begin by
exacerbating problems supposedly being remedied . Granting amnesty to millions of illegals only adds
to the long list of incentives for others to sneak into the U.S.
While the Senate bill does allocate more resources to the
Border Patrol to better secure the border, physical security measures can only go so far to stem the waves of illegal immigrants constantly
penetrating our southern border. Meaningful immigration
reform must include more comprehensive steps to
address why so many people immigrate to our country illegally. Only by tackling illegal immigration at
the foundation can America’s border security be made effective. Once the balance of immigration is shifted back
towards legal pathways, Congress can address the question of what to do with the millions of undocumented peoples within our border.
Otherwise, it is simply bailing out a sinking ship. This approach will force Congress to look at two key problems in our current
immigration process. The first is the financial incentives to “cut in line” through the legal immigration process by sneaking into the country. The
second is to address the “line” itself.
Weak immigration impact and takes decades to effect economy
Espo & Werner, 6/19 - Journalists for AP (“Bill could reduce illegal immigration 25 percent”,
6/19/13, AP, http://news.yahoo.com/bill-could-reduce-illegal-immigration-25-percent-191257192.html)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supporters of far-reaching immigration legislation rejected a challenge Wednesday from Senate
conservatives demanding evidence that the nation's borders are secure before millions living in the United States unlawfully can gain legal
status. The vote came as lawmakers on both sides of the issue digested a startling Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would fail
to prevent a steady increase in illegal residents in the future, even though it would grant legal status to millions already in the country without
the necessary papers. " Illegality
will not be stopped, but it will only be reduced by 25 percent ," said Sen. Jeff
Sessions, R-Ala., referring to the prediction by the non-partisan CBO. Only a day earlier, the CBO had cheered
supporters of the bill with an estimate that it would help the economy and reduce deficits in each of the next two decades.
Unilateral actions towards the border historically fail
LDN, 7/1 – Latino Daily News (“STUDY: Border Militarization Leads to an Increase in Illegal
Immigration”, 7/1/13, http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/latino-daily-news/details/studyborder-militarization-leads-to-an-increase-in-illegal-immigration/25550)
The pending 2013 immigration reform bill aims to establish a pathway to citizenship for more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living
in the United States. The bill also calls for the completion of 700 miles of border fencing between the United States and Mexico and doubles the
number of Border Patrol agents. Critics
of the bill say that heightened border control measures, along with the
bill’s proposal to reduce the number of available work visas for agriculture, will only lead to an increase
in undocumented migration to the United States from Mexico. Through an exhaustive study of a time when
the border was more porous, Stanford historian Ana Raquel Minian illustrates how “unilateral policies that have attempted to
limit population flows across the U.S.-Mexico border through militarization have failed in the past” and
are “ bound to fail in the future.” Minian’s research is the first in-depth history of transnational Mexican migration from 1965 to
1986, an era of transition that saw booming circular migration between the United States and Mexico as well as expanding bi-national efforts to
regulate the border. The
increasingly stringent immigration policies enacted during this period left many
Mexicans without the right to fully belong in either nation. An assistant professor of history at Stanford, Minian
hopes her research will bring to light the “historical development of migratory policies and their impact on
people’s lives.” Her research, she said, also shows why current immigration policies “must take into account the transnational forces behind
people’s migratory patterns.” “At the outset, Mexican officials discouraged emigration, but by the 1970s, those same officials were encouraging
such departures as a solution to high unemployment and population growth,” Minian said. Simultaneously, she noted, “the
U.S.
government attempted to address these same problems by starting to militarize the border. Thousands
of Mexican nationals found themselves without the substantive right to belong to either nation-state.”
According to Minian, border militarization “did not reduce migration but instead made it more dangerous.” It also
forced undocumented migrants in the United States to make their stay permanent.
Bilateralism can’t solve cartel violence and derails effective drug policy
Friedersdorf 4/30 Conor Friedersdorf, staff writer for The Atlantic; “Mexico Is Ready to End Failed Drug-War Policies—Why Isn't the
U.S.?” APR 30 2013; The Atlantic; http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/mexico-is-ready-to-end-failed-drug-war-policies-whyisnt-the-us/275410/ RMJ
Did you know that the
U.S. has been operating surveillance drones in Mexico, providing air support for the
Mexican military, tracking the movements of Mexican citizens, sharing state-of-the-art spy technology
with Mexican officials, and sending CIA agents to help Mexico train drug informants? Did you know the DEA
has more employees stationed in Mexico than any of its other foreign posts? That Mexican nationals
trained and bankrolled by the CIA raid Mexican drug cartels? Or that the CIA runs high-tech "fusion
centers" in Mexico City, Monterrey and elsewhere? "For the past seven years, Mexico and the United States have
put aside their tension-filled history on security matters to forge an unparalleled alliance against
Mexico's drug cartels, one based on sharing sensitive intelligence, U.S. training and joint operational planning," Dana Priest reports in
the Washington Post. "But now, much of that hard-earned cooperation may be in jeopardy." Enrique Pena Nieto, Mexico's new leader,
reportedly dislikes the status quo, and was shocked, on taking office this December, at the degree of United States involvement in his country.
The article is worth reading in full. What I can't help but remark upon is the way that it handles the spectacular failure of the War on Drugs. It
notes "mounting criticism" that any success
fighting cartel leaders has also helped to incite "more violence than
anyone had predicted, more than 60,000 deaths and 25,000 disappearances in the past seven years alone." Put another way,
the period of maximum American involvement has coincided with a horrific spike in drug-related
violence. "Meanwhile," Priest continues, "the drug flow into the United States continued unabated. Mexico
remains the U.S. market's largest supplier of heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine and the transshipment point for 95
percent of its cocaine." So the strategy was high cost, low reward. It increased violence and did nothing to
reduce the drug supply. Yet the fact that it completely failed plays basically no role in the rest of the article, in large part because
everyone in the United States government apparently wants to preserve the failed status quo. American
officials are very upset that Mexico's new leader has decided to go his own way. Look at the very next sentences:
No one had come up with a quick, realistic alternative to Calderon's novel use of the Mexican military with U.S. support. But stopping the
cartel violence had become Peña Nieto's top priority during the campaign. The U.S. administration didn't
know what that meant. Some feared a scaling back of the bilateral efforts and a willingness to trade the relentless drive against
cartel leaders for calmer streets. Does anyone else think that "a willingness to trade the relentless drive against cartel
leaders for calmer streets" just might be "a quick, realistic alternative to Calderon's novel use of the
Mexican military with U.S. support"? At the very least, it surely it doesn't make sense to presume, as the article
seems to, that the obviously failed status quo is the most "realistic" way forward. Sticking with it is arguably
delusional. But that angle is seemingly never pursued. As ever, the utter failure of American drug policy is taken by the
establishment as evidence that persisting is of even more importance. The policies the United States
pursued in Mexico as part of our increased role there coincided with a huge uptick in violence and no
reduction in the supply of Mexican drugs? By God, let's hope that the Mexicans don't decide to try something completely
different!
AT: Terrorism Impact
AT: Terrorism Impact – Border Not Key
Terrorists won’t target the border – your authors are hype
McCombs and Steller, 11 – Columnists for AP (“Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point”,
June 7th, 2011, http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossingpoint/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html)
A turning political tide has renewed fears that raged after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - that terrorists will
sneak into the country across the U.S.-Mexico border. Nobody disputes that's possible, but analysts and
government officials say terrorists plotting to kill Americans are more likely to use other routes into the
country, if they're not here already. It's much more common for people convicted in the U.S. of crimes connected to
international terrorism to have been U.S. citizens or legal residents, or come into the country on visas. "There is no
serious evidence that the U.S.-Mexico border is a significant threat from terrorism," said Edward Alden, a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank based in New York. Claims of terrorist threats on the
Southwest border distract legislators and policymakers from addressing long-term solutions to drug
smuggling and illegal immigration, said Tom Barry, senior analyst at the Center for International Policy in Washington. "It's
politically motivated ," Barry said, "playing on that sense of fear that certain people are susceptible to." But proponents of
tougher border enforcement say protecting Americans against terrorism motivates them, not politics. "There's an enormous risk," said Michael
Braun, who retired as chief of operations for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in 2008. Members of Hezbollah, for example, "are
absolute masters at identifying existing smuggling infrastructures on many borders around the world where they operate." The
State
Department's 2009 "Country Reports on Terrorism" found that "no known international terrorist
organizations had an operational presence in Mexico and no terrorist incidents targeting U.S. interests
and personnel occurred on or originated from Mexican territory." The State Department said that there was no
evidence of ties between Mexican organized crime and international terrorist groups. But it warns: "The violence attributed to organized-crime
groups on the border, however, continued to strain Mexico's law-enforcement capacities, creating potential vulnerabilities that terrorists
seeking access to the United States could exploit." Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu emphasized the risk of terrorists crossing the Mexican
border into the U.S. in a May 26 open letter to President Obama. "If the majority of regular illegal immigrants can sneak into America, what
does this say about the ability of terrorist sleeper cells?" Babeu wrote. "The porous U.S.-Mexican border is the gravest national-security threat
facing America." Hiding in a car trunk In his letter to the president, Babeu said thousands of illegal immigrants hailing from "special-interest
countries" make the U.S.-Mexico border a national-security threat. "In some cases, we have confirmed their troubling ties to terrorism," Babeu
wrote. "Yet for those we apprehend, how many today live amongst us?" The Border Patrol apprehended an average of 339 people from
"special-interest countries" - those that warrant special handling based on terrorism risk factors - at the U.S.-Mexico border each year over the
past six years, Homeland Security data show. That's less than 1 percent each year of the total apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border,
Homeland Security figures show. None
of the 2,039 people arrested at the U.S.-Mexico border in that span presented a
credible terrorist threat, Homeland Security officials say. Homeland Security monitors, analyzes and gathers intelligence about
potential threats but at this time "does not have any credible information on terrorist groups operating along the Southwest border," said
department spokesman Matt Chandler. Among
the 36 people convicted by the U.S. Justice Department of charges
relating to international terrorism last year, none came into the United States from Mexico. Half were U.S.
citizens, most of them naturalized from countries such as Sudan or Somalia. Seven were extradited from other countries, while three were
captured abroad by American forces.
The others came to the United States on visas , or, in one case, were arrested while
trying to come into the United States legally at a port of entry on the Canadian border.
Double bind – either terrorists won’t travel the border – or the AFF causes terrorism –
terrorists ride visas
McCombs and Steller, 11 – Columnists for AP (“Border seen as unlikely terrorist crossing point”,
June 7th, 2011, http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossingpoint/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html)
Over the last two decades, almost all of the known international terrorists arrested in the United States
have come on legal visas or were allowed to come in without a visa, said Alden, of the Council on Foreign Relations. "These are
people that come on airplanes," said Alden, author of "The Closing of the American Border," which explains how the U.S. revised visa
and border policies in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The 19 people involved in the Sept. 11
attacks entered the country on legal visas.
And over the last four to five years, the terrorist plots have increasingly involved
people already in the United States - citizens and legal residents, he said. "The
notion of the (Southwest) border as the line that
protects us from terrorism has really gone out of the window in the last several years," Alden said. Not only is
the U.S. side of the border heavily guarded, but the Mexican government makes an extraordinary effort to prevent terrorists from coming
through its country. For instance, Mexico shares real-time information with the U.S. about airline passengers arriving in Mexico to make sure
they don't include potential terrorists, Alden said. The
Mexican drug-smuggling organizations have no interest in
allowing smuggling routes to be used by terrorist organizations either, he said. "If it is discovered that a
terrorist that carried out an attack in the United States came across the Mexican border, then the
response would be further fortification of that border that shuts down smuggling routes and cuts into
the profits," he said. Being associated with terrorist groups would be very bad for business for drugsmuggling organizations, said Sylvia Longmire, a drug-war analyst and author. Proof of a terrorist coming through Mexico would have
dire consequences for the Mexican government, too, she said. But that point of view ignores the fact that terrorist groups and Latin American
drug smugglers sometimes do business with each other and therefore have connections, said Braun, the former DEA operations chief, who now
runs a security-consulting firm, Spectre Group International. "Hezbollah is now heavily involved in the global cocaine trade," Braun said. "Most
of the cocaine they're involved in distributing is heading toward Europe, but they're affiliating with the same cartels sending drugs to the United
States." That isn't to say the groups share an ideology, but simply that they have the connections needed to exploit smuggling
routes into the United States. Also, people from the Middle East tend to have dark hair, dark eyes and olive skin, like most Latin Americans, so
they can easily blend in, he said. "On a moonless night at two in the morning, there's not a lot of due diligence going on when the coyotes and
Canada is a more likely crossing point because that
country allows in more people as refugees and asylum seekers, said Henry Willis, a senior policy researcher on
homeland security at the Rand Corp. "To regard the Southwestern border as the 'frontline against terrorism,' as the
Border Patrol does, is folly," wrote Barry, of the Center for International Policy, in a recent report. People have talked about terrorists
gatekeepers are moving human traffic across that border," Braun said.
crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, but Anthony Coulson, who retired as head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Tucson office last year,
has seen hardly any evidence. "Through the years I can probably count on my fingers on one hand the number of times that there was some
type of terrorist activity associated with the border," Coulson said. "It
just doesn't happen."
Low risk of their impact-terrorists would not use the border for entry
Barry 13 (Tom, January 9, 2013, Director for the TransBorder project at the Center for International
Policy in Wash. DC. “With the Resurrection of Immigration Reform We'll Hear a Lot About Securing Our
Borders, But What Does It Really Mean?” http://www.alternet.org/immigration/resurrectionimmigration-reform-well-hear-lot-about-securing-our-borders-what-does-it)
One likely reason the Border Patrol does not address its counterterrorism in any detail is that the agency’s
border security buildup on the southwestern border has not resulted in the apprehension of members
of foreign terrorist organizations, as identified by the State Department. Experts in counterterrorism agree there is
little risk that foreign terrorist organizations would rely on illegal border crossings – particularly across
the U.S.-Mexico border – for entry into the United States. While the fear that foreign terrorists would illegally
cross U.S. land borders drove much of the early build-up in border security programs under the newly created homeland
security department, counterterrorism seems to have dropped off the actual and rhetorical focus of today’s
border security operations.
AT: Terrorism Impact – Impact Defense
No nuke terror – can’t build or purchase – experts
Rusling ’10 Matthew Rusling; Feb. 17 2010; “Nuclear or biological attack on U.S. unlikely: experts;”
Xinhua English News http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-02/17/c_13177523.htm
RMJ
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 (Xinhua) -- A nuclear or biological attack by terrorists on the United States is the country's greatest threat,
but that is unlikely to happen, experts said. In a recent CNN interview, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of a militant group like al-Qaida were the biggest threat to the UnitedStates. "The biggest nightmare that many of us
have is that one of these terrorist member organizations within this syndicate of terror will get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction,"
she said. Clinton said al-Qaida remained "unfortunately a very committed,clever, diabolical group of terrorists who are always looking for
weaknesses and openings." But while the threat is a horrific one, it is also one of the least likely to occur, experts said. For one thing, it
is
difficult for a non-state entity like al-Qaida -- and most countries, for that matter -- to build a deployable
nuclear device, said Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence at global intelligence company
Stratfor. Some states have access to universities, teams of scientists, huge facilities and large state budgets
all aimed at creating a nuclear weapon, and even still those countries have difficulty in producing a
usable weapon, he said. Purchasing a weapon of mass destruction would also be extremely difficult for
militant groups, as the United States spends hefty sums -- around 1 billion dollars per year -- to track and
buy fissile material in a bid to keep it off the market, he said. And if nuclear weapons-grade material were on the market, a
number of nations would scramble to get their hands on it, creating heated competition, he said. As for U.S. attempts to protect the country
from such a threat, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency have placed a high priority on the issue. "It's
hard to determine if they are doing enough," he said. "There's only
so much realistically you can do and always more
could be done, but they have placed a great deal of resources into it."
Ayson concludes neg
Mullord ’12 Ally Mullord, journalist, citing Robert Ayson, fmr director of Centre for Strategic Studies
and prof. Strategic Studies @ Univ. of Wellington; “Nuclear terrorism unlikely – expert;” 28 Mar 2012; 3
News; http://www.3news.co.nz/Nuclear-terrorism-unlikely--expert/tabid/417/articleID/248348/Default.aspx RMJ
International relations expert Robert Ayson joined Firstline this morning to discuss the international nuclear situation, and
how vulnerable New Zealand is to a nuclear threat. Mr Ayson says while US president Barack Obama spoke at the summit about
the possible threat of terrorist groups obtaining nuclear material, the “likelihood [of this happening] is
still a fairly small one”. “There have been in the past some groups which have shown a bit of interest in gaining access, but their
capacity to actually get a bomb and use it is pretty small,” he says.
Multiple hurdles to nuclear terrorism and no impact- their author
Ayson 10 (Robert – 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,
obtained via InformaWorld)
To consider what might follow the terrorist use of a nuclear weapon upon an industrialized country, and
especially on a country that is itself armed with nuclear weapons, is to engage a whole cosmos of
uncertainties and assumptions. Moreover, in order to acquire a nuclear weapon in the first place, the
terrorist group in question would need to surmount considerable hurdles. Having done so, the
successful delivery and detonation of the nuclear device is no automatic process. And even once past
this second set of obstacles, there remains a battery of questions, likelihoods, and interactions regarding
what might happen once the world’s first dramatic act of nuclear terrorism has occurred.
No nuke terror – too unsophisticated
Perrow ’07 Charles Perrow, prof. Sociology @ Yale; “The Likelihood of Nuclear Terror;” May 17 2007;
Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-perrow/the-likelihood-ofnuclear_b_48700.html RMJ
The most sophisticated terrorist attack here or elsewhere was 9/11. But their preparation for that was easy: a few
months in flight schools and the ability to read airline schedules and acquire box cutters. A nuclear attack envisioned by the warnings we
have had this month would require immensely more preparation, more difficult targeting, and expensive,
complicated, and large weapons. Terrorist attacks to date, other than 9/11, have been primitive. More
sophisticated car bombs are being developed for use in Iraq, but they remain car bombs. Even the use of
chemical weapons has been limited to small amounts of chlorine gas with only a dozen or so victims. The
explosives used in the Madrid train depot bombing were more sophisticated than those used in the London subway bombings, but neither were
devastating. In 2005, the
FBI reported that it could find no sign of terrorist cells in the US, and even if there were a
strong one it is hard to believe that it could get and deliver a nuclear bomb. It might fashion a "dirty
bomb" but judging from the terrorist cell recently discovered that targeted an army base, it would have a hard
time fashioning one. This cell had yet to acquire any firearms, was poorly organized, easily penetrated, and
quite unsophisticated. Of course, a nuclear attack might be organized from abroad, but there is no evidence
of sophisticated cells abroad The plot to blow up airliners in the Atlantic last year involved a few who had looked at flight schedules,
but did not have passports to fly, or any bomb-making equipment nor the skills to fashion credible liquid explosives while in flight. There was no
evidence the flight was "ready to go in a day or so" as the British initially said. A March report by RAND
concluded a terror strike
from abroad was unlikely. It found al Queda to be more preoccupied with foreign targets, especially Iraq, and lacked a
specific strategic plan for attacking targets within the U.S. A rogue state such as North Korea, or Pakistan after Islamic
fundamentalists take over, might be able to launch a nuclear missile from a freighter off our shore and we might not even be able to establish
the source immediately. But it
would be hard for them to avoid eventual detection, and it is hard to see their
motivation for such an attack, especially since eventual detection means they would be destroyed in return.
AT: Drugs Impact
Yes US-Mexico Drug Cooperation
Despite policy changes, drug cooperation strong and improving
Miroff 5/14 Nick Miroff, writes extensively on US-Latin American policy with a focus on Mexico; “In
Mexico, restrictions on U.S. agents signal drug war shift;” May 14, 2013; Washington Post;
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-14/world/39250614_1_calderon-years-mexican-securityforces-better-results RMJ
MEXICO CITY — The recent changes ordered by new President Enrique Peña Nieto to Mexico’s anti-narcotics
partnership with the United States have produced markedly different reactions here and in Washington,
underscoring what appear to be diverging perceptions of the drug war’s goals and the costs of fighting it. Peña
Nieto’s decision to limit the ability of American agents to operate in Mexico has been met with dismay by U.S. law enforcement agencies, which
left a heavy footprint under the previous administration of Felipe Calderon. They warn that intelligence sharing will suffer if they can no longer
choose which Mexican force — the army, navy or federal police — to give sensitive information to; they’ve been instructed to now funnel
everything through Mexico’s Interior Ministry instead. The agents also caution that the personal relationships developed under Calderon will
fray if they are no longer welcome to work side by side with trusted partners at sites such as the joint command centers where Americans
helped spy on Mexican narcotics traffickers and direct operations against them. Yet here on the southern side of the fight, where gangland
violence has taken 60,000 to 90,000 lives in the past six years, there
is little surprise that Peña Nieto would move to
reformat the relationship. It is a change that has been coming for a long time. Standing opposite President Obama at a news
conference here May 2 during the U.S. president’s recent visit, Peña Nieto insisted that drug war cooperation would
remain robust but that Mexico wants a more “efficient” strategy. “Let me say it very clearly,” he said. “Under
this new strategy, we’re going to order things up. We’re going to make it institutional. The channels will
be very clear. We’re going to use one single channel in order to be more efficient, to attain better results.” It is the
meaning of “better results” that the two countries increasingly differ on. Seeking change Seizing dope and smashing cartels were
the shared goals for Mexico and the United States under Calderon. He allowed U.S. agencies
unprecedented latitude to gather intelligence on drug cartel suspects and decide which Mexican security forces were trustworthy and
effective enough to share it with. To safeguard against the gangsters’ corrupting powers, the Americans developed “vetted”
units of elite drug-war fighters, relying heavily on Mexico’s marines to be a lethal strike force against
high-level targets. But the flow of drugs north and the death toll in Mexico remained virtually
undiminished as fallen mafia capos were quickly replaced by new leaders and the troubles of the border region spread south. Frustrated
Mexicans were looking for a change, and on the campaign stump last year and since taking office in December, Peña Nieto pledged that
“reducing violence” would become his overarching security goal. In private, his aides characterized the
Calderon years as a free-for-all that put tens of thousands of troops on the streets but didn’t make
Mexico safer.
US-Mexico Drug Cooperation Alt-Causes
US and Mexico are incompatible in the context of drug policy – different goals
Rosin ‘12 ARMIN ROSEN; “The 'Dividends' of U.S.-Mexican 'Cooperation' on the Drug War;” OCT 3
2012; The Atlantic; http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/the-dividends-of-usmexican-cooperation-on-the-drug-war/263072/ RMJ
Under Obama,"institutionalizing the rule of law," "reforming the police," and "building strong and
resilient communities" became the center of U.S. policy in Mexico. In late 2009, the United States
increased its efforts to train jurists and police officers, and undertook institution- and community-level
projects that included opening a police academy in San Luis Potosí and funding more than a dozen $100,000 communitybuilding grants in crime-ridden Ciudad Juárez. At the same time, the United States aided and trained Mexican
intelligence, as a 2009 embassy cable published by WikiLeaks revealed. "Cooperation, while not flawless, has
never been better," the cable reads. "Close collaboration and assistance ... in key counterdrug operations undoubtedly is critical and will
pay dividends over time." But in the wake of the CIA agents' August 24 shooting, it's worth asking again: Just what are these "dividends"
supposed to look like? As a 2011 Congressional Research Service study explained, Mexico
and the United States have different
definitions of "success" in the drug war. For Washington, the seizure of drug shipments and the removal
of kingpins -- such as the 2009 killing of cartel boss Arturo Beltran Leyva, who was cornered by the Mexican Navy with the help of U.S.
intelligence -- are markers of success. But for Mexico, the drug trade is a "national security threat" rather
than an "organized crime threat," and the country's short-term goals might be more focused on
"reducing drug trafficking-related crime and violence" than on dismantling the country's criminal
organizations, according to the CRS study. This will be especially true after Enrique Peña Nieto -- the president-elect of
Mexico who promised a break from Calderón's militarized drug policy -- is inaugurated on December 1. Nieto has emphasized public safety and
violence reduction over a Calderón-like assault on drug cartels and their leadership.
Drug wars will always fail – squo internal Mexican reforms solve
Padgett 5/3 Tim Padgett; “Legalizing Marijuana and Other Ways the U.S. and Mexico Can Win the
Drug War;” May 3 2013; TIME; http://world.time.com/2013/05/03/how-obama-and-pena-nieto-canwin-the-drug-war/ RMJ
That doesn’t mean I favor abandoning the fight against los narcos. I’m just saying that if the past seven years have shown us
anything, it’s that it doesn’t matter whether Peña Nieto ratchets up that fight (as his predecessor did) or
dials it down, or whether Washington pumps more or less aid into it — not as long as police and judicial
institutions remain dysfunctional in Mexico and demand for illegal drugs remains insatiable in the U.S.
Which is why, if Obama and Peña Nieto are the smart politicos they’ve proved to be, they’ll realize that the two most important developments
in the drug war over the past six months took place not during any interdiction operation but on Election Day last November in the U.S. and on
Tuesday, April 30, in Mexico. The Mexican news first, because I think it’s potentially more consequential. Tuesday night, the
Mexican
Senate convincingly passed a telecommunications-reform bill, pushed by Peña Nieto and already approved in the lower
Chamber of Deputies. It’s aimed at dismantling the monopolies that smother competition in Mexican industries
like telecom, where the América Móvil company headed by tycoon Carlos Slim, the world’s richest man, controls more than 80% of the
nation’s land-line market and more than 70% of its cell-phone market. The legislation packs sharper enforcement teeth and “prevents
monopolies from being able to resort to the constant, endless appeals litigation they use to avoid paying fines and sanctions,” as Peña Nieto
described the bill to me in a TIME interview shortly before his inauguration in December. (MORE: 10 Questions for Enrique Peña Nieto) So why
does this impact the drug war? Call it a leap of faith, but if this reform really does turn out to be a monopoly-buster — and, this being Mexico
and the ruling party being the PRI, it’s better to take a wait-and-see approach — it
will be striking evidence that rule of law has
a chance to take root in Mexico. Slim and the other Mexican monopolists targeted in the bill aren’t drug lords. But for
decade after decade, they’ve been getting away with an unjust practice that modern democracies
usually penalize if not thwart. Stripping them of their notorious impunity could go a long way toward
fostering the kind of culture of legality that in turn nurtures more professional and less corrupt courts,
judges, prosecutors and especially investigative cops — the judicial backbone of any credible fight
against organized crime. Washington ought to know this already after its happier experience more than a decade ago in Colombia —
where the billions the U.S. poured into antidrug aid bore fruit largely because Colombia finally made the effort to strengthen rule of law.
Shannon O’Neil, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, aptly pointed out in her 2011 article “How Mexico Can Win the Drug War,
Colombia’s Way” that Colombia emphasized “professionalizing
the police and reforming [the] judicial system.”
It did this via nothing less than a “transformation within” the country that saw its elites finally take
responsibility for public security, something Mexico’s hypernegligent ruling class is still reluctant to do. (In
fact, as evidenced by one recent scandal, Mexico’s rich and powerful still seem more interested in shutting down restaurants that don’t give
them good tables.) “More than foreign security aid,” O’Neil wrote, “this is what Mexico
needs today: an investment by [its]
elites in the safety and well-being of all its citizens.” (MORE: Mexico’s Drug Lords Ramp Up Their Arsenals With RPGs) If I
were Obama, and if I were truly interested in the Mexican drug war’s long-term success, I’d be focused less on Peña Nieto’s interdiction
scorecard at the moment and more on the Mexican Senate’s roll call Tuesday night. And I’d hope like hell that it really is the first installment of
the Mexican elite’s own, long-overdue investment in rule of law. As for what happened on Election Day last fall in the U.S., if
I were Peña
Nieto I’d urge Obama to do on the federal level what the states of Colorado and Washington did:
legalize marijuana. (Mexico should do the same, by the way.) That would do two things: First, deprive Mexico’s drug
cartels of more than a third of the $30 billion or so they make each year. Second, save the U.S. the
estimated $10 billion it wastes every year chasing down a drug that’s no more harmful than alcohol
when used in moderation. It can then steer that money to drug-demand-reduction efforts like rehab
services, which studies show do more to ease the drug plague than conventional supply-side interdiction
does.
Offense
1NC Illegal Immigration Link Turn
Turn – Guest worker program boosts illegal immigration – empirics prove
Matthews 1/30 [Dylan Matthews; January 30, 2013; We’ve tried guest worker programs before. They don’t work.; Dylan Matthews is
a reporter for the Washington Post specializing in data and number analysis;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/weve-tried-guest-worker-programs-before-they-dont-work/]
So whatever Obama’s position ends up being this time around, which one is right? Are
guest worker programs a workable
alternative to a pathway to citizenship for some low-skill workers? Most experts argue no. “I find it
slightly amazing that the phrase ‘guest worker program’ still gets used with a straight face in
Washington,” remarks Boston College political scientist Peter Skerry, who specializes in immigration policy and the
politics around it. The two most-studied guest worker programs are the Bracero Program — a program for Mexican
workers coming to the U.S. that was in place from 1942 to 1964 — and the West German “Gastarbeiter” program in the 1960s and
’70s, which allowed in workers from Italy, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Greece and Portugal. The latter program was mimicked, usually
at a smaller scale, in the Netherlands and Belgium as well as in East Germany (whose workers generally came from Vietnam). Living under
Bracero Workers in the Braceros Program. (Source: University of California — Santa Cruz) The most common analysis holds that the programs
were far less temporary than initially intended. “Most
students of the Bracero Program would argue that they were,
in great part, the beginning of our illegal immigrant problem,” Skerry explains. Before then, many Mexicans
didn’t have the information or means to get to the U.S. Bracero both made emigration desirable and
provided a ready means. “They were started in 1942, at a time when Mexico wasn’t that developed, and
it wasn’t so easy to get here, in terms of roads and railroads and means of transportation,” Skerry continues.
“It’s something that has to get opened up, so [Bracero] had the effect of kind of exposing this
opportunity to lots of Mexican workers and peasants, and that really helped build these kinds of
networks and patterns where people came and moved north to come here and work.” Some of those
people bolted into the U.S. and never returned. While the public reputation of the Bracero Program holds that it led to
employer abuse, Michael Snodgrass, a Latin American historian at Indiana University who has studied the program, has a slightly more
optimistic take. “The more the program has been studied, we’re finding it was not as exploitative as has often been portrayed,” he explains. In
the early going, in fact, employer abuses were fairly rare due to rigorous enforcement on the part of Mexican consular officials in the United
States, who advocated on behalf of the program’s participants. It didn’t hurt, Snodgrass adds, that many Bracero participants got their spots as
a result of patronage from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ran the Mexican government from 1929 to 2000 (and regained
power in last year’s elections). PRI had an incentive to make sure its people were treated well. And it used what powers it had. “They had the
right to blacklist entire U.S. counties if it was found that growers there were violating the provisions of the initial agreement,” Snodgrass tells
me. “There are cases of counties from the Delta region of Mississippi, and Arkansas and Oregon being kicked out of the program.” But that only
worked when relatively few people were coming across the border. After World War II, their ranks swelled and enforcement of labor standards
waned. There just weren’t enough Mexican officials to protect that many people.”The biggest complaint I’ve heard is that once they got into
the United States, the one right they did not have is to leave their employers,” Snodgrass continues. “You were assigned to a growers’
association, you didn’t know if you’d harvest cotton in Texas or tomatoes in California. If it was a bad harvest you could make no money, so
some decided I’m not going to use the program because of these limitations or I’ll use it to get in and then skip out.” How many stuck around?
Gastarbeiter program participants in Frankfurt, 1959. (Bildarchiv Prussian Cultural Heritage / Abisag Tüllmann Archives) Snodgrass notes that
many Mexicans used the program exactly as intended, returning home after their stint ended. Some would go to the U.S. for a few months and
then return, living off their much higher American wages for the rest of the year. But he concedes, as Skerry says, that some
used the
program as a way to get in permanently. That also happened in Germany. Jagdish Bhagwati, an economist at
Columbia and the Council on Foreign Relations who has studied the German program, quotes the Swiss-German writer Max Frisch: “We
asked for workers. We got people instead.” As with Bracero, it proved hard to ensure that all
participants used the program in the intended temporary fashion. “Even though the contracts said these people could
be sent back, when it came to the crunch, it was impossible to do that,” Bhagwati continues. “Even if it was called temporary, it would turn into
de facto permanent.” Skerry agrees. “People
came in on temporary work visas in Germany, and they didn’t go
back, like they were supposed to,” he tells me. The current system isn’t immune to this kind of gaming.
People overstay their visas all the time. And some of those cases end in people going legit, even without a “path to citizenship”
along the lines being discussed in Congress. Bhagwati cites a study by Guillermina Jasso, Douglas Massey, Mark Rosenzweig and James Smith
that found that about 32 percent of immigrants who were granted legal status in 1996 were previously illegal residents. What’s
more, 19
percent had entered illegally too, while just 12 percent were overstaying a visa (another 2.22 percent or
so were otherwise illegally here; the numbers don’t add up perfectly due to rounding). But a guest worker program will,
in all likelihood, push that number even higher.
Ext – Plan Increases Illegal Immigration
Guest worker programs empirically increase illegal immigration
Basok 2k (Tanya Basok is a professor at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology @ the
University of Windsor // ‘He came, He Saw, He…Stayed: Guest Worker Programs and the Issue of NonReturn’ Page 216-233) L S
Guest worker programmes have been advocated as a substitute for the employment of illegal migrants in sectors experiencing labour shortages. It has been
suggested that by imposing control, these programmes promote general respect for the law and discourage wholesale law breaking. However, critics
of
guest worker programmes maintain that many temporary workers tend to stay in the country, thus
inflating, rather than reducing, the ranks of undocumented migrants (Papademetriou, Martin and Miller, 1983: 41-44; Miller
and Martin, 1982: 1; Bustamante, 1984; Castles and Kosack, 1985: 396-400; Miller, 1986; Castles, 1986). This article argues that whether or not guest workers stay
in the country after their visas expire depends on the way the programme is administered. Administration of the programme in turn reflects various interests that
shape the State’s regulation of the foreign labour importation process. The article compares the US Bracero Program (under PL-45 and PL-78) and the Canadian
Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. While analysis of the Bracero Program is based on secondary sources, discussion of the Canadian programme is
grounded in original research conducted by the author in both Canada and Mexico which included interviews with Mexican seasonal workers, Canadian and
Mexican officials responsible for the administration of the programme, and greenhouse growers in Leamington, Ontario between 1996 and 1999.1 While the
Bracero Program entailed a significant increase in illegal migration (much but not all of which can be attributed to non-return), in Canada most programme
participants return home. The
US Bracero Program catered mainly to the growers’ interests, and the
Government’s objective was to provide abundant labour to growers as quickly and cheaply as possible.
Thus, large numbers of Mexican workers were recruited through haphazard procedures, using
agricultural background, strength, and health as major criteria. In the absence of structured procedures
to guarantee return to braceros, many chose to stay in the US indefinitely instead of returning home at
the end of the season. Furthermore, the US Government exercised very little control over working and living
conditions experienced by braceros. It was not unusual for these workers to be paid less than a minimum wage
and to live in dismal conditions. As a result, desertion was a widespread phenomenon. By contrast, the Canadian
programme is shaped not only by growers’ interests but also by the Canadian Government’s objective to prevent “unwanted” immigrants from staying inHe came,
he saw, he ... stayed. Guest worker programmes 217 Canada and by the need to protect domestic labour. It allows for bureaucratic selection of a relatively small
number of programme participants whose return to Canada is very likely as long as they remain healthy and employers are pleased with their performance.
Growers’ compliance with requirements for minimum working and living standards assures workers’ loyalty. Desertion is therefore rare. Two other factors account
for the difference in outcomes in the two countries. First, whereas in
the US the treatment of braceros employed by growers’
farm labour associations was rather impersonal, in Canada Mexicans assigned to individual growers often develop a paternalistic
relationship with their employers. As a result, most of the workers feel loyal to their patrones (employers) and do not wish to abandon them. Second,
desertion in the US was facilitated largely by the existence of social networks among other Mexicans, or
Latin Americans in general, and of an economic infrastructure which easily absorbed undocumented
migrants. In Canada, Mexicans are sent to work in rural areas where there are hardly any other Spanish-speaking persons. Even if some programme
participants decide to stay in Canada illegally, they find it extremely difficult to adjust without such a support network. Critics of guest worker programmes argue
that rather
than replacing illegal labour, guest worker programmes end up exacerbating the problems of
illegality and non-return. Morales estimates that during the twenty-two-year tenure of the Bracero
Program (1942-1964) five million illegal Mexican workers were apprehended and deported from the US,
including some who were unsuccessful Bracero Program candidates and decided to cross the border
illegally, as well as former braceros who did not return home (cited in Hansen, 1988: 99).
Guest worker programs sustain undocumented immigration—Bracero proves
Basok 2k (Tanya Basok is a professor at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology @ the University of Windsor // ‘He
came, He Saw, He…Stayed: Guest Worker Programs and the Issue of Non-Return’ Page 216-233) L S
Researchers have suggested that the Bracero Program has contributed to undocumented migration in
three ways. First, by providing Mexican migrants with valuable experience in the US and familiarizing
them with US cultural and social institutions, it provided the braceros with the knowledge necessary for
permanent migration. Second, it provided Mexican workers the opportunity to establish contacts with
employers and to build ties with Mexican-American communities in the US. The social networks they
formed made it easier for the braceros to return when active recruitment by the US Government ceased.
As Gamboa (1990: 66) shows, some workers found good employers with whom they remained for years without returning to Mexico. Some employees found that
farmers would take extraordinary steps to keep them in the country permanently as well as provide
assistance in bringing their wives from Mexico. Third, the Bracero Program allowed its participants to
improve their living7418 Basok standards, thus raising overall expectations. When the programme was discontinued in 1964,
in order to maintain the standards of living to which these workers and their families had become accustomed, former braceros either stayed in
the US illegally or managed to acquire permanent resident status, using ties with the US employers or
kinship support (Hansen, 1988: 99; Reichert and Massey, 1982: 5-6; Pfeffer, 1980: 39). The first two explanations refer to opportunities which facilitate
non-return but do not provide reasons why braceros chose to drop out of the Bracero Program and stay in the US illegally. The third explanation links non-return
(and illegal entry into the US) to termination of the Bracero Program. While the cessation of the guest worker programme certainly provoked illegal migration, it
should be pointed out that even before the programme ended, many braceros had not returned to Mexico. Therefore, other factors which propel guest workers to
stay must be considered. These include the nature of administration of the guest worker programme, including its recruitment policies, enforcement of working and
living standards, and the size of the programme. In each of these areas Canadian experience has differed from the US which is why hardly any participants of the
Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, which has been in existence since 1974, have stayed behind.
AT: US-Mexico Advantage
Top Level
1NC AT: US-Mexico Relations
Mexico and US relations high – economically integrated
Shifter 13 (Michael, Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for
the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue, “A More
Ambitious Agenda” February 2013
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf\\CLans)
Mexico and the United States have forged one of the strongest and most productive relationships in the world.
No two countries anywhere engage so intensely on a daily basis, cooperate across such a wide and varied spectrum of
issues, and affect the economy and society of the other so profoundly. No two sovereign nations are more
demographically and economically integrated. With annual cross-border commerce of some $500 billion, Mexico is now the
United States’ second largest trading partner. Some analysts project that it will overtake Canada for the No. 1 position within the decade.
Sales to Mexico make up twothirds of all US exports to Latin America. Mexico, in turn, sends 80 percent
of its exports to the United States and purchases nearly 60 percent of its imports from its northern neighbor. Substantial
investment, too, flows in both directions. US investments in Mexico have averaged $12 billion annually for the past
dozen years, amounting to more than half of all foreign investment in the country, according to the US State Department. In addition,
families in the United States send more than $20 billion in remittances to Mexico each year. The North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), which joined the economies of Mexico, the United States, and Canada in 1994, is today
the world’s largest economic
bloc, exceeding, albeit by a small margin, the total output of the 27-member European Union. Demography also matters. Some 33 million US
residents are of Mexican origin. They make up more than 10 percent of the US population, nearly two-thirds of all Latinos, and around 7
percent of American voters. While
US political debates tend to spotlight unauthorized immigration, 80 percent
of Mexicans in the United States are legal residents. Still, illegal immigration may be the single most troubling issue in USMexico relations, although changing migration patterns and the growing influence of Latino voters may offer solutions going forward.
Security has become an area of intense cooperation as Mexico grapples with an ongoing wave of brutal crime and violence.
The United States and Mexico may not always agree on policy or strategy, but the extensive
collaboration among their police and security agencies is unprecedented. Indeed, the bilateral agenda has
seen cooperation flourish on almost every issue, with more opportunities emerging as mutual interests deepen. Mexico
and the United States are consistently finding new ways to complement and reinforce one another in
the global marketplace and on matters of regional and international importance. Both governments
have made clear a commitment to consolidate and enhance this cooperation to fully leverage their
inevitable and accelerating economic and demographic integration. In many ways, the relationship
between the U.S. and Mexico is complicated and conditioned by the long and the bloody war on drugs.
It's difficult to say exactly how many people have been killed in that war, but Mexican media have
estimated that around 70,000 people have died since 2006; many thousands more have been
disappeared. The United States has been closely involved, providing money, technology and intelligence
to the Mexican government.
Alt causes tank relations – Wikileaks, drug cartels, dismal production rates, interagency rivalries, and a slow army
Carlson 11 (Laura Carlson, Director of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy in
Mexico City, US-Mexico Relations Back on track in the wrong direction;
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/4068#sthash.F2HKoPpB.dpuf)
Following a lengthy closed meeting, the presidents stood before the cameras to reaffirm their mutual
commitment to a war that has cost 35,000 Mexican lives since 2007, with the death toll rising by often
50 homicides a day. Obama affirmed the U.S. strategy of increased engagement in the Mexican drug
war, stating “We are very mindful that the battle President Calderon is fighting inside of Mexico is not
just his battle, it’s also ours.” He promised to deliver $900 million this year of funds appropriated under
the Merida Initiative, a security agreement launched in 2007 by the George W. Bush administration and
extended indefinitely under Obama. The binational relationship suffered some serious blows in the
weeks preceding Calderon’s Washington visit. The release of thousands of Wikileaks cables between the
U.S. Embassy in Mexico City and the State Department revealed U.S. officials’ deep concerns regarding
the Mexican government’s capacity to carry out its high-risk war on drug cartels and wavering public
opinion. Cable 10MEXICO83, for example, states that “the GOM’s (Government of Mexico’s) inability to
halt the escalating numbers of narco-related homicides in places like Ciudad Juarez and elsewhere… has
become one of Calderon’s principal political liabilities as the general public has grown more concerned
about citizen security.” The cable cites “official corruption,” inter-agency rivalries, “dismal” prosecution
rates and a “slow and risk averse” Mexican army. In an interview with El Universal, Calderon responded
angrily, calling the statements exaggerated, the ambassador “ignorant” and citing a lack of inter-agency
coordination within the United States. Continued releases of the cables by the Mexican daily La Jornada
promise more embarrassments for both governments in attempting to portray a confident and united
front in the drug war. Tensions also followed the assassination of Jaime Zapata, a U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agent in San Luis Potosí on Feb. 15. Although the Mexican government has
arrested the alleged attackers–members of the Zetas drug cartel–the incident highlighted the risks of
the drug war cooperation and the power of the cartels. The Mexican government’s contradictory
statements on what happened and the army’s absurd hypothesis that the assassins did not know they
were attacking U.S. agents (the agents’ car bore US diplomatic plates) only deepened perceptions of a
lack of transparency . Within Mexico, the incident heightened fears that the U.S. government would
demand more direct involvement, in particular a lifting of the ban on foreign agents bearing arms within
Mexican territory.
US-Mexican relations are resilient – Interdependent networks
Gaytan 12 (José Alberto Gaytan; PhD @ the School of International Studies @ UMiami; Bachelor of
Law @ University of Nuevo León; Director of Legal Services of IMSS. Mexican Migrant Farmworkers’
Impact on South Florida: A Case Study in the Context of US–Mexican Relations’)//L Shen
Mexico and the United States are two neighboring countries whose connections are complex, broad,
multilayered, and intricate in a variety of areas and on a number of delicate issues. The relationship is created by flows
of people, culture, technology, goods services, and labor between the two countries. The immigration
issue is one of the most direct consequences of such geographical proximity between both countries. Indeed,
Mexico is one of the main migratory countries in the world, and the vast majority of its migrants travel
north to work or settle in the United States. In fact, according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People
and the Press (PEW), Mexico is the main source of laborers to the United States. For example, as of 2010, there were
11.2 million illegal workers in this nation, and of that number, 58 percent come from Mexico. That is an estimated 6.5 million immigrants from
south of the border who have established residence in the United States.7
This geographical proximity between both
countries has created a deep and complex framework of interdependence. The full variety and nature of
the issues that shape the character of this relationship probably do not exist in the contemporary history of other
neighboring countries in the Western Hemisphere. For example, after Canada and China, Mexico is America’s third-ranked
trading partner, purchasing two-thirds of its imports from the United States while sending about two-thirds of its exports to the north. From
1993 to 2006, trade between the signatory nations has doubled, totaling 883 billion dollars within that period.
Ext – Yes US-Mexico Relations
Security cooperation makes relations the highest they’ve been in 6 years
Simon 13 (Scott Simon in an interview with David Shirk, Shirk is an associate professor of political
science at the University of San Diego and recently finished his tenure as director of the Trans-Border
Institute at USD, “U.S.-Mexico Relations Complicated, Conditioned By Drug War” May 4, 2013
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/04/181053775/u-s-mexico-relations-complicated-conditioned-by-drugwar)CL
But Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto has begun to back away from the U.S. And this week, his administration
said they would limit its contacts with American agencies. David Shirk is an associate professor at the University of San
Diego. He studies the U.S.-Mexico relationship, and joins us in our studios. Thanks so much for being with us. DAVID SHIRK: Thank you for
having me. SIMON: How closely has
the United States been involved? SHIRK: In the last 12 years, and especially the
last six years, have really been a high-water mark in U.S.-Mexico collaboration, particularly on security
issues. Levels of trust are so high that we have had the opportunity to fly drones in Mexico, we have agents
operating in direct collaboration with their Mexican counterparts, we've seen record levels of extradition. So, the collaboration is at a
much higher level of intensity than we've ever seen before - or has been, at least over the last six years
or so.
US-Mexico relations high-commerce and culture ensure collaboration
Dibble 13 (Sarah, bachelor's degree in Arabic from the University of Utah and a master's degree in
journalism from Columbia University, “Academics call for changes in U.S.-Mexico relations” April 5, 2013
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Apr/05/academic-call-for-changes-in-us-mexicorelations/\\CLans)
With a new president in Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, and the re-election of President Barack Obama last fall, the
timing was right to re-examine the relationship, said Peter H. Smith, professor of political science and Latin American Studies
at the University of California San Diego. Smith co-edited the book with Andrew Selee, vice president of the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.
“There
is closer collaboration than ever between the United and Mexico in areas such as commerce and
culture,” said Alberto Díaz-Cayeros, director of University of California San Diego’s Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies and co-author of
one of the chapters. “And yet the United States as a country lives in denial of the reality of the state of its
relationship with Mexico.”
Despite immigration issues, relations high now
Rosenblum 11 (Marc R., Marc Rosenblum is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the
University of New Orleans, B.A. in political science at Columbia University and Ph.D. in political science
from the University of California, San Diego, “Obstacles and Opportunities For Regional Cooperation:
The US-Mexico Case, April 2011, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/usmexicocooperation.pdf\\CLans)
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.
Relations between US and Mexico high now – security issues take precedent
La Opinion 13 (Los Angeles based Spanish site, “A broader agenda” May 5, 2013
http://www.laopinion.com/article/20130505/IMPORT01/305059843\\CLans)
Relations between the United States and Mexico are complex due to the wide range of issues they share
that bring them together and set them apart. Thus, "multi-thematic" is a fine choice of words to describe the relationship
between the administrations of presidents Barack Obama and Enrique Peña Nieto. The U.S. leader's visit to Mexico served to
jumpstart bilateral relations, adapting them to the change in the neighboring country. Particularly, regarding the change in
the Mexican government's strategy for how to collaborate with its neighbor to the north to fight drug
trafficking in Mexico. Former President Felipe Calderón's more liberal policy of contacts at multiple levels between
Mexican and U.S. authorities has been left behind and replaced with a single channel. This move toward centralization has
been replicated in various sectors of the new government, reflecting the PRI's traditional modus operandi. At the same time, comments by
both leaders showed a healthy caution to avoid making the mistakes of previous presidents. One example
was the tact employed by Peña Nieto in his remarks on immigration reform. That respect to avoid encroaching on the work
of Congress in Washington also gives Peña Nieto the chance to expand the bilateral agenda to really stress
investment, trade, and educational exchanges and go beyond his PAN predecessor's priorities of security and immigration. It
is now up to the White House to respect and understand the change that has occurred at Los Pinos.
Security is undoubtedly a central issue in their relationship. The United States provides the drug users and the guns, while
Mexico supplies the drugs and the victims of violence. Nonetheless, while security dominates the headlines, it need not dominate the bilateral
agenda, especially from the U.S viewpoint.
Ext – US-Mexico Relations Alt-Causes
The US is fanning the flame of distrust – US commitment to the drug war increases
tensions
Carlson 11 (Laura Carlson, Director of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy in
Mexico City, US-Mexico Relations Back on track in the wrong direction;
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/4068#sthash.F2HKoPpB.dpuf)
A recent spate of comments from high-ranking U.S. officials served to fan the flame of distrust of the
U.S. government. Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s speculated out loud of possible links
between Mexican drug cartels and Al Qaeda, and Undersecretary of the Army Joseph Westphal
characterized organized crime in Mexico as an “insurgency,” while openly raising the specter of US
troops being sent in. Mexican columnists and anti-militarization activists have intensified criticism of
U.S. growing involvement in the country’s national security. These tensions arise from the commitment
of both governments to deepen and reinforce a military alliance based on a drug war that is rapidly
losing the support of their populations and proving itself counterproductive . The central concern of
the presidential summit wasn’t the relatively superficial frictions between the countries, but the desire
to bolster the beleaguered drug war. Despite talk of a deteriorating relationship, in fact the Calderon
and Obama administrations are overseeing the birth of historically unprecedented cooperation between
the two nations. The problem is that nearly all of that cooperation centers on the severely flawed
approach to confront transnational drug-trafficking. The Mexico City US Embassy has expanded into a
massive web of Washington-led programs and infrastructure. The controversial Merida Initiative, up for
another round of funding in Congress, has allocated more than $1.5 billion to help fight Mexico’s drug
war with devastatingly negative effects. In addition to the rise in violence, the binational relationship,
which should be multi-faceted and focused on peaceful co-existence, has been hijacked by proponents
of a war model to reduce illicit drug flows to the U.S. market and confront organized crime where it is
most powerful—in brutal battle. The Pentagon is thrilled with its open access to the Mexican security
apparatus and the Calderon government—entering election mode—needs the political and economic
support for its flagship war policy.
Continued drug war is unpopular with the public and takes funds away from education
(possible impact turn to drug war, or a plan unpopular with public for ptx)
Carlson 11 (Laura Carlson, Director of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy in
Mexico City, US-Mexico Relations Back on track in the wrong direction;
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/4068#sthash.F2HKoPpB.dpuf)
But the new relationship forged in war rooms is bad news for the Mexican people. Polls now show that
the majority of the population does not believe its government is winning the war on drugs and feels the
social costs are too high. A new movement called No More Blood has taken hold throughout the country
and regions like Ciudad Juarez, where militarization has been heaviest and not coincidentally violence
has taken the highest toll, have seen the rise of grassroots movements to defend human rights, call for
an end to militarization and put forward alternative strategies. Among their demands is to rechannel
scarce resources away from the attack on cartels to address social needs, restore the armed forces to
their constitutional mandate of national defense, and end impunity for crime by fixing the judicial and
public security systems and attacking government corruption. It’s also bad news for the U.S. public.
Opening up a war front in Mexico has not only destabilized our closest neighbor, but also drains
resources needed in U.S. communities. The government-funded contracts granted to Blackwater and
Blackhawk to fight Mexico’s war could be used for schools in crisis. With an on-going economic crisis
and two wars across the ocean, the prospect of long-term involvement south of the border hurts all but
the flourishing war economy. Presidents Obama and Calderon could have used this meeting to rethink
the strategy. Both have at times indicated a need to defuse the drug war by turning more to healthoriented approaches to drug consumption and backing off the cops and robbers persecutions by
adopting more sophisticated methods of dismantling financial structures and carrying out more focused
intelligence operations. A wide range of alternative policies exist to supplant the endless drug war.
Human rights concerns, along with longterm effectiveness, should dominate in considering which of
these to adopt. Mexico’s drug war has generated death, an erosion of rule of law, increased genderbased violence and has significantly altered daily life in many parts of the county. This crisis should have
elicited a modicum of self-criticism and willingness to consider reforms from the leaders who developed
the strategy. Instead, the presidential summit made a show of putting the binational relationship back
on track—in precisely the wrong direction
Climate change is an alt cause to relations
Barry 13 (Tom Barry, senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy, where he directs the
TransBorder project, “Changing Perspectives on US-Mexico Relations” May 7, 2013 http://truthout.org/news/item/16221-changing-perspectives-on-us-mexico-relations\\CLans)
If Obama and Peña Nieto were to talk about common concerns while on the border instead of in sitting rooms of
the White House and Los Pinos, they would see a common future in the river that divides the two nations.
Climate change-aggravated drought has reduced the Río Bravo to a viscous, milky green trickle.
Groundwater reserves in the greater borderlands are being quickly depleted, and farmers, ranchers, and city planners on
both sides of the border are battling over rapidly diminishing supplies in the first skirmishes of the water
wars that will surely soon overshadow the drug wars as the main threat to regional stability. A common
commitment by Obama and Peña Nieto for each government to do its part to mitigate and mutually
adjust to climate change—which doesn’t respect border lines or border security fortifications—would be a sign that
binational relations can move beyond being merely economic partners and fighting on the same side of the drug war.
The sad plight of the once glorious Río Bravo should not further divide the two nations, but bring the
communities to the north and those to the south together as neighbors and part of the larger North American community
with shared interests and responsibilities.
Alt cause- securitized framing of Mexico subsumes relations
Barry 13 (Tom Barry, senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy, where he directs the
TransBorder project, “Changing Perspectives on US-Mexico Relations” May 7, 2013 http://truthout.org/news/item/16221-changing-perspectives-on-us-mexico-relations\\CLans)
The near-fortification of the border during the Bush and Obama administrations has greatly stymied
regional trade and the once-vibrant crossborder culture. In highly urbanized areas such as the El Paso-Juárez metroplex,
some level of border fencing makes for good neighborly relations, but the 3,169-kilometer border the “secure border
fence” is not only a multibillion waste of scarce U.S. revenues, it’s also a shameful monument to U.S.
xenophobia and political opportunism. President Obama should shed the “border security” framing of
U.S.-Mexico border policy adopted by the Bush administration and tell President Peña Nieto and the U.S. public that Mexico
and Mexicans present no security risk to the borderlands or the U.S. homeland. Terrorism is a palpable
threat to U.S. public safety and national security, but this threat is best met by better U.S. intelligence about
potential foreign and domestic terrorists and by a common regional security perimeter—not by continuing or
increasing military-like measures of border control including drones and militarized border patrols. It is not common
knowledge that Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China.
Every day, at least a billion dollars of goods flows across the border. Yet, Mexico is frequently negatively
caricaturized, primarily with images of migrants illegally crossing the border into the U.S. and stealing
U.S. jobs. Instead of viewing Mexico as a valuable partner that can benefit the U.S. in many facets, it is
perceived as a liability, a region that cultivates corruption and violence and is the root of the current U.S.
immigration ‘problem’ that has spurred controversial rogue measures like Arizona’s SB 1070.
Water conflict alt cause to relations
Stratfor 13 (Stratfor is a geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting
to individuals and organizations around the world, “U.S., Mexico: The Decline of the Colorado River”
May 13, 2013 http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/us-mexico-decline-coloradoriver#ixzz2TH6K2oMA\\CLans)
Conflict over water can arise when there are competing interests for limited resources. This is seen throughout
the world with rivers that traverse borders in places like Central Asia and North Africa. For the Colorado River, the U.S.-Mexico
border is likely less relevant to the competition for the river’s resources than the artificial border drawn at Lees Ferry. Aside from growing
populations, increased energy production from unconventional hydrocarbon sources in the Upper Basin has
the potential to increase consumption. While this amount will likely be small compared to overall allocations, it emphasizes the
value of water to the Upper Basin. Real or perceived threats to the Upper Basin’s surplus of water could be seen as threats
to economic growth in the region. At the same time, further water shortages could limit the potential for
economic growth in the Lower Basin — a situation that would only be exacerbated by growing
populations. While necessary, conservation efforts and the search for alternative sources likely will not be
able to make up for the predicted shortage. Amendments to the original treaty typically have been issued to address
symptomatic problems. However, the core problem remains: More water is promised to river users than is available on average. While this
problem has not come to a head yet, there may come a time when regional growth overtakes
conservation efforts. It is then that renegotiation of the treaty with a more realistic view of the river’s volume will become necessary.
Any renegotiation will be filled with conflict, but most of that likely will be contained in the United States.
Relations low now- security communications issues are an alt cause
Catillo 13 (Mariano, News Editor for CNN, Columbia SIPA alumnus, “Security dominates talk of U.S.Mexico relations” May 2, 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/americas/mexico-usrelations\\CLans)
(CNN) -- Ahead of their meetings in Mexico City this week, President Obama and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto hinted that
they wanted to put economic ties atop their agenda. But reports that Mexico is restructuring the way it
cooperates with American officials on security matters -- in essence restricting communication -- threaten to
impose a shadow over the positive economic story the leaders want to tell. The apparent friction
highlights the critical security relationship and illustrates the complexities of U.S.-Mexico relations. "We spend so much
time on security issues between the United States and Mexico that sometimes I think we forget this is a massive trading partner, responsible
for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of jobs on both sides of the border," Obama said this week. But writing
a new
narrative on U.S.-Mexico relations that doesn't lead with Mexico as a major transit point for narcotics, or
the United States as a market hungry for the drugs, isn't easy. That was made clear by the spate of news reports this week on both sides of
the border about changes to how Mexico cooperates with the Americans. Under the new rules, all U.S. requests for collaboration with Mexican
agencies will flow through a single office, Interior Minister Miguel Angel Osorio Chong confirmed to Mexico's state-run Notimex news agency. It
is a drastic change from recent years, when U.S. agents enjoyed widespread access to their Mexican counterparts. So in the days leading up to
Obama's arrival in the Mexican capital, the
buzz was not about the economy, but whether Mexico was being
uncooperative with the United States. Osorio Chong downplayed the idea that the change signified a retreat in security
cooperation. The United States "should have the confidence that things are on a good path," he told Notimex. In a conference call with
reporters, Obama administration official Ben Rhodes said it was natural that Peña Nieto, who has been in office for only five months, would
want to revisit its security structure. "We're currently working with the Mexicans to evaluate the means by which we cooperate, the means by
which we provide assistance, and we're certainly open to discussing with Mexico ways to improve and enhance cooperation, streamline the
provision of assistance," said Rhodes, who is the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. "Our
goal is not to have
a certain amount of presence in terms of security efforts in Mexico; it's to cooperate with the Mexicans
so that we can meet the interests of both our countries." But analysts say impact of the changes should not be
underestimated. U.S. officials who had built rapport and personal relationships with Mexican
counterparts now have an obstacle to their communication, said George Grayson, an expert on Mexican security
issues and professor of government at the College of William & Mary. "The door is not wide-open like it used to be," he
said. There is a lot to boast of on the economic front, but security will likely remain a key part of how U.S.-Mexico
relations will be judged. Among U.S. officials, there is an unspoken concern about whether Peña Nieto will
merely give lip service to the the idea of security cooperation or whether he will provide real substance,
said David Shirk, former director of the Trans-Border Institute in San Diego.
Ext – US-Mexico Relations Resilient
Relations have reached unprecedented levels – no risk of decline – Co-op is too
important to solve threats
Ordonez 12 (Franco Ordonez, September 17, 2012; Franco is a researcher and writer for McClatchy Newspaper and a Washington
correspondent for The Charlotte Observer; Mexican, U.S. relations improve in fighting against drugs, trafficking;
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/17/168769/mexican-us-relations-improve-in.html#.UdQygvnFVsk#storylink=cpy)
Despite ongoing violence south of the border, cooperation between Mexico and the United States has
reached unprecedented levels. At a luncheon Monday at a Washington think tank, Homeland Security
Secretary Janet Napolitano and Mexican Interior Secretary Alejandro Poire touted how they’ve teamed
up to fight drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and human smuggling. Simultaneously, they
warned that progress could be stalled if not continued by the next administrations in both countries.
“The challenges are so massive, and the threats so clear, that as much as we have advanced it is
imperative that the level of effort not only stays at the same level, but hopefully increases on both sides
of the border,” Poire said.
Cooperation has never been stronger – dynamic issues force cooperation
Ordonez 12 (Franco Ordonez, September 17, 2012; Franco is a researcher and writer for McClatchy Newspaper and a Washington
correspondent for The Charlotte Observer; Mexican, U.S. relations improve in fighting against drugs, trafficking;
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/17/168769/mexican-us-relations-improve-in.html#.UdQygvnFVsk#storylink=cpy)
“Cooperation between our two countries has never been stronger, but we also know that the threats
we face are dynamic,” Napolitano said. “We must continue to work together. This is not a static
situation and we should never be comfortable leaning back in our chairs and saying we’re done.” Poire
credited U.S. intelligence with helping Mexico capture the alleged kingpin of the Gulf Cartel, Jorge
Eduardo Costilla Sanchez, known as “El Coss.” The State Department had a $5 million reward out for his
arrest. “I think the reality is there is more day-to-day cooperation on an operational level on very
sensitive issues than we’ve ever seen before ,” said Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which hosted the event. “At the same time,
there is a great deal of distrust between and among agencies. And there are crises of trust and political
taboos that are still hard to break.”
Immigration Not Key US-Mexico Relations
US-Mexican relations unattainable through immigration—9/11
Delano 9 (Alexandra Delano, PhD in International Relations @ Oxford; Assistant Professor and
Coordinator of Global Studies @ The New School; Fellow at Yale University; Senior Researcher @ The
Council of the Americas // ‘‘Shared Responsibility’’ to a Migration Agreement? The Limits for
Cooperation in the Mexico-United States Case (2000–2008) // International Migration Journal, 2009) //
LShen
Why were the Mexican and U nited S tates governments unable to establish formal cooperation for the
management of migration flows even after agreeing on the need for a ‘‘shared responsibility’’ approach and
establishing an agenda for negotiations on a bilateral agreement in the spring of 2001? Conventional wisdom is that the terrorist
attacks of September 11th were the main reason for the shift from a bilateral to a unilateral approach to
the management of US-Mexico migration flows. Although this event changed the US government’s foreign
policy priorities, in order to understand the reasons why the proposal for a migration agreement failed, it is necessary to look beyond the
security context that permeated the US agenda after September 11th and analyse the underlying structural, domestic and ideological factors
that influenced the governments’ positions during and after the negotiations. By examining the context of power asymmetry in the US-Mexico
relationship, the domestic politics that surround the issue and public perceptions of immigration in the United States, this paper identifies the
challenges implied in efforts to expand bilateral cooperation over migration issues in the NAFTA framework. The fact that both countries’
migration policies are mostly pursued unilaterally despite the acceptance of a ‘‘shared responsibility’’ raises key questions regarding the limits
of regional integration and bilateral or multilateral cooperation for the management of migration.
Relations turn—cooperation can only be achieved through heightening security—
migration makes it unattainable due to 9/11 paranoia
Delano 9 (Alexandra Delano, PhD in International Relations @ Oxford; Assistant Professor and
Coordinator of Global Studies @ The New School; Fellow at Yale University; Senior Researcher @ The
Council of the Americas // ‘‘Shared Responsibility’’ to a Migration Agreement? The Limits for
Cooperation in the Mexico-United States Case (2000–2008) // International Migration Journal, 2009) //
LShen
The terrorist attacks of September 11th altered the course of these bilateral negotiations as the US
government’s foreign and domestic policy priorities changed. Although migration issues were not dropped
completely from the agenda, they were viewed through a security lens and addressed in a very different manner by
the Bush administration. This ‘‘re-conceptualization of how to protect U.S. borders and prevent the
entry of any foreign nationals who would pose a new threat’’ (Mohar, 2004) did not incorporate the
possibility of negotiating a migration agreement with Mexico to manage existing migration flows and
protect migrants’ rights. Mexico and the United States continued to collaborate closely on the
security front
and signed the 22-point ‘‘Mexico-U.S. Border Partnership Action Plan’’, also known as the ‘‘Smart Borders Initiative’’, in
March 2002. This included agreements in areas of infrastructure and secure flow of people and goods. They also signed the ‘‘Partnership for
Prosperity’’ initiative in Monterrey in March 2002, – expanded into the ‘‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America’’ in 2005 – to
promote foreign and domestic investment in Mexico’s marginal areas, among other goals that do not include
regulating the flow of migrant workers in the region. Migration-related initiatives were thus left out of the bilateral
agenda and in November 2002, Colin Powell declared that the political conditions did not exist in the
United States to advance the migration discussions and Mexican officials should be patient (Mohar, 2004). The idea of a bilateral
agreement was never put back on the table despite Mexico’s efforts to reframe and resume the
negotiations
AT: US-Latin America Impact
Mexico Not Key US-Latin America Relations
Cuba, not Mexico, key to US-Latin American Relations.
Shifter ‘12
(Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the
Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin America. The 50-yearold US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument. It has long been a strain on USLatin American relations. Although
the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax
restrictions on travel to Cuba, Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints
on normalized relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective USLatin American engagement. At the same time, Cuba’s authoritarian regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in the
Americas. At present, it is the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully controls the press. Latin American and
Caribbean nations could be instrumental in supporting Cuba’s eventual transition to democratic rule. An
end to the US policy of
isolating Cuba, without setting aside US concern about human rights violations, would be an important
first step. Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions . Because of this, the
United States should seek greater cooperation and consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of the region in world forums
addressing shared interests. Brazil has the broadest international presence and influence of any Latin American nation. In recent years it has
become far more active on global issues of concern to the United States. The United States and Brazil have clashed over such issues as Iran’s
nuclear program, non-proliferation, and the Middle East uprisings, but they have cooperated when their interests converged, such as in the
World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to rebuild and provide
security for Haiti. Washington has worked with Brazil and other Latin American countries to raise the profile of emerging economies in various
international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition to economic and financial matters,
Brazil and other Latin American nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of global political, environmental, and security issues. Several
for which US and Latin American cooperation could become increasingly important include: As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region,
Latin America has the opportunity to participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts. Although US and Latin American interests do not
always converge on non-proliferation questions, they align on some related goals. For example, the main proliferation challenges today are
found in developing and unstable parts of the world, as well as in the leakage—or transfer of nuclear materials—to terrorists.
US-Mexico Relations Not key; Venezuela and ALBA
Eduardo Gomez, 3/13/13, Eduardo Gomez has a Ph.D. in Public Policy and is the assistant professor for the Department of Public Policy &
Administration at Rutgers University, “Ahmadinejad's hug and the future of Chavez's alliance”,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/13/opinion/gmez-chavez-ahmadinejad-america
Chávez put great effort into his friendship with Iran and into a broader alliance with other states in Latin America, with both efforts motivated
Chávez's death is certainly changing the political calculus in
Venezuela, but will it also result in a broader shift that could realign much of Latin America and affect
attitudes toward, and relationships with, the United States? The answer is likely "yes." First, the
grouping of nations previously opposing the United States under Chávez's leftist alliance -- namely the
"Alba" alliance, comprised of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia -- could well wither
away, due to Venezuela's ongoing recession and fears that alliance members will no longer have
Venezuela's financial backing. When combined with reports of Chávez's expressed desire to strengthen
ties with the Obama administration, regional hostility towards the United States may decline. By 2005,
in part by opposition to the United States' international role.
Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Honduras and Ecuador joined Chávez's coalition, which led to the formation of the Bolivian Alliance of the Americas,
also known as Alba. Alba served as an alternative to the Free Trade Act of the Americas, with an explicit focus on poverty reduction, but it also
facilitated the unification of these nations in their anti-American sentiments . With Chávez gone, however, there may be no one left who has
the clout to keep financing this alliance. Venezuela is Alba's largest financier, contributing millions in aid to its members as well as oil at low
prices. But Venezuelans may believe that with ongoing poverty and inequality, their country's needs are more important than those of Chávez's
small club of nations. This situation worries Alba members. According to Cynthia Arnson of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, while Bolivia and Ecuador are independently wealthy and not financially dependent on Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua are. U.S.
diplomatic officials view Maduro as a pragmatist and the fact that he was supportive of initiating closer ties with the United States last year
suggests that this could continue, especially in light of Venezuela's economic troubles and the need to increase revenues through trade.
Chávez's passing should motivate the United States to seek a new partnership with Venezuela. First, Secretary of State John Kerry should
reopen the U.S. embassy in Caracas, which has been closed since 2010, while assigning diplomats who are committed to engaging in peaceful
Second, Kerry should take this opportunity to strengthen
cooperation over issues that can provide mutual benefits in the areas of national security and the
economy, such as counternarcotics, counterterrorism, as well as sustaining oil trade: the United States
currently imports just under 1 million barrels a day from Venezuela. But the United States should also
see this situation as an opportunity to strengthen its ties with other nations, such as Cuba. With the
likely decline in economic assistance to Cuba from Venezuela, Cuban President Raul Castro may consider
stepping up negotiations with the Obama administration over the U.S. embargo, human rights and the
release of American prisoners, such as Alan Gross.
dialogue and political and economic cooperation.
US-Latin America Relations Alt-Causes
Alt causes to relations – immigration, drugs, and embargo
Hakim, ’12. Peter Hakim, president emeritus and senior fellow of the Inter-American Dialogue, a
Washington-based think tank on Western Hemisphere affairs, July 5, 2012. “The Incredibly Shrinking
Vision: US Policy in Latin America.” Política Exterior.
http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3011 – clawan
In contrast to his three post-Cold War predecessors, President Obama did not put forth a vision or strategy for US policy in the hemisphere, or propose any major
new initiatives. Instead, the Obama White House set
out modestly to reduce discord and friction in hemispheric affairs,
and encourage greater regional cooperation. A change in style and emphasis was promised, including a turn to multilateralism and
partnership—and a closer alignment of US and Latin American policy goals. None of this has worked out very well, however. Although
Obama remains well-liked and admired across Latin America, his administration has not managed to improve the quality of
US relations in the region or do much to solve the outstanding problems. The new president's
overcrowded agenda left little room for Latin America—which had no chance of competing successfully for Washington's limited
foreign policy attention with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and China's expanding global muscle. And the attentiveness of
Latin American governments, especially those in South America, to their relations with the US waned as well, as the region
became more self-sufficient and acquired other international partners. Washington’s intense and bitter partisanship compounded
the problem of developing constructive policies toward Latin American. It took three years of Obama’s term for Congress to
ratify the long-stalled free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. Ratification only became possible after the 2010 election which gave Republicans a
majority in the House of Representatives. Now, however, it
is mainly the Republican party that is blocking efforts to address
three troublesome issues that have long stood in the way of improved US-Latin American ties—
immigration, drug policy, and Cuba. Washington’s failure to repair its broken immigration system,
accentuated by the often anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic tone of US debate about immigration, is
resented across the region, particularly among US neighbors, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. The bitter political battles over
immigration notwithstanding, there is considerable consensus in Washington about what a sensible policy reform should include. The package developed by George
W. Bush combined effective border enforcement, a visa program consistent with US labor market needs, and a path toward residence and citizenship for the
estimated 12 million unauthorized migrants in the country. The
deeply divisive politics of the US, made worse by the weak US
economy, have so far blocked this comprehensive approach and led some states to adopt punitive antiimmigrant laws. It was Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa that raised the issue of Cuba’s participation at the
Cartagena Summit –and made a clash between the US and Latin America almost inevitable. There is
strong consensus among every other nation of the hemisphere that Washington should lift its 50-yearold embargo against the island. They see the embargo as vindictive and counterproductive, prolonging Cuba’s
repressive rule rather than ending it. As long as US politics prevent a change in Washington’s position on Cuba, Latin American governments
will remain reluctant, even minimally, to say or do anything about Cuba’s dismal record on human rights and democracy, because it might suggest they find some
virtue in US policy. They want Cuba to be a full participant in hemisphere affairs now, even with an unelected, undemocratic government. The
Summit
discussion on drugs was more encouraging. Latin Americans have never been very happy with US drug
policy in the region. They have, by and large, deferred to US leadership and pressure on this issue, mostly because it was such a high priority for
Washington and because they had no alternatives to offer. The surge across Latin America in drug-related crime and violence over the
past dozen years, however, has turned the tables. In country after country, drugs and organized crime have become central issues of concern, and Latin
Americans have increasingly come to view US anti-drug policies, not merely as ineffectual, but contributing directly
to their problems.
AT: US-Mexico Key Democracy
Aff is insufficient to spur democracy - requires comprehensive reform and a plethora
of domestic Mexican reforms
Jones 12 (James Jones, 12/3/12; Chairman and CEO of ManattJones Global Strategies and the former
U.S. ambassador to Mexico; North America sits near the pinnacle of its greatest economic strength in
history)
The overarching goal of our bilateral relationship should be to thoroughly integrate the economies of
North America. Democracy and security are strengthened when commerce flows and grows. This
creates wealth, opens new jobs, and establishes better personal relationships in both countries. To
achieve this, we can work together to reduce the regulatory barriers to efficient trade by harmonizing
cross-border regulations and modernizing border infrastructure. The U.S. must pass comprehensive
immigration reform that recognizes reality in our labor needs and legal protections for immigrants
who are here helping build our economy . The U. S. must implement a debt reduction program
combining serious spending cuts and revenue increases to give certainty and new impetus to growing
our economy. Mexico must implement judicial and law enforcement reforms that will give confidence to
businesses and citizens that a rule of law prevails there. Energy reforms are needed to attract private
capital to fully realize Mexico's abundant opportunities. Mexico needs tax reform that increases
revenue, reduces the informal economy, and provides the framework to close the deep wealth divide
among its citizens. To accomplish this and to further reduce the 40 million living in poverty, Mexico
needs to make massive investments in infrastructure and quality education. Mexico's growing middle
class is impressive but to expand that even more will create market and economic power that will be the
envy of the hemisphere. North America sits near the pinnacle of its greatest economic strength in
history. Together we can take it to the top.
LA Democracy Alt-Causes
No Latin American democracy – war on drugs props up dictators
Karlin, ’12. Mark Karlin is the editor of BuzzFlash, the first progressive website to aggressively expose
political hypocrisy and manipulation of power among the right wing. Yale University B.A., English,
Writing. “How the Militarized War on Drugs in Latin America Benefits Transnational Corporations and
Undermines Democracy.” http://truth-out.org/news/item/10676-how-the-war-on-drugs-in-latinamerica-benefits-transnational-corporations-and-undermines-democracy – clawan
That the CIA is on the ground bolstering nations south of the border (with pro-US economic policies) goes without question.
They have a long history of working with drug kingpins and cartels in Latin America when it meets their
needs, as was noted in a previous Truthout installment. The CIA also has a belief that the US national interest trumps
democracy. An interesting passage in the Truthout on the Mexican Border installment cited above speaks volumes about US policy toward Mexico and Latin
America: In a 2007 documentary, "The War on Democracy," by British, leftist, political commentator John Pilger, he explores the exploitative and
deadly anti-democracy efforts to ensure that Latin America stays in the hands of the ruling classes and
open to American business and the extraction of natural resources south of our border. Toward the end of a
recounting of the US backing of juntas and keeping tin horn dictators on a short leash, Pilger interviewed Duane
Claridge, CIA chief for Latin America from 1981 to 1984 - during a high point of the Central American and Southern Cone nations' reign of terror
and death. In a remarkably pugnacious and blunt series of responses, Claridge vociferously asserted that he didn't give a hoot about
whether a country was a democracy. All that mattered was whether or not the Latin American nation
was an obstacle to the "national security interest" of the US, although he didn't define that term. Here are some excerpts: Pilger:
Is it then okay to overthrow a democratically-elected government? Claridge: It depends upon what your national security interests are. Pilger: What right does the
CIA and the US government have to do what you do in other countries? Claridge: National security. We are going in to protect ourselves. We will intervene
whenever we decide it is in our national interest to intervene and if you don't like it, lump it. Get used to it world! It is important to understand that our national
interest is perhaps often perceived by the US government as preserving our economic status through the guarantee of open markets, cheap labor and natural
resources. In analyzing the war on drugs in Mexico, it is important to remember that drug traffickers without a political agenda are not nearly the perceived threat
to the US that advocates for an uprising of the poor in Latin America are. In fact, as noted in an earlier installment in this series, drug cartel kingpins are generally
illicit business men with which, when mutually beneficial, America's intelligence agencies and companies (along with surrogates) can strike a deal. There are
exceptions to this theory, however, including the stalled Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), which uses cocaine trafficking to fund its control of a
large swath of Colombia's territory. In addition, a drug lord such as Pablo Escobar or a drug trafficking capo such as former CIA favorite Manuel Noriega are targeted
when they become too independent and threaten the US "national interest." The Zetas cartel, one of the warring factions in Mexico, was started by former
members of an elite Mexican special forces military unit (which was created on the model of the infamous Guatemalen US backed and trained counter-insurgency
troops, the Kaibiles). Paley argued that, in many ways, they are a paramilitary force that traffics in drugs. She also contended that they have likely proved useful to
some large corporations in a number of ways when they function as a paramilitary force, based on the model that developed in Colombia. Is t he
War on
Drugs the New "Shock Doctrine" to Undermine Democracy and Promote Unfettered Capitalism in Latin
America? On March 24, 1980, the Archbishop of El Salvador, Óscar Romero, was assassinated while celebrating Mass. He was killed on the orders of right-wing
paramilitary leader, killer and torturer Roberto D'Aubuisson. D'Aubuisson, who was responsible for death squads that killed thousands of people, most of them
guilty of nothing more than being poor or indigenous, was lionized by members of the Reagan administration. Romero began his short tenure as archbishop
(appointed in 1977) as a conservative priest. After the murder of a fellow priest and friend by the death squads, he became a transformed advocate for the poor
indigenous populations of El Salvador. Like other nuns and priests who were gunned down, he was guilty of nothing more than speaking out on behalf of those
without power, land, education and sufficient food. But to the right wing in the United States, the State Department and many in Congress, the man who ordered
him killed was a hero. This is an important incident to recall when evaluating the
war on drugs. The vast majority of victims in this endless
the poor and the indigenous peoples. They are also any other
individuals who might get in the way - knowingly or unknowingly - of corporations that benefit from free trade or
persons who benefit from the trade in drugs. And in the case of Mexico -- particulary over the last six years -- the victims are also, to a great degree,
those who obtruct, offend or inconvenience segments of the government, police, military and oligarchy who are
corrupt and unscrupulous. (Mexico is undergoing, in many ways, a tumultuous transition from a predatory internal monopolistic capitalism to an
bloody show war are not those who traffic in drugs; they are
economy more reliant on the outside financial predators of globalization.)
Latin American democracy fails – rampant human rights abuses means domestic
reforms are a pre-requisite to stability
Brysk, ’08. ALISON BRYSK is the Mellichamp Professor of Global Governance in the Global and
International Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Democratic Reform and
Injustice in Latin America: The Citizenship Gap Between Law and Society.”
http://blogs.shu.edu/diplomacy/files/archives/07%20Brysk.pdf – clawan
Latin America is a paradoxical world leader. In the twentieth century, Latin America led the struggle for democracy—and
now, Latin America leads in unjust societies that cannot fulfill the promise of universal human rights
despite elections and theoretical rule of law. The “citizenship gap” between developed formal entitlements and distorted life conditions,
including massive personal insecurity, is greater than in any other region.1 While Latin America receives the highest scores on electoral democracy and
political participation in the developing world, the region has the worst record on effective rule of law, crime, and corruption
except for grossly impoverished Africa and South Asia.2 Latin America’s experience demonstrates how the rule of law can be systematically
undermined by private and transnational displacement of power, as well as incomplete democratization
of state institutions. The persistence of injustice demonstrates the interdependence of democratic processes in the public sphere and democratization of
social relations.3 The transition to electoral democracy does make a difference in the level, incidence, and amelioration of political repression. In a pale echo of the
past generation’s right-wing military authoritarian regimes, it is now egalitarian but undemocratic Cuba that has more than 300 political prisoners, the death
penalty, and the world’s second highest number of journalists in jail.4 Nevertheless, democracy
is not enough—the region’s most
violent countries are democratic but insecure: Colombia and desperately impoverished Haiti, which some
consider a failed state despite a series of internationally supervised elections and reconstruction efforts. Below the level of these signal political pathologies, for
most Latin American countries, such as Mexico and Brazil, injustice is a chronic condition metastasized through an ostensibly
democratic political body, most visible at the extremities of social marginality. This essay will argue that injustice in Latin America is a problem of democratic deficits
in function—despite the democratic structure of elections and institutions— Alison Brysk is a professor of Political Science and International Studies at the
University of California, Irvine. 55BRYSK The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations and that better and broader human rights are the bridge
between equal laws and unequal societies. The citizenship gap is not an inherent insufficiency of democracy for addressing social problems, as some populists claim,
but rather an insufficient application of democracy to functional arenas of power outside the formal legal system that distort the juridical equality of citizenship.5
While the Washington Consensus neo-liberal program adopts a truncated version of human rights, narrowed to a thin set of individual liberties functional for the
The democratic
deficit in Latin America can be understood as a failure in the indivisibility, universality, and accountability
of human rights. Indivisibility indicates the relationship between civil and social rights, while universality demands the extension of these interconnected
operation of free markets, a full spectrum of universal, indivisible human rights provides a basis for social equity and sustainable justice.
rights to all citizens regardless of class or status. Accountability is the duty of the state to provide rights, which corresponds to citizens' entitlement to claim rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays the foundation for the interdependence of “first generation” civil and political rights with “secondgeneration” social
and economic rights, by including civil and political freedoms alongside fundamental requisites of human dignity such as a food security. The Preamble incorporates
this interdependence in its definition that all human beings are “free and equal in rights and dignity” [emphasis added]. The lack of social rights may be the
predominant acute threat to human dignity in some of Latin America’s most impoverished countries and sectors. In Nicaragua, 46 percent of citizens are poor, 6 and
across the region, almost one-quarter live on less than $2 a day.7 Both
absolute and relative poverty are intertwined with lack of
access to social rights such as health care and education. Education, in turn, empowers political
participation and is highly correlated with access to justice.8 It is important to mention that in the long-run, the
achievement of civil and political rights depends on prior and contextual social rights.9 One illustration of this
linkage is the prevalence of land disputes as a systematic source of civil rights violations in Latin America. In democratic Brazil, between 1985 and 2000 almost 1,200
landless people and their advocates were killed.10
Alt causes to Latin American instability – Socioeconomic factors and taxation of the
external sector cause LA political instability
Johnson 64-(Kenneth, political analyst for Western Political Science, The Western Political Quarterly,
Causal Factor isn Latin American Political Instability,http://www.jstor.org/stable/445794?seq=3)
In a later article, Kling sought to refine his previous formulation by offering a precision indicator for the
likelihood of political instability. In this effort he postulated that the durability of political reform depended
upon the scope and depth of socioeconomic change and that the extent of exploitive taxation of exports
and imports provided an indicator of political stability-instability within an given country. Kling contended that
with few exception, governments which depended upon taxation of the “external” Sector for more than 30
per cent of their revenues conformed to prevailing images of caudillismo and instability.
LA Democracy Bad – Instablity
Latin American democracy is a bad model – instability and corruption
Ratliff, 05. William Ratliff is a research fellow and curator of Americas Collection at Stanford
University's Hoover Institution. July 27, 2005. “Latin America's flickering democracy.” Christian Science
Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0727/p09s02-coop.html – clawan
Latin Americans can't seem to make democracy work. Ecuador now has its seventh president in nine
years. Bolivian Indians recently overthrew their second president in less than two years. In 2001 the majority
Indian population in Peru elected one of its own as president, after his predecessor had fled the country, but as The Economist of London reported last
month, he has long been the region's most unpopular president. Related stories What are Mitt Romney's foreign policy goals in Latin
America? Latin America Monitor What are Mitt Romney's foreign policy goals in Latin America? Latin America Monitor Four messages Obama is sending Latin
America from his trip through Asia Latin America Monitor Honduras fire reflects dire state of prisons in Latin America Ads by Google Biofuels & Food Prices Noticed
Food Prices Rising? Read about the Biofuels Effect. SmarterFuelFuture.org Subscribe Today to the Monitor Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science
Monitor Weekly Digital Edition And that's just the beginning. The
decades-long guerrilla/drug war in Colombia rages on and the
United Nations reports that drug production is rising in the Andes. President Hugo Chávez increasingly polarizes Venezuela and the
region, and uses oil hand-outs to prop up Fidel Castro's decrepit authoritarian regime in Cuba. Costa Rica's long-admired democratic
system is torn by presidential scandals, Nicaragua may soon elect a failed Sandinista from the past, and
Haiti is a perpetual failure in every way. Even Argentina, the market reform "model" in the 1990s, is on
its sixth president in four years, five of them in a fortnight around New Year's Day, 2002. The economic collapse then devastated living standards
for the majority and precipitated the largest debt default in world history, which was greeted with cheers in the national congress. Polls show that democracy
as a system is popular in the region, but also that most Latin Americans don't believe it works for them.
Indeed, international agencies report that the region has long had the world's widest rich-poor gap and that living conditions and opportunities for bettering one's
lot are few and in most places not increasing. And Latin
America is falling ever farther behind the developing countries of
Asia. The problem of ineffective or downright failing democracies is far more basic to the region's thinking and governance than politicians in the Americas including Washington - are aware of or willing to admit. Perhaps the main reason is because most Latin leaders and their cronies don't want to change a system that
serves their private interests. And most policymakers in Washington concentrate so narrowly on a few yardsticks like periodic votes and trade agreements that they
don't see (or acknowledge) what is really happening to people and why. Instability, which seems so destructive of progress, is nothing new. Thirty years ago it was
guerrilla wars, astronomical inflation, military governments, and human rights violations. Five hundred years ago it was conquest, virtual slavery, and mass
exploitation under the guise of Catholic paternalism. But that's not the point: Perpetual surface instability is not what causes Latin America's cycles of failure. The
real problem is the opposite: excessive stability - the enduring legacy of Iberian colonialism ever modified to serve a new generation of leadership cliques. For more
than five centuries ruling cliques that took office - whether by colonial appointment, swords, bullets, or ballots - justified and maintained power with a culture and
institutions that treated people as groups and denied most individuals the skills and opportunities to improve their lives. One of the very few things an
overwhelming majority of people in all countries agreed on in a 2004 regional poll was that despite
elections, power is held by cliques
pursuing mainly their own interests. The centuries of failure in Latin America stand in bleak contrast to the development successes in many
Asian countries since World War II - and, more recently, even in Spain itself. In Asia, the basic changes in some cases were begun by authoritarian governments that
in time became more democratic, as also happened in Chile from 1973 to 1990, when the current foundations of Latin America's most viable state were laid. But
very few democrats or others have ever made major permanent changes to benefit the people, and the
failures of much-touted reforms in the 1990s laid the groundwork for increasing frustration and
demagoguery today. The next few years are not likely to bring a rash of military coups, but mainly more democratic formalities that don't really serve the
interests of the people.
Democratic expansion causes prolif
Aubone and Tavira 13 (Amber Aubone is Director, Undergraduate International Relations, Assistant
Professor, Political Science, St. Mary’s University, Roger Tavira is a McNair Scholar, St. Mary’s University,
“Paying to proliferate? Examining the effects of Brazil’s Latent Nuclear Capabilities on U.S. Aid
Distribution” March 6, 2013
http://71.18.145.248/JSS/pdf/2013/apr/Aubone%20and%20Tavira.pdf\\CLans)
Jo and Gartzke [8] find economic capacity to be a statistically significant determinant of nuclear proliferation, but Singh and Way‟s [6] results
indicated that this effect is nonlinear; “at low levels of GDP, further economic growth steadily increases the likelihood that a country will
explore the nuclear option; yet at high levels Aubone and Tavira 85 of development, the effect levels off and, in fact, reverses because very high
levels of income are associated with a falling hazard rate” [7]. Yet, both major
and regional powers are more inclined to
continue nuclear weapons proliferation than non-major powers [8]. Scholars also argue that nuclear proliferation
depends on the regime type of a state, although whether autocracies or democracies are more inclined to develop nuclear weapons is unclear
[7,8]. Neither democracy nor democratization are found to be statistically significant determinants of nuclear proliferation in Singh and Way‟s
[6] study, but Jo and Gartzke [8] find that democracies are
more likely to deepen on nuclear weapons development.
Most major powers have democratic political systems and possess both the means to produce and
develop nuclear weapons and the desire to maintain leverage within the international community,
explaining an inclination to expand nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, democratic politicians both influence and act upon
public opinion regarding nuclear proliferation. In their explanation for the inclination of democratic
governments to develop nuclear weapons, Jo and Gartzke [8] argue, citing the case of public support for nuclear tests in Pakistan:
“Populist politicians scrambling to mobilize public opinion may be tempted to pander to nationalist
hysteria” (170), and their empirical findings support that democracies are more inclined to deepen nuclear weapons
development [8]. Yet, while political liberalism might induce further nuclear proliferation, Solingen [20] contends that domestic
coalitions advocating economic liberalism tend to grant greater support to military regimes than their
nationalist counterparts, and Singh and Way‟s [6] findings also indicate an indirect relationship between economic liberalism and
nuclear proliferation. The international system, bilateral relations, and domestic considerations described
above provide insight into why states engage in nuclear proliferation or restraint. Using Levite‟s [16] notion of nuclear
hedging, researchers explain why state leaders might engage in nuclear hedging not solely for the purpose of enhancing security and status in
the international system, but also for more tangible benefits.
LA Instability Alt Causes
Lack of Growth causes LA instability
Alesina 96-(Alberto, Ph.D. in economics, Journal of economic growth, Political Instability and Economic
Growth,
http://www.jstor.org.resources.skokielibrary.info/stable/40215915?seq=3&Search=yes&searchText=Pol
itical&searchText=instability&searchText=economic&searchText=growth&list=hide&searchUri=%2Factio
n%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DPolitical%2Binstability%2Band%2Beconomic%2Bgrowth%26acc%3Do
n%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=2&ttl=46222&returnArticleService=showFullText&res
ultsServiceName=null)
On the other hand, low growth increases government instability. A vast empirical literature has shown that in industrial
democracies incumbent governments’ chances of reelection depend on the rate of growth immediately before the elections. In
nondemocracies, low growth increases popular dissatisfaction, creates incentives for antigovernment
activities, and may make coups d’etat more likely. The interaction between growth and political
instability can lead to a vicious circle: suppose the probability of a government collapse increases. This
might result, for example, from an increase in political conflict unrelated to the economy or from
international political developments. Investment and growth fall as a result of the shock, further
increasing the likelihood of a government collapse, leading to even more political uncertainty. On the other
hand, suppose that the rate of growth falls for some exogenous reason-for instance, an adverse movement in a
nation’s terms of trade. The public will hold the government responsible, at least in part, for the poor
economic outcome. This increases the probability of an executive collapse, reducing growth even more.
Economic Instability contributes to LA political instability
Grier 7-(Robin, Professor of Economics and International & Area Studies, Losing Ground: Latin
American Growth from 1955 to 1999,
http://www.jstor.org.resources.skokielibrary.info/stable/20111959?seq=12&Search=yes&searchText=la
tin&searchText=american&searchText=instability&list=show&searchUri=%2Fbetasearch%2F%3Facc%3D
on%26Query%3Dlatin%2Bamerican%2Binstability%26fc%3Doff%26wc%3Don%26fq%3Dpy%253A%255B
2000%2BTO%2B2013%255D&prevSearch=&item=2&ttl=4223&returnArticleService=showFullText&resul
tsServiceName=null)
There are several reasons that economic and political stability are harmful to economic development. Butkiewicz and Yanikkaya (2005) argue
“governments in politically unstable and polarized countries are more likely to adopt inefficient or
suboptimal policies, including the maintenance of inefficient tax systems, higher current government
consumption, or the accumulation of larger external debts, which, in turn, adversely affect long-run
economic growth” (p.621). Political instability dampens new investment. Since investments are often
irreversible, investors will attempt to delay investment in new technology and capital goods during periods of increased
uncertainty. It is also possible that politicians in unstable political environments try to delay necessary but
unpopular reforms, which would discourage new investment and growth.
that
AT: LA Prolif – General
No Latin American prolif – treaties solve
ACA, ‘1. Arms Control Association, founded in 1971, is a national nonpartisan membership
organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control
policies. Feb 1, 2001. “Latin America Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Tlatelolco).”
http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/tlatelolco – clawan
The Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (also known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco) obligates
Latin American parties not to acquire or possess nuclear weapons, nor to permit the storage or
deployment of nuclear weapons on their territories by other countries. Besides the agreement among the Latin American
countries themselves, there are two Additional Protocols dealing with matters that concern non-Latin American
countries. Protocol I involves an undertaking by non-Latin American countries that have territories in the nuclear-free zone. Protocol II involves an
undertaking by those powers which possess nuclear weapons. The United States is a party to both protocols. The United States has favored the
establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones where, inter alia, they would limit the spread of nuclear
weapons; they would not disturb existing security arrangements; provisions exist for adequate verification; the initiative for such zones originates in the
geographical area concerned; and all states important to the denuclearization of the area participate. Considering that Soviet proposals for the denuclearization of
Central Europe and other areas have not met these criteria, the United States has opposed them. From the start, however, the
United States
supported and encouraged Latin American countries in this undertaking. In mid-1962, the Brazilian representative to the
UN General Assembly proposed making Latin America a nuclear-weapon-free zone. At the seventeenth regular session of the General Assembly, during the October
Cuban missile crisis, a draft resolution calling for such a zone was submitted by Brazil and supported by Bolivia, Chile, and Ecuador. While asserting support for the
principle, Cuba stipulated certain conditions, including the requirement that Puerto Rico and the Panama Canal Zone be included in the zone, and that foreign
military bases, especially Guantanamo Naval Base, be eliminated. The draft resolution was not put to a vote at the General Assembly that year. On
April 29,
1963, at the initiative of the President of Mexico, the Presidents of five Latin American countries -- Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and
Mexico -- announced that they were prepared to sign a multilateral agreement that would make Latin
America a nuclear-weapon-free zone. On November 27, 1963, this declaration received the support of the UN
General Assembly, with the United States voting in the affirmative. The Latin American nations followed this initiative by extensive and detailed
negotiations among themselves. At the Mexico City Conference (November 23-27, 1964) a Preparatory Commission for the Denuclearization of Latin America was
created, with instructions to prepare a draft Treaty. Important differences among the Latin American countries emerged over questions of defining the boundaries
of the nuclear-weapon-free zone, transit guarantees, and safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities. On February 14, 1967, the Treaty was signed at a regional
meeting of Latin American countries at Tlatelolco, a section of Mexico City. On December 5, 1967, the UN General Assembly endorsed it by a vote of 82-0 with 28
abstentions, the United States voting in support of the Treaty. As of January 1, 1989, the Treaty had entered into force for 23 Latin American states. Belize and
Guyana were not invited to accede to the Treaty because a special regime is foreseen for those political entities whose territories are wholly or partially the subject
of disputes or claims by an extracontinental state and one or more Latin American states. When all eligible states ratify the Treaty, it will enter into force for all of
them, as specified in Article 28. Alternatively, under that article, any Latin American state may bring the Treaty into force for itself at any time by waiving that
provision. The
basic obligations of the Treaty are contained in Article I: 1. The contracting parties undertake to use
exclusively for peaceful purposes the nuclear material and facilities which are under their jurisdiction, and to prohibit and
prevent in their respective territories; (a) The testing, use, manufacture, production, or acquisition by any means whatsoever of any nuclear
weapons, by the parties themselves, directly or indirectly, on behalf of anyone else or in any other way; and (b) The receipt, storage, installation, deployment, and
any form of possession of any nuclear weapons, directly or indirectly, by the parties themselves, by anyone on their behalf or in any other way. 2.The contracting
parties also undertake to refrain from engaging in, encouraging or authorizing, directly or indirectly, or in any way participating in the testing, use, manufacture,
production, possession, or control of any nuclear weapon. Important
provisions in the Treaty deal with verification. Treaty
parties undertake to negotiate agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency for application
of its safeguards to their nuclear activities. The Treaty also establishes an organization to help ensure
compliance with Treaty provisions -- the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (OPANAL) -- with a General Conference,
a Council, and a Secretariat as its permanent organs. The five-member elected Council is empowered to perform "special inspections." Of the accompanying
protocols, Protocol
I calls on nations outside the Treaty zone to apply the denuclearization provisions of the
Treaty to the territories in the zone "for which de jure or de facto they are internationally responsible." All four powers having such territories
have signed -- the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, and the United States. All except France have ratified. The U.S. Protocol I territories include Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Since the entry into force of the Panama Canal Treaties on October 1, 1979, U.S. obligations to
the former Canal Zone have been governed by those treaties and by Protocol II to the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
No Latin American prolif – regional safeguards and lack of tech
Trinkunas, ’11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “Latin America: Nuclear
Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions.” Florida International University 9-1-2011
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac – clawan
Three key states are relevant in considering future nuclear proliferation in Latin America: Argentina,
Brazil, and Venezuela. Argentina and Brazil are critical because of their relatively advanced nuclear
capabilities. For historical and geopolitical reasons, neither Argentina nor Brazil is likely to reactivate
nuclear weapons programs. Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chávez, has repeatedly demonstrated interest in
developing a nuclear program, yet Venezuela lacks any serious nuclear expertise. Even if it had the managerial and
technological capacity, the lead-time to develop an indigenous nuclear program would be measured in decades.
Acquisition of nuclear technology from international sources would be difficult because members of the
Nuclear Suppliers Group would insist on safeguards, and potential non-Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) suppliers are
highly surveilled, risking the exposure of such a program before Venezuela could put a deterrent into place. While South American states
have historically opposed nuclear weapons, their acquisition by Brazil and Argentina would lead to little
more than diplomatic condemnation. Brazil and Argentina are both geopolitically satisfied powers that
are deeply embedded in a regional security community. On the other hand, Venezuela under President Chávez is perceived as a
revisionist power seeking a transformation of the international system. Venezuelan acquisition of nuclear weapons would be met
with alarm by the United States and Colombia, and it would prompt nuclear weapons development by Brazil and possibly Argentina, more
for reasons of preserving regional leadership and prestige than for fear of a Venezuelan threat.
*No risk of Latin American nukes – Brazil and Argentina won’t pursue them and
regional institutions prevent theft
Trinkunas, ’11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “Latin America: Nuclear
Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions.” Florida International University 9-1-2011
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac – clawan
Overall, the
probability of further nuclear proliferation in Latin America is low because the combination of
both capability and intention to develop nuclear forces is not found in any of the possible proliferators.
The two countries that have the capability to pursue such a program, Argentina and Brazil, gave up the pursuit of nuclear
weapons two decades ago, and they are not likely to resume this path given their historical experience
and the geopolitical threat environment. Venezuela, whose intentions in the nuclear arena are suspected by some, lacks all
indigenous capability to pursue nuclear weapons development at this time. Even with the assistance of outside powers,
the likelihood that it could put such a system in place undetected within the next ten to twenty years is
almost nil. While Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela have been on friendly terms during the past decade,
there is no indication that they have any interest in helping Venezuela obtain nuclear weapons. Moreover,
the possibility that non-State actors (such as the private sector or organized crime) within Argentina and Brazil might form part of
such a network without State knowledge, as has been detected in the former Soviet Union states and demonstrated by the A. Q. Khan
network, is lower than in many other regions of the world because of two decades of nuclear mutual
confidence-building and mutual inspection through permanent bi-national agency, Agência Brasileiro-Argentina de Contabilidade e Côntrole
de Materiais Nucleares (ABACC). This agency monitors all nuclear stockpiles and facilities in these two countries, and
it would be likely to detect theft of nuclear technology or materials. For the foreseeable future, Argentina and Brazil are
unlikely to resume efforts to acquire nuclear weapons without some revolutionary change in the international system that would 98 lead them to perceive an
existential threat to the state. The initial
rationale for abandoning the pursuit of nuclear weapons in Argentina and
Brazil was to safeguard democracy. Nuclear development had been heavily influenced by the military in both countries, and civilian leaders of
the newly democratic states stripped the armed forces of control of nuclear programs in the 1980s. These programs, some of which had the potential to lead to
nuclear weapons, had been shrouded in secrecy and were unaccountable both under civilian governments and military dictatorships.3 The
developing
security community in the Southern Cone, taking the form of UNASUR in its latest evolution, means that any territorial defense or
deterrence rationales for nuclear weapons acquisition have faded. The resolution of all territorial
disputes between the major regional powers (Argentina, Brazil, Chile), and ongoing mutual confidencebuilding measures,
limit the possibility that new conflict dynamics will lead States in the region to seek nuclear weapons. Of
the two powers with indigenous nuclear technology industries, Brazil‟s constitution bans the development of nuclear weapons,
and both Argentina and Brazil are committed to sophisticated nuclear safeguards through the ABACC. 4
No risk of Latin America prolif
Trinkunas 10 (Harold A., Associate Professor and Deputy Director for Academic Affairs, CCMR for the
Naval Postgraduate School, “ASSESSING POTENTIAL NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION NETWORKS IN LATIN AMERICA: 2006–2016”, July 29, 2010
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700601071926\\CLans)
Overall, the probability of further nuclear proliferation in Latin America is low because the combination of
both capability and intention to develop nuclear forces is not found in any of the possible proliferators.
The two countries that have the capability to pursue such a program, Argentina and Brazil, gave up the pursuit of nuclear
weapons two decades ago, and they are not likely to resume this path given their historical experience
and the geopolitical threat environment. Venezuela, whose intentions in the nuclear arena are suspected by some, lacks
all indigenous capability to pursue nuclear weapons development at this time. Even with the assistance of outside
powers, the likelihood that it could put such a system in place undetected within the next ten to twenty
years is almost nil. While Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela have been on friendly terms during the past decade, there is no
indication that they have any interest in helping Venezuela obtain nuclear weapons. Moreover, the possibility
that non-State actors (such as the private sector or organized crime) within Argentina and Brazil might form part of such a network without
State knowledge, as has been detected in the former Soviet Union states and demonstrated by the A. Q. Khan network, is lower than in many
other regions of the world because of two decades of nuclear mutual confidence-building and mutual inspection through permanent binational agency, Agência Brasileiro-Argentina de Contabilidade e Côntrole de Materiais Nucleares (ABACC). This agency monitors
all
nuclear stockpiles and facilities in these two countries, and it would be likely to detect theft of nuclear
technology or materials. For the foreseeable future, Argentina and Brazil are unlikely to resume efforts to
acquire nuclear weapons without some revolutionary change in the international system that would 5 lead
them to perceive an existential threat to the state. The initial rationale for abandoning the pursuit of nuclear weapons in Argentina and Brazil
was to safeguard democracy. Nuclear development had been heavily influenced by the military in both countries, and civilian leaders of the
newly democratic states stripped the armed forces of control of nuclear programs in the 1980s. These programs, some of which had the
potential to lead to nuclear weapons, had been shrouded in secrecy and were unaccountable both under civilian governments and military
dictatorships.
AT: LA Prolif – Venezuela
No Venezuelan prolif – laundry list
Trinkunas, ’11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “Latin America: Nuclear
Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions.” Florida International University 9-1-2011
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac – clawan
Taken together, these factors have led some outside observers to claim that Venezuela is a potential nuclear
proliferation risk. If we evaluate
the contemporary domestic and international political context, it seems unlikely. At the international level, Argentina and Brazil have
reacted very cautiously to the Venezuelan nuclear proposal. On the one hand, they would like the business for economic reasons,
but on the other they are concerned about Chávez‟s ambitions. As members of the NPT and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSP),
Argentina and Brazil are likely to insist on strong international safeguards on any nuclear technology
sold to Caracas.13 However, neither the Argentine nor the Brazilian governments have opposed Venezuela‟s nuclear ambitions publicly, both because they
are vulnerable domestically on their left flank, where Hugo Chávez has numerous sympathizers, and because internationally they still have common economic
interests with Venezuela. Other
potential suppliers of nuclear technology are also problematic for Venezuela.
Members of the NSG such as France or even Russia are likely to insist on strong oversight of any
Venezuelan nuclear program, and the United States has conceded that a peaceful civilian nuclear program would be unobjectionable if strong
safeguards were in place.14 However, given President Chávez‟s nationalist tendencies, Venezuela might try to avoid accepting strong oversight and seek assistance
from non-NSG countries. Some
commentators have pointed to Iran and North Korea as potential partners for
Venezuela, but neither country has a track record of successfully exporting its nuclear technology.15 Also,
their programs are among the most highly surveilled in the world, increasing the probability that any such partnership
would be quickly exposed to the international community, at great risk to all involved. On the domestic front, there is no
constituency for a nuclear program in Venezuela outside of Chávez‟s inner circle. The stated objective of increasing
energy resources is not credible to most Venezuelans, who see their country as one of the richest in oil and hydroelectric energy resources in the world. The Chávez
administration has carefully avoided any public statements about acquiring nuclear technology as a means to deter external aggression, and there is no public
groundswell in favor of such development, as has occurred in Iran.16 There
are no bureaucratic structures in Venezuela that
promote the acquisition of nuclear power. The country‟s civilian nuclear research program was
dismantled decades ago, so there is no scientific constituency advocating such a program. Historically, there has
been no constituency within the Armed Forces that seeks to acquire nuclear technology for military purposes. As the history of nuclear technology development in
Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, and India suggests, a constituency inside and outside of government favoring nuclear development is a critical element in ensuring its
continuity, while also realizing that mastering
the needed technology can take decades. To succeed, any nuclear program would have
to extend well beyond the tenure of Chávez, even if he wins the 2012 presidential elections and his personal health recovers. 17 Venezuela also lacks
the technical or managerial capacity for a nuclear technology development program even if Chávez or
his successors had the political will to pursue it. It is true that in the past, Venezuela has maintained sophisticated industrial and scientific
development programs, especially within its oil industry. However, the 2003 oil industry strike and the mass purge of upper- and mid-level employees from the
industry by the government have greatly reduced the managerial and technical talent pool on which the Venezuelan government could draw.18 The
absence
of any pool of nuclear scientists to contribute to sustaining such a program means Caracas would
essentially have to start such a program from scratch. It would also require investing in educating a
cadre of scientists and technology workers. This would lengthen the time horizon to the acquisition of any kind of
indigenous nuclear program, and would require the Chavez administration to change its attitude towards expert
knowledge. The decisions made by President Chávez repeatedly demonstrate that political criteria trump technical competence and bureaucratic autonomy
in today‟s Venezuela, much to the detriment of many of the programs the Venezuelan government has undertaken since 1999.
AT: LA Prolif – Argentina
Argentina won’t trigger Latin American prolif
Trinkunas, ’11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “Latin America: Nuclear
Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions.” Florida International University 9-1-2011
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac – clawan
The only circumstance under which the Argentine government might face some internal pressure to
develop a nuclear weapons program of its own would be in response to a Brazilian decision to acquire
such forces. Here, its latent competition with Brazil, concern over Brazilian rearmament, and own pursuit of prestige could conceivably prompt a
reinvigoration of its nuclear programs. However, the profoundly anti-militarist cast of public opinion in Argentina, the
continuing civilian elite distrust of the military, and the prospective cost of the program would generally discourage such
a move. Under such circumstances, Argentina might simply decide to bandwagon with Brazil when it comes to
security issues, much as it already does, and use the mechanisms in ABACC to achieve some level of confidence as
to the status of a developing Brazilian arsenal.
AT: LA Prolif – Non-state Prolif
No nuke terror in Latin America – regional institutions detect
Trinkunas, ’11. Harold Trinkunas is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “Latin America: Nuclear
Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions.” Florida International University 9-1-2011
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=whemsac – clawan
Overall, the probability of further nuclear proliferation in Latin America is low because the combination of both capability
and intention to develop nuclear forces is not found in any of the possible proliferators. The two countries that have the capability to pursue such a program,
Argentina and Brazil, gave up the pursuit of nuclear weapons two decades ago, and they are not likely to resume this path given their historical experience and the
geopolitical threat environment. Venezuela, whose intentions in the nuclear arena are suspected by some, lacks all indigenous capability to
pursue
nuclear weapons development at this time. Even with the assistance of outside powers, the likelihood that it could put such
a system in place undetected within the next ten to twenty years is almost nil. While Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela
have been on friendly terms during the past decade, there is no indication that they have any interest in helping Venezuela obtain nuclear weapons. Moreover,
the possibility that non-State actors (such as the private sector or organized crime) within Argentina and Brazil
might form part of such a network without State knowledge, as has been detected in the former Soviet Union states and
demonstrated by the A. Q. Khan network, is lower than in many other regions of the world because of two decades of
nuclear mutual confidence-building and mutual inspection through permanent bi-national agency, Agência
Brasileiro-Argentina de Contabilidade e Côntrole de Materiais Nucleares (ABACC). This agency monitors all nuclear stockpiles and
facilities in these two countries, and it would be likely to detect theft of nuclear technology or materials.
AT: LA Prolif – Prolif Good
Prolif good – spread of nukes secures stability and discourages preemptive strikes
Kugler and Zagare, 90. JACEK KUGLER Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University and
FRANK C. ZAGARE Department of Political Science, State University of New York, 1990. “THE LONGTERM STABILITY OF DETERRENCE.”
http://pluto.fss.buffalo.edu/classes/psc/fczagare/Articles/The%20LongTerm%20Stability%20of%20Dete
rrence.PDF – clawan
lding on the interaction between levels of destruction and war, Intriligator and Brito derive the conditions for stable and unstable deterrence. Their model indicates
explicitly how stability
has been enhanced by the deployment of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the model explains why, in the
period of nuclear monopoly, the United States relied on a policy of Massive Retaliation and why, in
periods of relative balance, the United States, the Soviet Union, and increasingly, China and France have come
to rely on Mutual Assured Destruction. Retaliation is critical to this argument. During the transition from the region of forced initiation to the
cone of mutual deterrence, war can only be averted when the stronger party pursues a policy of retaliation and self-restraint. Note, though, that if the stronger
party initiates a war during such a transition period, the conflict will most likely be short and decisive: if the weaker actor does not yield when faced with the
prospect of a onesided nuclear confrontation, it will capitulate soon after the unilateral use of nuclear weapons. One very important (and frequently unrecognized)
implication of this model concerns the impact of nuclear proliferation. Like some other classical deterrence theorists (e.g., Waltz, 1981, or Bueno de Mesquita and
Riker, 1982), Intriligator and Brito (1981) argue that, under specified conditions, the
proliferation of nuclear weapons reduces the
likelihood of nuclear war.3 Counterintuitively, when only a few actors have nuclear weapons, and stockpiles are
limited, the likelihood of war increases because nuclear powers might be tempted to use them
preemptively to resolve a serious dispute. But, as the number of actors with large nuclear stockpiles increases, the
probability of war actually decreases and eventually approaches zero (Intriligator and Brito, 1981, p. 256; Berkowitz, 1985).4
The classical model also suggests that the risk of war is reduced as the destructive capability of strategic weapon
systems increases. During readjustment periods outside the cone of stability, preemptive or preventive nuclear wars are possible. Once the cone is
reached, however, the deployment of more potent strategic weapons enhances deterrence. Indeed, the balance of
terror is most stable when it assures an "overkill" capacity that not only insures a second-strike
capability but also provides a cushion that minimizes any disturbances introduced by technological
breakthroughs or by the uneven deployment of new generations of strategic weapons.
AT: LA Prolif – Iran/Venezuela
Iran is rapidly expanding influence in Venezuela – desire for a bomb and terrorist
influence means a massive security threat
Berman, ’12. Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, a non-profit U.S.
foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC. 2012. “Iran Courts Latin America.” Middle East Quarterly.
Summer2012, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p63-69. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=3d95e418-fac34dec-864ca41d0f37500b%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl
#anchor=bib1up&db=aph&AN=76317156 – clawan
The foiled terrorist plot, with its Latin American connections, focused new attention on what had until then been a largely overlooked political
phenomenon: the intrusion of the Islamic Republic of Iran into the Western Hemisphere. An examination of
Tehran's behavioral pattern in the region over the past several years reveals four distinct strategic objectives: loosening the U.S.-led
international noose to prevent it from building nuclear weapons; obtaining vital resources for its nuclear
project; creating informal networks for influence projection and sanctions evasion; and establishing a terror infrastructure that
could target the U.S. homeland. BUILDING WESTERN HEMISPHERE ALLIANCES Outreach to Latin America is seen by the
Iranian regime first and foremost as a means to lessen its deepening international isolation. Since 2003, when its
previously clandestine nuclear program became a pressing international issue, Tehran has sought to mitigate the mounting political
and economic restrictions levied against it by the United States and its allies through intensified diplomatic outreach abroad.
Due to its favorable geopolitical climate-typified by vast ungoverned areas and widespread anti-Americanism--Latin America has become an
important focus of this effort. Over the past decade, the regime has nearly doubled the number of embassies in the region (from six in 2005 to ten
in 2010) and has devoted considerable energy to forging economic bonds with sympathetic regional governments.2 Far and away the most prominent such
partnership has been with Venezuela. Since Hugo Chavez became president in 1999, alignment with Tehran has emerged as a cardinal tenet of Caracas's
foreign policy. The subsequent election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Iranian presidency in 2005 kicked cooperation into high gear with drama tic results. Today,
the two countries enjoy an extensive and vibrant strategic partnership. Venezuela has emerged as an
important source of material assistance for Tehran's sprawling nuclear program as well as a vocal
diplomatic backer of its right to atomic power.3 The Chavez regime also has become a safe haven and
source of financial support for Hezbollah, Iran's most powerful terrorist proxy .4 In turn, Tehran's feared
Revolutionary Guard has become involved in training Venezuela's secret services and police.5 Economic contacts
between Caracas and Tehran likewise have exploded--expanding from virtually nil in the early 2000s to more than $20 billion in total trade and cooperation
agreements today.6
Iran is cooperating with Venezuela to secure fissile material for a bomb
Berman, ’12. Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, a non-profit U.S.
foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC. 2012. “Iran Courts Latin America.” Middle East Quarterly.
Summer2012, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p63-69. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=3d95e418-fac34dec-864ca41d0f37500b%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl
#anchor=bib1up&db=aph&AN=76317156 – clawan
Since the start of the international crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions nearly nine years ago, it has become an accepted belief that Tehran's atomic program is now
largely self-sufficient and that its progress is, therefore, largely inexorable. This, however, is far from the truth; in fact, the Iranian
regime currently
runs a considerable, and growing, deficit of uranium ore, the critical raw material needed to fuel its atomic effort. According to
nonproliferation experts, Tehran's indigenous uranium ore reserves are known to be both "limited and mostly of
poor quality."12 When Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi mapped out an ambitious national plan for nuclear power in the 1970s, his government was forced to
procure significant quantities of the mineral from South Africa. Nearly four decades later, this aging
stockpile has reportedly been mostly depleted.13 As a result, in recent years, Tehran has embarked on a widening
quest to acquire uranium ore from abroad. In 2009, for example, it is known to have attempted to purchase more than 1,000 tons of
uranium ore from the Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan at a cost of nearly half-a-billion dollars.14 In that particular case, deft diplomacy on the part of
Washington and its European allies helped stymie Tehran's efforts--at least for the time being. The Iranian quest, however, has not abated. In February 2011, an
intelligence summary from a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency reaffirmed the Islamic
regime's continued search for
new and stable sources of uranium to fuel its nuclear program.15 This effort has recently focused on two principal geographic
areas. The first is Africa where Tehran has made concerted efforts to engage a number of uranium producers such as Zimbabwe, Senegal, Nigeria, and the
Democratic People's Republic of Congo.16 The second is Latin
America where Tehran now is exploring and developing a
series of significant resource partnerships. The best known of these partnerships is with Venezuela; cooperation on
strategic resources has emerged as a defining feature of the alliance between the Islamic Republic and the Chavez regime. The
Iranian regime is currently known to be mining in the Roraima Basin, adjacent to Venezuela's border with Guyana. Significantly, that
geological area is believed to be analogous to Canada's Athabasca Basin, the world's largest deposit of uranium.17
Iran will use Latin America as a jumping-off point for attacks against the U.S.
Berman, ’12. Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, a non-profit U.S.
foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC. 2012. “Iran Courts Latin America.” Middle East Quarterly.
Summer2012, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p63-69. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=3d95e418-fac34dec-864ca41d0f37500b%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl
#anchor=bib1up&db=aph&AN=76317156 – clawan
Conventional wisdom in Washington has long held that Tehran's activism in the Americas is opportunistic--rather than operational. Yet Iran's growing
asymmetric capabilities throughout the region have the potential to be directed against the U.S.
homeland. This was hammered home by the foiled October 2011 plot, an attack which--had it been successful--would potentially have killed scores of U.S.
citizens in the nation's capital in the most significant terrorist event since 9/11. The incident represents a seismic shift in Tehran's strategic calculations. As
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper observed in his January 2012 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, in response to mounting international pressure and asymmetric activity against Tehran's nuclear program, it appears that "Iranian officials-probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i--have changed their calculus and are now willing to conduct an attack in
the United States."29 Latin America figures prominently in this equation. The foiled October 2011 plot suggests that Tehran increasingly deems
the region an advantageous operational theater. Moreover, as its influence and activities there intensify, the Iranian regime
will be able to field a progressively more robust operational presence in the Americas. Clapper concluded his
Senate testimony with an ominous warning: "The Iranian regime has formed alliances with Chavez, Ortega, Castro, and
Correa that many believe can destabilize the hemisphere," he noted. "These alliances can pose an
immediate threat by giving Iran--directly through the IRGC, the Qods force, or its proxies like Hezbollah--a platform in the region to
carry out attacks against the United States, our interests, and allies."30
AT: Drugs Impact
SQ Solves Drug Trafficking
Drug trafficking and Mexican terrorism checked sufficiently in the status quo
Seelke 9 (Clare Ribando, Clare Ribando Seelke is a specialist in Latin American Affairs at the
Congressional Research Service, the research arm of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. , Seelke
holds a Master of Public Affairs and Master of Arts in Latin American Studies from the University of
Texas at Austin. “Mérida Initiative for Mexico and Central
America: Funding and Policy Issues", August 21, 2009,
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40135_20090821.pdf\\CLans)
Apart from the Mérida Initiative, DOD has its own legislative authorities to provide certain counterdrug assistance.
DOD programs in Mexico are overseen by the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which is located on Peterson Air
Force Base in Colorado, whereas programs in Central America are managed by U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM),
which is based in Miami, FL. DOD can provide counterdrug assistance under certain circumstances outlined in Sec. 1004 of P.L. 101-150 as
amended through FY2010, and can provide additional assistance to 22 countries as provided for in Sec. 1033 of P.L. 105-85 as amended through
FY2010. Under these authorities, DOD
counternarcotics assistance to Mexico totaled roughly $12.1 million in FY2008, $34.2
million in FY2009, and $34.5 million in FY2010.41 In the FY2006-FY2010 annual Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bills, Congress
also provided DOD with authority to train and equip foreign military forces to perform counterterrorism operations. DOD used this “Section
1206” authority, as it is known, to provide a tal of $13.9 million in counterterrorism training and equipment to the Mexican military in FY2007
and FY2008. On December 16, 2009, Congress
appropriated an additional $50 million in funding for
counternarcotics communication equipment for Mexico in the FY2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R.
3326/P.L. 111-118).42 Related Southwest Border Initiatives and FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations for Border Security43 In March 2009,
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced a set of Southwest border initiatives aimed at
(1) guarding against violent crime spillover into the United States; (2) supporting Mexico’s crackdown
campaign against drug cartels in Mexico; and (3) reducing the movement of contraband in both directions across the
border.44 Components of the Department of Homeland Security are providing significant assistance to advance those aims. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) has created eleven Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs) since 2006, including ten
on the Southwest border and one in Mexico City. The task forces serve as platforms for cooperation among local, state, and federal agencies as
well as a point of cooperation with Mexico’s Secretary of Public Security (SSP). ICE has also coordinated the establishment of Special
Investigative Units in Mexico that work with ICE special agents on criminal investigations and prosecutions in such areas as money laundering,
human trafficking, and alien smuggling. DHS components
such as ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and
the U.S. Coast Guard have longstanding relationships with their Mexican counterparts to jointly disrupt the
activities of drug trafficking organizations. In March 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced increased efforts to
combat Mexican drug cartels in the United States and to help Mexican law enforcement battle the cartels in their own country. Department of
Justice components involved in the increased efforts include the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Marshals Service (USM), the Department’s Criminal Division and the Office of Justice Programs. In October,
2009, agents from several U.S. federal agencies, as well as state and local police, engaged in a joint operation in 38 U.S. cities against La Familia
Michoacana. The raid resulted in 300 arrests. On June 10, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 2,200 individuals had been
arrested in the United States as a result of a 22-month multiagency operation against Mexican DTOs known as “Project Deliverance.” ATF
has begun a new intelligence-driven effort known as Gunrunner Impact Teams (GRITs), deployed eTrace
firearms tracking technology to Mexico, and beefed up its Project Gunrunnerprogram as a part of its efforts to
stop the flow of guns into Mexico. (For more see “Weapons Trafficking” section below). DEA has worked with the Mexican
government for decades and has 11 offices in the country. The agency is increasing its agents allocated to the Southwest
border field divisions and is forming mobile teams to target Mexican methamphetamine trafficking
operations. DEA’s cooperation with Mexico has included Project Reckoning targeting the Gulf Cartel and Operation Xcellerator targeting
the Sinaloa Cartel. DEA also is the lead agency at the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), a national tactical intelligence center that emphasizes
law enforcement efforts on the Southwest border. Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act), the
U.S.
Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control targets and blocks financial assets, subject to
U.S. jurisdiction, of drug kingpins and related associates and entities. Since October 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department has designated
38 individuals and 16 entities as tied to the illicit activities of the Arellano Felix Organization, the Beltran Leyva Organization, the Sinaloa Cartel,
and La Familia Michoacana. On August 12, 2010, the
Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation (H.R. 6080/P.L. 111-230)
that will provide $600 million in supplemental funding to strengthen U.S. border security efforts. That total
includes $394 million for DHS: $244 million to hire new CBP officers and Border Patrol agents, $84 million to hire new ICE agents, $32 million for
two unmanned aerial detection systems, $6 million for bases for Border Patrol agents, $14 million for communications equipment, and $8
million to train new law enforcement personnel. The supplemental funds also include $196 million to support DOJ efforts on the Southwest
border. Those funds will enable the creation of seven new ATF Gunrunner units and five FBI Hybrid Task Forces, as well as support additional
DEA agents, federal attorneys, prosecutors, and immigration judges. The supplemental funds will also enable the U.S. government to provide
increased technical assistance and training for Mexican law enforcement.
Nieto’s reforms solve drug trafficking
Seelke and Finklea 13 (Clare Ribando, Clare Ribando Seelke is a specialist in Latin American Affairs at
the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. ,
Seelke holds a Master of Public Affairs and Master of Arts in Latin American Studies from the University
of Texas at Austin
U.S.-Mexican security cooperation has increased significantly as a result of the development and
implementation of the Mérida Initiative, a counterdrug and anticrime assistance package for Mexico and Central America first
funded in FY2008. Whereas U.S. assistance initially focused on training and equipping Mexican counterdrug forces, it now places
more emphasis on addressing the weak institutions and underlying societal problems that have allowed
the drug trade to flourish in Mexico. The Mérida strategy now focuses on: (1) disrupting organized criminal
groups, (2) institutionalizing the rule of law, (3) building a 21st century border, and (4) building strong
and resilient communities. As part of the Mérida Initiative, the Mexican government pledged to intensify its
anticrime efforts and the U.S. government pledged to address drug demand and the illicit trafficking of firearms
and bulk currency to Mexico. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has vowed to continue U.S.-Mexican security
cooperation, albeit with a new focus on reducing violent crime in Mexico. Peña Nieto has reformed the structure of Mexico’s security
apparatus, placing the Federal Police and intelligence services under the authority of the Interior Secretary. He also intends to create
a gendarmerie (militarized police) to gradually replace military forces engaged in public security efforts and to
help states form unified police commands. Peña Nieto’s security strategy prioritizes crime prevention
and human rights protection; it also seeks to advance judicial reform. As the Peña Nieto government adjusts Mexico’s security
strategy, bilateral efforts and U.S. programs may need to be adjusted. Mexico’s new administration also supports efforts to enact gun control in
the United States.
Drug Trafficking Inevitable
Drug trafficking inevitable- US turns a blind eye
Messing and Hazelwood 12 (F. Andy Messing is the Executive Director of the National Defense
Council Foundation, Bruce Hazelwood wa a member of the Milgroup at the U.S. Embassy, “US Drug
Control Policy and International Operations” 2012
http://ndcf.dyndns.org/ndcf/Publications/US_Drug_Control_Policy_and_Int_Ops.htm#_Toc449503510\
\CLans)
When considering an economic development strategy, we should remember that since drug problem is a world problem, the
development effort is best served when it is brought about with the cooperation of the international
community. This way the chances for diverse capital and broad in scope development are increased. Within the drug producing and
trafficking countries the principal reason for the lack of cooperation lies in the U.S. government's willingness to
compromise and its refusal to use financial leverage against foreign governments. Take the case of
Mexico, through which the majority of the Andean cocaine enters the U.S. The Mexican Government does little to deter
illegal drug transactions within and outside of its country. In spite of this the U.S. certifies the corrupt Mexican Government
as fully cooperating in drug enforcement, which gives Mexico preferred trade status and allows it to bypass certain money
borrowing restrictions. For more than 14 years the U.S. financed drug control program in Mexico remains a
relative failure. This being the case, and with the President's drug war announcement, why then are Mexico and other similar countries
not isolated and punished? First, U.S. banking institutions are afraid that the application of too much pressure
from the U.S. will cause the Mexican Government to default on its huge and increasing debt. Second, the US.
Government is afraid that any decline in the Mexican economy will be an open invitation to a leftist
insurrection. Neither reason however is sufficient to continue to undermine the U.S. drug strategy and
American society and compromise our own national standards. Narrow business interests and the always convenient
threat of communism cause the U.S. to turn a blind eye and weaken the effectiveness of our foreign policy and drug
control efforts. This shortcoming has and continues to prevent any "real" international cooperation in the drug
fight.
U.S. can’t resolve drug war – increases violence
Zedillo, ’12. Ernesto Zedillo is the Frederick Iseman '74 Director of the Yale Center for the Study of
Globalization; Professor in the Field of International Economics and Politics; Professor of International
and Area Studies; and Professor Adjunct of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University.
Rethinking the “War on Drugs” Through the US-Mexico Prism, A Yale Center for the Study of
Globalization eBook. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization (YCSG) was established in 2001 to
enhance understanding of this fundamental process and to promote exchanges of information and ideas
about globalization between Yale and the policy world.
http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/rethinking-war-on-drugs.pdf – clawan
Mexico’s suffering from the violence caused by organized crime has approached Colombian proportions
in just a few years. In his contribution, Eduardo Guerrero, based on current trends, estimates that between end-2006 and end-2012, the number of
deaths related to the activities of organized crime will reach 64,000 in Mexico. Guerrero as well as Aguilar Camín
certainly acknowledge the association between the explosion of violence in Mexico and the extraordinary flow of money, 109109Rethinking the “War on Drugs”
through the US-Mexico Prism 13 corruption and criminal opportunities stemming from drug trafficking. But they insist on the importance of other factors that have
played a role, not least the way in which the Mexican government has combated organized crime since 2006, along with the country’s institutional weaknesses.
Jorge Hernández Tinajero’s criticism of the Mexican government’s current strategy extends beyond its use of military force to control the problem. He believes that
drug consumption in Mexico has reached a level truly warranting a more enlightened and ambitious public health approach. He is equally troubled by the social
impact – biased in his view towards the incarceration of small-scale dealers – of the present strategy. If, sadly, Central America is bound to become the next
important battleground for the “war on drugs,” then the picture portrayed by Joaquín Villalobos on violence in Central America should be a very worrisome one. For
the developmental, historical and cultural reasons discussed by this participant, it is not hard to infer that a greater presence of drug-related organized crime would
cause enormous economic, institutional and human devastation in the Central American Republics, similar to how they suffered when they became a battleground
for the cold war during the 1970’s and 1980’s. It would be a great injustice if Central America were to suffer deeply again from someone else’s policy failures.
Although all the authors agreed that the
US demand for prohibited substances is a chief cause of the violence and
corruption associated with drug trafficking in Mexico, Colombia and Central America, there are differences of
opinion on how to address that root cause and its consequences. Reuter, for example, informs that there is very little evidence that
enforcement can raise prices or reduce availability. Over the 25-year period from 1980 to 2005, the number of people incarcerated for
drug offences in local jails and state and federal prisons increased by a factor of 10, and this figure does not include those incarcerated for so-called drug-related
crimes, such as robbery to get the money to buy the drugs. During this period
of massively increased intensity in enforcement,
the price of heroin and cocaine fell around 70%. The price declines, he submits, have been parallel, even though those drugs are not
good substitutes for one another.11011014 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization Notwithstanding that evidence, some of our authors warned that the status quo in drug policy is still favored
by not a few in the United States. Quoting a former head of the White House National Drug Policy Office, Donohue includes in his contribution a typical example of the still-recalcitrant supporters of the “war on drugs.” Another of
our authors, Humphreys, who served in the same office but in the Obama administration, places at zero the probability of seeing any time soon a radical change in the policy towards cocaine, the drug whose US market provides at
least half of the Mexican drug gangs’ total revenue. Caulkins is not only skeptical of the political feasibility of legalization, in general, of illegal drugs, but also provides what he believes are the arguments to sustain that position. He
is convinced that prohibition drives prices up far above legal levels; that the taxes necessary to prevent a price collapse, if drugs were legalized, are uncollectable; that the demand for drugs may be more price elastic than what has
been estimated with historical data – a concern also shared by Pacula and Reuter in this volume; that legalization is an “irreversible game” in the sense that some drug use induced by legalization would remain even if that policy
change were later undone; and finally that after all, present policies have permitted the overall levels of use in the United States to stabilize for a number of years . This author, in short, from the US perspective would not advise
policymakers “to roll the dice” on legalization. Furthermore, Caulkins goes so far as to question whether the considerably less impossible endeavor of legalizing marijuana in the US would, in fact, reduce violence in Mexico on the
basis that revenues for Mexican crime organizations derived from marijuana exports are much less than conventionally estimated – around 20 percent rather than 60 percent of total revenues. He also believes that legalizing
marijuana would only modestly impact drug harms in the US, considering that it represents only about 8% of drug-related imprisonment, one-sixth of user spending, about 16% of treatment admissions, and is even less implicated
in other drivers of drug-related social costs, like HIV/AIDS transmission and overdose deaths. Kleiman and Reuter also doubt that legalization constitutes a viable policy option. Donohue, who shares such skepticism, suggests that
popular support for 110110Rethinking the “War on Drugs” through the US-Mexico Prism 15 legalization or decriminalization is so low because that policy shift would redistribute the social costs of drug use from the government
and those involved in the drug trade – mostly poor and minorities – to the middle and higher income sectors of US society. Miron does not buy the arguments of those opposing legalization and his text reiterates the classical
economic case for a laissez faire approach on this issue. It stems from the uncontested fact that prohibition does not eliminate drug markets, but simply drives them underground thus causing a range of highly negative side effects:
huge black market rents appropriated by organized crime; illegal and violent conflict resolution mechanisms; massive corruption; fostering of other forms of criminality; severe health, safety, civil liberty and economic risks and
costs for drug users; and disrespect for the law, among others. Miron is convinced that there are alternatives to prohibition that can achieve a better balance between positive and negative consequences. In particular, he endorses
legalization with a sin tax on drugs sufficiently stiff to yield a price as high as under prohibition and believes, unlike Caulkins, that evasion of the sin tax can be prevented successfully through sufficient enforcement. Without
endorsing outright legalization, other authors nevertheless do provide sensible arguments for moving away from the status quo in a direction that would address the consequences of black markets, as outlined by Miron. After
reporting that 56.6 per cent of the estimated cost of illegal drug use in the US (estimated for 2002 as 217 billion of 2008 US dollars) was due to crime-related costs and only 8.7 per cent was caused by health costs, Donohue admits
serious concerns about the balance of overall US drug policy. This author insists on the fundamental question of how can it be possible to have falling prices of illegal drugs in the face of intense enforcement efforts – carrying an
annual budgetary cost of more than $40 billon. He also gives at least the benefit of the doubt to Miron’s submission that, according to cross-country comparisons, there is a strong connection between criminalization of drugs and
violent crime. Interestingly, Donohue
evokes an earlier study by Caulkins and others that found that an additional $1 million spent on treatment and demand reduction
reduced net 11011011011016 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization cocaine consumption by 103.6 kg while the same amount of money spent on longer
sentences reduced consumption by just 12.6 kg. Reuter invites us to recognize that current
policies actually cause great harm in the
United States and are quite ineffective considering that this country has the worst drug problem in the
developed world and has not been able rapidly to reduce it. Babor’s succinct and well documented review of the international
experience, decanted into eight key findings, not only highlights the significant pitfalls of the present strategy but also points plainly in the direction that policy
should move to be more effective. This author makes clear that notwithstanding the fact that large-scale supply-control interventions absorb most of the resources
spent on drug control in most nations, there are serious questions about the effectiveness of such policies. In particular, he reports that once
drugs are
made illegal, increasing enforcement and incarceration yield diminishing returns. On demandfocused policies, Babor
offers good evidence that, contrary to claims in other studies, some approaches to prevent, or at least delay, consumption do work and, furthermore, that
treatment for drug dependence is effective.
Drug policies fail – only increase violence and social instability
Camin, ’12. Hector Aguilar Camín, is a Mexican writer, journalist and historian. In 1986 he received
Mexico's Cultural Journalism National Award. “On Mexican Violence” in Rethinking the “War on Drugs”
Through the US-Mexico Prism, A Yale Center for the Study of Globalization eBook. The Yale Center for
the Study of Globalization (YCSG) was established in 2001 to enhance understanding of this fundamental
process and to promote exchanges of information and ideas about globalization between Yale and the
policy world. http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/rethinking-war-on-drugs.pdf – clawan
Why? Fernando Escalante Gonzalbo suggests that the Mexican war on drugs activated different “killing machines” in the
country. We assume that fundamental illegal agreements were broken between different factions, not only cartels and gangs associated with drug trafficking,
but also other armed groups that had attained a status of operative stability that was destroyed or unbalanced, ending up in homicidal decisions in an effort to
restore the previous under-the-table stability. The point is we are not talking about drug traffickers only. There are other armed groups: clandestine loggers,
bootleggers of different goods, workers and workers unions, peasants and rural communities, urban juvenile gangs, and different types of municipal, state and
private police. And, of course, we should include in this list the military and its deserters who are professionally trained in the use of arms. All of them, Escalante
says, belong to a rarely recognized, socially blurred category of people that we could label “workers of violence” -- all those who depend on the use of force to make
a living. We don’t know exactly what is happening with those armed groups, but we do know, because it has been very well documented by Eduardo Guerrero,
what’s happening with drug cartels and the war against drugs.2 The main goal of the 1101101101100 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization federal
government’s strategy in this matter is being achieved. The goal was to transform the national security problem posed by drug trafficking cartels in some parts of
the country into a public security issue that would be manageable by local governments. The
strategic decision was to pressure and fight
the big drug cartels in order to fragment them, to behead them, turning them into organizations less capable of controlling territories and
corrupting local authorities or federal police forces. The consequence of this successful strategy is that cartels have been
fragmented and beheaded -- they are weaker now -- but they have extended to new territories and they have become
more violent in businesses different from drug trafficking. That’s why we have horrible stories about extortion involving
illegal immigrants and the brutal homicides associated with the process of gangs collecting illegal rents or fighting for
control of streets, corners, cities and roads. We are right now in the middle of this strategy. Cartels are fragmented, they are less powerful and not as efficient
as they were, but they are more violent than ever and more dangerous for the general population. The question is, when
is this going to revert? When will this homicidal wave stop and decline so that we can say the strategy has worked, not only from the standpoint of fragmenting the
cartels, but also from the point of view of giving back to society the security that it lost? This is the moment the country is living through. The
federal
strategy is working, but what society accurately perceives is greater insecurity, more violence and a
higher homicide rate. The natural consequence is, of course, unprecedented public turmoil and fierce disagreement
regarding the results and the methods of this war. One fundamental disagreement is between the federal and local governments who simply do not want to be part
of the war. The local governments prefer to knuckle under without facing the consequences of the hostilities, leaving the political responsibility to the federal
government. The federal government is beginning to say that the brunt of the work is getting done and it is now the turn 111ethinking the “War on Drugs” through
the US-Mexico Prism 51 of the local governments to finish the job by controlling the fragmented cartels. Neither of these two premises is true. The local
governments cannot do anything yet against those groups, nor has the federal government really fragmented and weakened them completely. Meanwhile the
cost of this strategy rises every day. Politically, the disagreement is wider than ever and the next presidential
elections will be mainly about that disagreement. Socially, there is a growing perception of insecurity and lack of certainty. The
cost of this strategy has reached such a level that we can say it is not viable in terms of politics, and not tolerable in terms
of social perception. It is a burden no one can bear. A profound change is needed and fresh promises and alternative solutions will be the central issues
of the country’s future agenda.
US War On Drugs Bad – Backlash
Turn – increased U.S. involvement in war on drugs exacerbates instability –
militarization and backlash means that initiatives will fail
Redmond, ’12. Helen Redmond is an US journalist, commentator, and drug and health policy analyst.
“Drug war devastation in Latin America.” 5/31/12. http://socialistworker.org/2012/05/31/drug-wardevastation. – clawan
The White House wants the world to believe drug prohibition works, and to forget the murderous legacy
of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Central and Latin America. The CIA and
the DEA have been directly involved in drug trafficking in the region for decades. They've trained, armed
and funded death squads and right-wing paramilitary groups that share control of the lucrative drug trade. Corrupt
officials at the highest levels of government and sections of the business class also profit enormously from the illicit drug
trade. Latin America has borne the brunt of the U.S.-led war on drugs that has turned several countries into virtual
war zones full of massacres and mayhem. Drug cartels operate with near impunity and assassinate judges, journalists, mayors,
police and anyone unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. No country wants to become the "next Mexico," where
more than 60,000 people have died in gruesome, drug-fueled violence. Over 250,000 have been internally
displaced, and kidnapping for ransom is rife. In many parts of Mexico, drug cartels now battle openly with government forces for control of
cities and towns. The effects on the Mexican economy, in particular tourism, have been devastating. In Acapulco last year, 15 decapitated bodies were found on a walkway to a popular beach. Another 12 victims,
including two police officers, were killed in the city on the same day. The drug war has turned Mexico into vast killing fields and economic wastelands. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GUATEMALAN PRESIDENT Otto Peréz Molina won the
presidency in 2011 on the promise to crack down on the drug cartels. The symbol of his campaign was an iron fist with the slogan "Mano Dura" or "strong hand." But the drug war in Mexico has crossed the border and is wreaking
havoc in Guatemala. In the town of Coban, the Guatemalan military declared a two-month "state of siege" to drive out the Mexican drug gang Los Zetas. The assassination of a prominent Guatemalan businessmen and a district
attorney shocked the country. Honduras is a central transit hub for drug shipments into Mexico and the United States. The country has the highest per capita murder rate in Central America and is the second-poorest country in the
Western Hemisphere. Thousands of poor Hondurans are locked up in overcrowded and dangerous prisons for drug-related crimes. A horrifying fire in the Comayagua prison in February killed over 357 prisoners. Just six guards were
responsible for unlocking cells that contained 852 prisoners. The Obama administration is ramping up the drug war in Honduras in partnership with Honduran president Porfirio Lobo--even though officials of the Lobo government
are widely believed to be involved in drug trafficking. The U.S. military recently sent 600 troops to the country to set up three "forward operating bases" to interdict drug smuggling. According to the New York Times: Conducting
operations during a recent day at the outpost were members of the Honduran Tactical Response Team...They were working alongside the Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team, or FAST, created by the DEA to disrupt the poppy
trade in Afghanistan...FAST members were in Honduras to plan interdiction missions in Central America. The injection of FAST teams into Honduras, a country wracked with state-sponsored violence, repression and massive poverty
is a time-tested recipe for an increase in human rights violations. During a recent joint commando-style raid by DEA agents and Honduran counter-narcotics officers, four people, including two pregnant women, were killed. The
killings set off a backlash against
the drug war in the country. The indigenous peoples of the Mosquito Coast set government buildings on fire and demanded that the
DEA leave Honduras. American drug warriors often tout Colombia as a "success" in the war on drugs. Nothing
could be further from the truth. In 2000, President Bill Clinton authorized "Plan Colombia." It was a military assault on the cocaleros
U.S. State Department claimed that the DEA wasn't involved in the shooting and played only an "advisory" and "support" role in the counter-narcotics operation. The
(coca-farming peasants) funded by $1.3 billion in American taxpayer money that supplied the Colombian military with high-tech weapons,
speedboats, helicopters and surveillance technology. Aerial spraying of drug crops with the herbicide glyphosate, better known as Roundup,
was used to fumigate thousands of hectares of coca plants. Roundup is toxic to humans and the environment. The spraying of coca forced more
cultivation into the Amazon and has accelerated the deforestation of this fragile ecosystem. Despite
eradication and interdiction
efforts, cocaleros continued to produce record harvests. Colombia produces 80 percent of the world's supply of cocaine
and supplies 90 percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the heroin sold in the United States. Plan Colombia was a deadly and expensive
failure. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AT THE end of March, Guatemalan President Molina hosted a meeting with other presidents in Central America to
discuss the violence, crime and corruption of the drug war--and the prospects for drug legalization to undercut the power of the kingpins. It's
not that Molina, a former military general who has been accused of torture and implicated in acts of genocide, is suddenly concerned about the
welfare of Guatemalans. Instead, he and the other presidents of Central and Latin America have begrudgingly acknowledged the futility of
combating the narcotraficantes. Three
decades of the "war on drugs" with no victory in sight, and the fact that
drugs are as plentiful and cheap as ever, has led to some re-examination of the drug war. These politicians are
concerned about stability in the region and the drug war is one of the leading drivers of instability--of social and
economic disruption, the collapse of judicial systems and widespread, record-levels of violence against civilians and
state security forces.
Solvency
Plan Doesn’t Increase Immigration – Mexican Economy
Aff doesn’t boost legal immigration – Mexican economy is doing too well
O’Neill 12 [Shannon O’Neill; February 20, 2012; Mexico's Burgeoning Economy Amid Drug Violence; Senior Fellow for Latin America
Studies at Council on Foreign Relations; http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexicos-burgeoning-economy-amid-drug-violence/p27386]
Despite an escalation in drug violence and thousands of people killed in drug-related murders in Mexico in recent years,
Mexico's economy and the tourism industry are thriving, says CFR's Mexico expert, Shannon K. O'Neil. "Mexico was
the hardest hit in Latin America" as a result of the global financial crisis, she says, "but it's recovered
quite quickly, and in part it's been due to a huge boom in manufacturing along the border tied to U.S. companies
and to U.S. consumers." On the contentious issue of Mexican immigrants in the United States, she says fewer Mexicans are
immigrating to the United States because of a burgeoning economy and a demographic shift. More broadly,
one reason the two countries have failed to find a solution, she says, is because while Mexicans see immigration as a foreign
policy issue, the United States continues to treat it as a domestic one. There have been reports about
Mexico's thriving economy amid continuing drug violence. Does this sort of ambivalence truly exist in
Mexico right now? It is true. Mexico is a place that's seen a huge escalation in violence. Under President Felipe
Calderon over the last five years, we've seen almost 50,000 people killed in drug-related murders. But at the same time, Mexico's economy has
actually been doing quite well since the end of the global recession. Mexico was the hardest hit in Latin America but it's recovered quite quickly,
and in part it's been due to a huge boom in manufacturing along the border tied to U.S. companies and to U.S. consumers. We've
seen a
boom in tourism. There have been record levels of tourists over the last year in Mexico--to its beaches,
to its colonial cities, and to Mexico City. And we've also seen the benefit of high oil prices as Mexico still
produces a good amount of oil and much of it for the United States.
It doesn’t matter what the Aff does – the agriculture worker shortage is a result of a
rich Mexico
Plumer 13 [Brad Plumer; January 29, 2013; We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help; Brad Plumer is a writer
for the Washington Post and he cites Edward Taylor a agricultural economist at UC Davis; http://www.washingtonpost.com/bradplumer/2011/07/28/gIQAPrqSfI_page.html]
For years, one of the groups pushing hardest for immigration reform has been the U.S. food industry. Farmers
have long grumbled
about a shortage of labor, and they’ve asked for policies that make it easier to hire foreign workers from
places like Mexico. Getting harder and harder to find. (John Moore – Getty Images) But looser immigration laws
may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S. farms could well face
a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on immigration. That’s
because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers to the United
States. And it won’t be nearly as easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere.
Ag labor shortage is because of a good Mexican economy – immigration reform is
irrelevant
Plumer 13 [Brad Plumer; January 29, 2013; We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help; Brad Plumer is a writer
for the Washington Post and he cites Edward Taylor a agricultural economist at UC Davis; http://www.washingtonpost.com/bradplumer/2011/07/28/gIQAPrqSfI_page.html]
For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers — mainly from
Mexico — to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States were foreign-born. (And half of
those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-
But that labor pool is now drying up . In recent years, we’ve seen a spate of
headlines like this from CNBC: “California Farm Labor Shortage ‘Worst It’s Been, Ever’.” Typically, these
stories blame drug-related violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the
decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker programs. But a new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a
simpler explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico is getting richer. And, when a country gets richer, its
intensive fruits and vegetables.
pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting into other sectors like
construction, but Mexico’s own farms are increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will have to pay
higher and higher wages to attract a dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers. “It’s a simple
story,” says Edward Taylor, an agricultural economist at U.C. Davis and one of the study’s authors. ”By
the mid-twentieth century, Americans stopped doing farm work. And we were only able to avoid a farmlabor crisis by bringing in workers from a nearby country that was at an earlier stage of development.
Now that era is coming to an end.” Taylor and his co-authors argue that the United States could face a
sharp adjustment period as a result. Americans appear unwilling to do the sort of low-wage farm work
that we have long relied on immigrants to do. And, the paper notes, it may be difficult to find an
abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else — potential targets such as Guatemala and El Salvador are either too small or
are urbanizing too rapidly.
Can’t fill labor void—Mexico is getting richer and labor pool is shrinking
Washington Post 1/29
(“We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help.” 2013 pg online at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farmworkers-immigration-reform-may-not-help///sd)
For years, one of the groups pushing hardest for immigration reform has been the U.S. food industry .
Farmers have long grumbled about a shortage of labor, and they’ve asked for policies that make it easier to hire foreign
workers from places like Mexico. Getting harder and harder to find. (John Moore – Getty Images) But looser immigration laws
may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S. farms could well face a shortage
of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on immigration. That’s because Mexico is
getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers to the United States. And it won’t be nearly as
easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere. For decades, farms in the United States
have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers — mainly from Mexico — to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all
agricultural workers in the United States were foreign-born. (And half of those foreign workers were
undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for
labor-intensive fruits and vegetables. But that labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, we’ve seen a spate of headlines
like this from CNBC: “California Farm Labor Shortage ‘Worst It’s Been, Ever’.” Typically, these stories blame drug-related violence on the
Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker
programs. But a new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico is getting richer. And, when a
country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting into
other sectors like construction, but Mexico’s own farms are increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will
have to pay higher and higher wages to attract a dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers. “It’s
a simple story,” says Edward Taylor, an agricultural economist at U.C. Davis and one of the study’s authors. ”By the midtwentieth century, Americans stopped doing farm work. And we were only able to avoid a farm-labor crisis by bringing in
workers from a nearby country that was at an earlier stage of development. Now that era is coming to
an end.” Taylor and his co-authors argue that the United States could face a sharp adjustment period as a result. Americans appear unwilling
to do the sort of low-wage farm work that we have long relied on immigrants to do. And, the paper notes, it may be difficult to find an
abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else — potential targets such as Guatemala and El Salvador are either too small or are urbanizing too rapidly. So the
labor shortages will keep getting worse. And that leaves several choices. American farmers could simply stop
growing crops that need a lot of workers to harvest, such as fruits and vegetables. Given the demand for fresh
produce, that seems unlikely. Alternatively, U.S. farms could continue to invest in new labor-saving technologies,
such as “shake-and-catch” machines to harvest fruits and nuts. “Under this option,” the authors write, “capital
improvements in farm production would increase the marginal product of farm labor; U.S. farms would
hire fewer workers and pay higher wages.” That could be a boon to domestic workers — studies have found that
23 percent of U.S. farm worker families are below the poverty line. In the meantime, however, farm groups are hoping they
can fend off that day of reckoning by revamping the nation’s immigration laws. The bipartisan immigration-reform proposal unveiled in the
Senate on Monday contained several provisions aimed at boosting the supply of farm workers, including the promise of an easier path to citizenship. Taylor,
however, is
not convinced that this is a viable long-term strategy. “The idea that you can design a guest-worker program or any other
that there’s a willingness to keep doing farm
work on the other side of the border. And that’s already dropping off.”
immigration policy to solve this farm labor problem isn’t realistic,” he says. “It assumes
Plan Doesn’t Increase Immigration – Demographics
US immigration policy isn’t key – Mexicans don’t want to come to the US any more
Siegler 4/30 [Kirk Siegler; April 30, 2013; Why An Immigration Deal Won't Solve The Farmworker Shortage; Siegler is a correspondent
for NPR specializing in immigration policy http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/04/30/180053057/why-an-immigration-deal-wont-solve-thefarmworker-shortage]
Agriculture economist Ed Taylor at the University of California, Davis, says that decline has little to do
with U.S. immigration policy. Taylor's research suggests that declining birth rates in rural Mexico, where
the economy has also improved in recent years, is the reason why fewer migrants are coming to the U.S.
And since farms in Mexico have also expanded to meet the year-round produce demands north of the border, why risk going north?
"Many [American] farmers also have this sense that, if Washington can just get its house in order and
pass immigration reform, their problems will be over, and that isn't what our research is showing ,"
Taylor says. Farms here are going to have to learn how to do more with less immigrant labor, Taylor says. That
means switching to less labor-intensive crops, or mechanization.
No solvency—demographics means Mexicans won’t migrate
Duleep 13 (Harriet Orcutt Duleep is a Professor of Policy @ the College of William & Mary;
‘U.S. Immigration Policy at a Crossroads’ http://ssrn.com/abstract=2203326 // LShen
Mexican immigrants are typically poorly educated; they are much more likely than U.S. natives, and almost
all other immigrant groups, to lack a high-school degree. Within the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S.,
illegal immigrants have lower levels of schooling than legal immigrants (e.g. Rivera-Batiz, 1999). One could thus
surmise that the problem of illegal immigration—and more generally the immigration of poorly educated individuals—stems from our shared
border with Mexico, and that these issues would disappear with demographic and economic changes in our south-of-the-border neighbor. A
country’s age distribution is a potent predictor of streams of potential immigrants;1 most adult immigrants are
young.2 Another key predictor of migratory streams is a country’s level of economic development. At the
very lowest levels of economic development, people do not migrate : When a certain economic threshold is
passed, migration from poor to rich regions begins.3 Once started, the migration persists, following the networks and paths of earlier migrants.
As the source-country/destination-country differential in economic development narrows, migration decreases.
Plan Doesn’t Increase Immigration – No Demand
Employers don’t want Guest Workers—illegal immigrants are cheaper
Fitz 13
(Marshall, Director of Immigration Policy at American Progress, “Setting The Record Straight On Farm Worker Pay” 5/8 pg online at
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/04/08/1834451/setting-the-record-straight-on-farm-worker-pay///sd)
Over the last few days, negotiations
over fixing our broken agricultural labor market have taken their turn at
center stage in the immigration reform debate. As Think Progress has reported, negotiations between growers
and farm worker advocates to establish a new visa for foreign agriculture workers are stalling, as the
“growers refuse to make concessions and are insisting on paying future farm workers less than they are
earning now.” Farmworkers are among the lowest paid workers in the country, averaging only $15,000 to $17,000 per year
and the poverty rates of farmworkers is nearly double the national rate for wage and salary employees.
Few receive fringe benefits (like sick leave) or employer-provided health insurance and many lack basic
federal labor protections including entitlement to overtime pay, the right to collective bargaining, an array of occupational
safety protections, and certain child labor law protections. Since workers don’t have a right to organize under federal law, they
need another mechanism to prevent wage depression. This is especially true in a new guest worker program, where
employers can reject U.S. workers if they are unwilling to accept the program’s minimum wage rate and
where foreign workers who are dependent on their employers are unlikely to bargain for higher wages.
But in the immigration discussions, the growers, represented by the American Farm Bureau, are seeking to replace the existing
minimum wage formula with their own proposal for paying foreign laborers. The AFB insists that paying workers 10
or 20 percent above the federal minimum wage would guarantee a fair and competitive wage and argue that the current calculation is
artificially high. So what is really going on? Here are the facts on farmworker pay and what’s at stake for some of the most vulnerable workers
in our economy: 1. Employers who use the current temporary agricultural worker program (H-2A) are
higher of the federal or state minimum
required to pay the
wages, the prevailing wage, or what is known as the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), to
foreign workers and U.S. workers in comparable employment. The AEWR is set by the U.S. Department of Labor based on a U.S.
Department of Agriculture survey is the regional weighted average hourly wage for field and livestock workers combined. This formula is
intended to protect farm workers from wage depression. 2. But there are at least three reasons to believe that even the
current AEWR
standard is too low. First, the AEWR is based on the previous year’s wage rates and does not reflect
inflation. Second, the wage survey on which the AEWR is set includes the 55 percent or more of farmworkers who are undocumented. That
means the survey includes the wages of workers whose earnings are depressed because they lack legal
status. We know that those wages would increase by up to 15 percent if they had legal status. In other words, the survey itself is skewed by
incorporating in to it the depressed wages of large proportions of workers. Third, the AEWR’s, by themselves, do not prevent
growers from imposing very high productivity standards. Desperate and deleveraged foreign workers will
accept those productivity demands but U.S. workers would insist on higher wages. So the AEWR reflects wages
of people who are involuntarily working more for less. 3. Although the current standard is already too low, the growers are actually
proposing to depart from that standard. They tried to eliminate that wage protection via midnight regulations in the waning
days of the Bush presidency. The regulations went in to effect for a short time (during which farmworkers saw a drop in wages of about $1 an
hour) until the Obama Administration reversed the Bush rules. Now growers are trying to achieve their effort to lower wages by codifying a new
“farmworker minimum wage” (as opposed to a market wage). In
attempting to hold broader immigration reform
legislation hostage to their demand for reduced wages of the most vulnerable workers in our society,
growers must have concluded that Americans either don’t care or aren’t paying attention. Well, Americans
who respect and appreciate the contributions of manual labor to our collective well-being should be appalled by this debate. If we as a
nation truly value hard work, the meager hourly returns on that work in the agricultural sector should be
something to correct, not make worse.
Plan Doesn’t Increase Immigration – General
Aff can’t solve- sovereignty disagreements
Rosenblum 11 (Marc R., Marc Rosenblum is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the
University of New Orleans, B.A. in political science at Columbia University and Ph.D. in political science
from the University of California, San Diego, “Obstacles and Opportunities For Regional Cooperation:
The US-Mexico Case, April 2011, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/usmexicocooperation.pdf\\CLans)
. A. Sovereignty The international legal system is organized around the idea of sovereign nation-states: legal entities defined by
mutual recognition and by the government’s exclusive control of a geographic territory and its
population.9The concepts of borders and territorial closure are at the heart of this definition — states are defined by their
ability to identify their own citizens and to exclude others.1° The norm of sovereignty — the right of states to
close their territory — is an important check on migration collaboration. At the global level, sovereignty means that
international migration laws and institutions such as the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and the International Labor Organization make no
binding demands on whom states admit or how visa policies are structured.
The recognition of migration policy as a
sovereign domestic issue also makes countries of origin reluctant to place migration on the agenda for
bilateral or regional negotiations, because doing so may broaden the scope of negotiations to include sensitive political questions that they
prefer to leave outside the scope of international negotiations, such as policies related to their own human rights conditions or internal political
processes.
Aff can’t solve- divergent preferences
Rosenblum 11 (Marc R., Marc Rosenblum is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the
University of New Orleans, B.A. in political science at Columbia University and Ph.D. in political science
from the University of California, San Diego, “Obstacles and Opportunities For Regional Cooperation:
The US-Mexico Case, April 2011, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/usmexicocooperation.pdf\\CLans)
B. Divergent Preferences The structure of global migration systems ensures that migrant-sending and
receiving countries often disagree about core migration policy issues. First, even though migration partners usually
have complementary demographics, as in the US-Mexico case, demographic complementarities are rarely perfect, which means source and
destination countries typically disagree about the ideal number of immigrants and the distribution of
migrants’ skills and human capital. Labor-rich countries typically benefit from robust emigration outflows, which limit domestic
unemployment and generate cash remittances.1’ Destination countries generally benefit from maximizing the human capital of those who
migrate,’2 while countries
of origin may worry about “brain drain and prefer that migration consist mainly of
low- or middle-skilled workers.’4 Apart from these divergent long-term preferences, business cycles also tend to
produce opposing migration demands in migrant-sending and receiving countries.’5 Finally, sending and
receiving countries often disagree about the conditions of migration, which include migrants’ labor rights and incentives for return migration.
Sending and receiving countries are even more prone to conflict over migration-control measures. Deportation is inherently costly for migrantsource countries, which must reabsorb people who typically have fled poor labor markets in the first place. By definition,
migration
enforcement impedes emigrants’ freedom of movement, and many enforcement tools conflict with
migrants’ basic human rights. Deportations of vulnerable populations (e.g., children, disabled persons) and high-risk groups (e.g.,
criminals or suspected terrorists) are especially contentious at both ends of the migration chain.
Aff can’t solve- asymmetric flows
Rosenblum 11 (Marc R., Marc Rosenblum is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the
University of New Orleans, B.A. in political science at Columbia University and Ph.D. in political science
from the University of California, San Diego, “Obstacles and Opportunities For Regional Cooperation:
The US-Mexico Case, April 2011, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/usmexicocooperation.pdf\\CLans)
C. Asymmetric Flows In contrast with global trade and investment, net migration flows are predominantly onedirectional — i.e., generally from poor states to rich states.’6 This asymmetry means that migrant-sending and receiving
countries are not equally dependent on cooperative institutions to achieve efficient labor market
outcomes and that they have different abilities to influence migration flows. In the absence of migration
restrictions, efficient global labor markets generally result in migration from labor-rich to labor-scarce countries. Thus, given that the world is
labor-rich,
wealthy states enjoy a “buyer’s market” for workers and do not depend on cooperation from
countries of origin to ensure adequate labor inflows.” On the contrary, immigrant-receiving countries can
best promote efficient migration flows simply by eliminating their own restrictive policies. Migrant-source
countries usually have little corresponding ability to shape outflows. These dynamics mean that any bilateral migration
negotiations are also asymmetrical, and that states cannot negotiate migration agreements on the basis
of simple reciprocity.
Complexity of migration policy means aff can’t solve
Rosenblum 11 (Marc R., Marc Rosenblum is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the
University of New Orleans, B.A. in political science at Columbia University and Ph.D. in political science
from the University of California, San Diego, “Obstacles and Opportunities For Regional Cooperation:
The US-Mexico Case, April 2011, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/usmexicocooperation.pdf\\CLans)
D. Complexity of Migration Policy A final barrier to migration cooperation is the complexity of migration
policy within host and source states. Although immigration generally benefits host-state economies, it harms some
native workers and imposes some short-term costs — and many voters see migration as a net negative. The economics of
emigration are also controversial, with some sending-country constituencies more concerned about the costs of brain drain than the benefits of
reduced employment pressure and remittance inflows. More importantly, in contrast with other international issues such as trade, investment,
and currency regimes, migration policy
redefines demographics, culture, and politics. Questions about national
identity often weigh more heavily than economics in shaping attitudes about migration.IH Migration may also
affect national security, and the United States (like other countries) has always tried to exclude or deport potential hostile agents.” Questions
about identity, immigrant integration, and security may also overlap, as recent terrorist incidents involving first- and second-generation
immigrants in Europe and the United States make clear.20 For
all these reasons, immigration policy is famously
characterized by “cross-cutting” cleavages, with business and liberal groups typically favoring more open migration policies and
labor unions and social conservatives favoring migration restrictions.2’ These unusual alliances create complex party dynamics with respect to
migration policymaking, and domestic political disagreements at both ends of the migration chain are major barriers to finding common ground
between sending and receiving countries.
Politics DA
Links (More In Politics Links/Updates)
Guest Workers Unpopular
Guest worker negotiations particularly unpopular – conflicting interests
Nakamura, 13. David Nakamura, staff writer for the Washington Post. “Dispute over guest-worker
program puts immigration talks at risk of delay.” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0328/politics/38089703_1_guest-worker-program-comprehensive-immigration-reform-barack-obama –
clawan
A worsening dispute over a new guest-worker program has emerged as the most serious obstacle to a
bipartisan deal on immigration, threatening to delay the unveiling of a Senate bill early next month. The impasse has prompted a bitter round of
name-calling between labor and business groups, which accuse each other of imperiling comprehensive immigration reform. The Obama administration has
remained on the sidelines as the standoff has worsened, calculating that the president would risk alienating Republican senators crucial to the process. Obama said
this week that the issue is “resolvable.” The guest-worker issue helped derail the last serious attempt at reform in
with assistance from Obama, then a U.S. senator from Illinois. The current attempt at reform is being led by a bipartisan group of eight senators, who are
2007
attempting to fashion model legislation for a broad immigration overhaul. The
dispute centers on rules governing the “future flow”
of migrants who come to the United States for menial jobs. Republicans, citing business interests, want to give
temporary work visas to up to 400,000 foreign workers a year at low wages. But unions and many Democrats,
fearing the effect on U.S. workers, want fewer workers and higher pay under the program. Senators involved insist that they remain
on schedule to complete a bill, including a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, in early April. Obama also expressed confidence this week that the
guest-worker disagreement could be solved. “I don’t agree that it’s threatening to doom the legislation,” Obama said in an interview Wednesday with Telemundo,
the Spanish-language TV network. “Labor and businesses may not always agree exactly on how to do this, but this is a resolvable issue.” But behind the scenes,
negotiations over the guest-worker program — and the White House’s refusal to take a position — have
soured relations between the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which a month ago joined hands to publicly proclaim agreement on an overall
plan. “Unions say they want a guest-worker program, but their behavior is to the contrary,” said Geoff Burr, the
Associated Builders and Contractors’ vice president for federal affairs. “They are insisting on a program that no employer would
consider using.”
CIR Solves the Aff
CIR Solves – General
Guest worker will pass with CIR—wage minimum, labor shortages, and
weakened opposition from unions
Elias 13
(Thomas, masters in journalism from Stanford, “Farm labor shortages may drive immigration changes”
Sandiego Source, newspaper, May 10, pg online at
http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?SourceCode=20130510tza&Commentary_ID=109&_t=F
arm+labor+shortages+may+drive+immigration+changes#.Ucypofkphsk//sd)
The proposed visa would not specify a single employer for each worker, so that employers could no
longer discipline migrant workers by threatening to have them deported if they’re not docile. It would
also include wages above the federal minimum and require decent working conditions. The Chamber
also agreed to the unions’ idea of setting up a new government bureau to curtail work visas when
unemployment rises to as-yet unspecified levels. Two things are clear from all this: It’s highly likely that
any major immigration change legislation passing Congress this year will have a guest-worker
component. And that this is happening mainly because of the labor shortages here and in other big farm
states.
CIR solves agriculture and illegal immigration
Werner 7/9/13 (Erica, Congressional Reporter for the Associated Press, Senate Immigration Bill would
Remake Economy, http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/09/3018417/senate-immigration-billwould.html)
Landmark immigration legislation passed by the Senate would remake America’s workforce from the
highest rungs to the lowest, bringing more immigrants into numerous sectors of the economy, from elite
technology companies to restaurant kitchens and rural fields. In place of the unauthorized workers now
commonly found laboring in lower-skilled jobs in the agriculture or service industries, many of these
workers would be legal, some of them permanent resident green card holders or even citizens. Illegal
immigration across the border with Mexico would slow, while legal immigration would increase
markedly. That’s the portrait that emerges from recent analyses of the far-reaching immigration bill
passed last month by the Senate with the backing of the White House. Although the bill aims to secure
the borders, track people overstaying their visas, and deny employers the ability to hire workers here
illegally, it by no means seeks to choke off immigration. Indeed, it would increase the U.S. population
over the next two decades by 15 million more people than current law, according to the Congressional
Budget Office. Even after decades of growth in the U.S. foreign-born population, the added increase
could be felt in ways large and small around the country, from big cities that would absorb even more
diversity to small towns that may still be adjusting to current immigrant arrivals. “That is baked into the
basic premise of the bill,” said Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, “which is
that you need to provide legal avenues for people to come to the country both in longer-term
temporary and in permanent visa categories in order to meet the needs of the future and avert the
incentives for illegal immigration.”
CIR solves the aff- boosts econ and border security
Rogers 5/3/13 (Marie, National League of Cities President, mayor, Avondale, AZ, President’s Speech in
Mexico Reinforces Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, http://www.nlc.org/mediacenter/news-search/president%E2%80%99s-speech-in-mexico-reinforces-need-for-comprehensiveimmigration-reform)
"We commend President Obama on his speech this morning in Mexico that called for a stronger USMexico relationship and comprehensive immigration reform. "His speech was an important reminder
that reforming our immigration policy affects many nations. As the President said, we need an
immigration system that reflects our values, that unites families rather than dividing them, and that
celebrates talent and innovation. Comprehensive immigration reform must protect our borders while
welcoming those coming to America to work hard and contribute to our economy. "That is why the
National League of Cities strongly endorses common sense immigration reform and welcomes the work
of the Senate "Gang of 8" in pushing for legislation that balances border security, workplace
enforcement and an earned path to citizenship and brings hard working immigrants out of the shadows
to participate fully in our economy. "We look forward to working with the President and Congressional
leaders to enact immigration reform and welcome immigrants to our nation."
CIR solves illegal immigration and us ag
Council on Foreign Relations 1/28/13 (The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent,
nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, Bipartisan Framework and Legislation
for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, http://www.cfr.org/immigration/bipartisan-frameworklegislation-comprehensive-immigration-reform/p29887?cid=rss-fullfeedbipartisan_framework_for_compr-012813)
We recognize that our immigration system is broken. And while border security has improved
significantly over the last two Administrations, we still don't have a functioning immigration system. This
has created a situation where up to 11 million undocumented immigrants are living in the shadows. Our
legislation acknowledges these realities by finally committing the resources needed to secure the
border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair
legalization program for individuals who are currently here. We will ensure that this is a successful
permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited. Four Basic Legislative
Pillars: 1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the
United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have
left the country when required; 2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the
importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American
families; 3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end
the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and, 4. Establish an improved process for admitting future
workers to serve our nation's workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers."
CIR solves the economy- job creation, deficit reduction, consumer demand
Kugler 7/9/13 (Adriana, Economist and Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. She
served as the Chief Economist to U.S. Labor Secretary, Hilda L. Solis, Why comprehensive immigration
reform is good for all of us, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/309899-whycomprehensive-immigration-reform-is-good-for-all-of-us)
Immigrants Spur Job Creation. Not only are immigrants more likely to be self-employed and to create
their own jobs, but immigrants are twice as likely to start a new business and 13 percent more likely to
own a business than non-immigrants. Importantly, these businesses are also more likely to hire
employees than non-immigrant businesses. In 2007 alone, small immigrant businesses hired 4.7 million
people. Immigrant businesses not only hire more, but they also have higher levels of start-up capital and
expand their businesses with their own sources of funding. Immigrants Boost Consumer Demand. Not
only are immigrant businesses 60 percent more likely to export than non-immigrant businesses thus
expanding markets abroad, but they also expand domestic demand. In 2010, the potential purchasing
power of immigrants stood at $1.1 trillion and this purchasing power is expected to continue growing as
more immigrants come in and as immigrants who obtain legal status see their earnings rise. Areas
experiencing large inflows of immigrants gain from greater demand in retail and housing, helping the
recovery in these sectors. Immigrants Reduce the Deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
recently reported that immigration reform would reduce the deficit by close to $200 billion and $700
billion in the following two decades. My own work with colleagues from the Center for American
Progress show that legalizing the 11 million undocumented would help the solvency of the social
security system, funding 6.5 percent of current retirees and closing the gap between benefits and
contributions by about a third over the next ten years. These results are similar to those found by the
Social Security Chief Actuary who reports that immigration reform would add over $200 billion to the
Social Security Trust Fund over the next decade. Immigrants Grow the Economy. Immigrant labor force
participation, consumption, and investments help to grow the economy in the short-term. In the longer
term, immigrant innovation also contributes to growth. The U.S. is at the cutting edge in terms of
innovation thanks to an open system that welcomes the most creative minds around the world. In fact,
immigrants represent 47 percent of U.S. engineers and 24 percent of U.S. scientists and they are almost
twice as likely to patent as non-immigrants. The CBO found that increased participation, investment and
productivity due to immigration reform would increase GDP by 3.3 percent by 2023 and by 5.4 percent
by 2033.
CIR solves the case – stimulates us ag and economy
Kugler 7/9/13 (Adriana, Economist and Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. She
served as the Chief Economist to U.S. Labor Secretary, Hilda L. Solis, Why comprehensive immigration
reform is good for all of us, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/309899-whycomprehensive-immigration-reform-is-good-for-all-of-us)
After a strong vote of support in the Senate, historic immigration reform is headed to the House of
Representatives, and we’ve already seen opponents of the bill try to distort the benefits of reform for
our country. Now more than ever, the untold economic story of immigration needs to be told and
retold. It is a simple truth that immigrants help grow the US economy. Yet, this fact often gets lost as
the complexities of immigration are reduced to a zero sum game of native workers versus immigrants.
Despite the unabashed success that the U.S. has had in building a great union with the help of
generation after generation of immigrants, it is fair to say that the U.S. is still in the process of fully
understanding the overall economic impact of immigration. Yet, it is without question that, as
immigrants build a future for their children and families, they provide labor, create business, buy goods
and services, pay taxes and, most importantly, they build their local communities. Immigrants Provide
Labor. Immigrants make up 13 percent of the population and 16 percent of the labor force and their
shares are expected to continue growing over the next decades to meet the longer term demand for
labor. Importantly, immigrants help to meet the need for very highly educated and less educated but
skilled workers.
CIR solves the entirety of the aff
Seelke 9 (Clare Ribando and Kristen M., Clare Ribando Seelke is a specialist in Latin American Affairs at
the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. ,
Seelke holds a Master of Public Affairs and Master of Arts in Latin American Studies from the University
of Texas at Austin, Kristen is an Analyst in Domestic Security “Mérida Initiative for Mexico and Central
America: Funding and Policy Issues", August 21, 2009,
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40135_20090821.pdf\\CLans)
In the 110th Congress, the U.S. Senate voted against cloture on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S.
1348) in June 2007, and the measure was not considered after that vote. The bill would have improved border security,
established a temporary worker program, and normalized the status of most illegal immigrants in the
United States. Mexico has long lobbied for such reforms. Immigration reform legislation also was introduced in the House of
Representatives in March 2007. The
House measure, the Security Through Regularized Immigration and Vibrant Economy Act of 2007
have set border and document security benchmarks to be met before normalizing the
status of illegal immigrant or the creation of a guest worker program. A variety of other migration-related legislative
(H.R. 1645), would
initiatives were introduced in the 110th Congress, but none were enacted.80
CIR Solves – US Agriculture
CIR solves us ag- keeps jobs in the us
Witchata Business Journal 6/24/13 (cites Thomas Vilsack, US secretary of Agriculture, Ag
secretary: Immigration reform vital for industry growth,
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2013/06/ag-secretary-immigration-reformvital.html)
A "broken" immigration policy is harmful to agribusiness, says U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Thomas
Vilsack. The Kansas City Business Journal reports Vilsack spoke in Kansas City last week in support of a
bipartisan immigration reform bill now in the U.S. Senate. The KCBJ story has full details on his talk. One
key point Vilsack made was that the agriculture industry needs a stable work force, and he said migrant
workers have been crucial to that work force, but that many of them are undocumented. If the United
States doesn't figure out a way to make these workers legally and consistently available to farmers,
crops, jobs and money will go elsewhere, he said.
CIR solves US ag
The Bakersfield Californian 6/11/13 ( cites U.S. Department of Agriculture,California ag needs
reform bill most of all, http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/our-view/x88759870/Californiaag-needs-reform-bill-most-of-allhttp://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/ourview/x88759870/California-ag-needs-reform-bill-most-of-all)
The U.S. needs immigration reform first and foremost because it's the right thing to do, both for the
undocumented, working immigrants it would most affect and the nation's agriculture industry. By
extension, that also means U.S. consumers. About half of the country's farm labor force is illegal,
according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and California, by far the nation's leading state for
agriculture, is particularly dependent on such workers. Hewing strictly to the law as it exists now would
wipe out whole industries, which ought to be proof enough that any sort of reform must accept this
reality. The reality of immigration also includes the fact that Mexico's improving domestic economy may
soon start drying up what has to this point seemed an unending supply of cheap labor. Where will that
leave a country where few unemployed citizens are willing to take on the backbreaking labor of the
fields? Senate supporters of reform understand all that and have built special provisions into the reform
bill that address both long- and short-term labor arrangements. Their legislation would give permanent
workers a five-year fast track to legal status, half the length of time other workers would have to wait. It
would also allow foreign workers to obtain 36-month work visas in year-round food industries such as
dairy, cattle and poultry. That's a big deal in places like Kern County, which is home to 54 dairy farms
and more than 100,000 milk cows.
CIR Solves – Illegal Immigration
CIR solves illegal immigration
Werner 7/9/13 (Erica, Congressional Reporter for the Associated Press, Senate Immigration Bill would
Remake Economy, http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/09/3018417/senate-immigration-billwould.html)
On the other side, the flow of illegal immigration into the country would decrease by one-third or onehalf compared with current law, the Congressional Budget Office says. Illegal immigration has already
decreased since 2000 due to a combination of factors, including the economic downturn and greater
security measures in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. Although up-to-date annual figures
on illegal immigration are hard to come by, one recent study published in the International Migration
Review said that close to 400,000 immigrants entered illegally in 2009, either by crossing the border
unlawfully or overstaying temporary visas. An author of the study, Robert Warren, said that the figure
has not likely changed dramatically in the years since. The bill offers a 13-year path to citizenship for the
11 million immigrants already here illegally, the most contentious element of the legislation since many
House conservatives oppose granting citizenship to people who broke U.S. laws to be here. But that
aspect of the legislation has little impact on the overall population size since the people involved are
already in the country even if they end up transitioning to legal status. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that some 8 million of them would do just that. Beyond the changes in numbers, the
immigration bill shifts the emphasis of U.S. immigration policy away from family ties and put more
weight on employment prospects, education and relative youth. It also raises ceilings on how many
immigrants could come from any one country. And there would be impacts as yet unforeseen as the
policies unspool into an uncertain future and economic conditions in other countries impact how many
of their citizens dream of calling the U.S. home.
CIR Solves – US-Mexico Relations
CIR solves US Mexico relations- economic partnership
Marczak 4/18/13 (Jason, director of policy at Americas Society and Council of the Americas and senior
editor of Americas Quarterly, Immigration reform gets U.S. in on Mexico's boom,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/18/opinion/marczak-immigration-the-new-mexico)
Comprehensive immigration reform will open a gateway to one of Latin America's fastest-growing
economies. By providing a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants of Mexican origin,
reform will make it easier for laborers to cross borders, which will harness the competitiveness of both
countries. It would also show that the U.S. is a true economic partner with Mexico and the rest of the
Americas. Legal status would open the door for these immigrants and their children to further increase
their contributions to the U.S. economy and to start small businesses that would capitalize on their
cross-border networks. This is a highly likely scenario as immigrants are more likely to start a business
than those born in the U.S., and Mexicans represent the greatest number of foreign-born small-business
owners.
Slavery DA
1NC Slavery DA
Guest worker programs inherently bolster systemic abuse of immigrants – this
marginalizes workers to modern day slavery – D-rule
SPLC, 13 – Southern Poverty Law Center, The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights
organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable
members of society (“Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States”, Feb., 2013,
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/close-to-slavery-guestworker-programs-in-theunited-states)
In the debate over comprehensive immigration reform, various policymakers and business groups have suggested
that Congress create a new or expanded guestworker program to ensure a steady supply of foreign workers for industries
that rely on an abundance of cheap labor. Congress should look before it leaps. The current H-2 program, which provides temporary
farmworkers and non-farm laborers for a variety of U.S. industries, is rife with labor and human rights violations
committed by employers who prey on a highly vulnerable workforce. It harms the interests of U.S.
workers, as well, by undercutting wages and working conditions for those who labor at the lowest rungs of
the economic ladder. This program should not be expanded or used as a model for immigration reform. Under the current H-2 program
overseen by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), employers brought about 106,000 guestworkers into this country in 2011 — approximately
55,000 for agricultural work and another 51,000 for jobs in forestry, seafood processing, landscaping, construction and other non-agricultural
industries. But far
from being treated like “guests,” these workers are systematically exploited and abused.
do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor
market — the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who
“import” them. If guestworkers complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other
retaliation. Bound to a single employer and without access to legal resources, guestworkers are routinely: Cheated out of
wages Forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs Held virtually captive by
employers or labor brokers who seize their documents Subjected to human trafficking and debt
servitude Forced to live in squalid conditions Denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries. Former House
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel put it this way: “This guestworker program’s the closest thing I’ve
ever seen to slavery.”1 Congressman Rangel’s conclusion is not mere hyperbole nor the first time such a comparison has been made.
Former DOL official Lee G. Williams described the old “bracero” program — an earlier version of the guestworker program that
brought thousands of Mexican nationals to work in the United States during and after World War II — as a system of “legalized
slavery.2 On paper, the bracero program had many significant written legal protections, providing workers with what historian Cindy
Unlike U.S. citizens, guestworkers
Hahamovitch, an expert on guestworker programs, has called “the most comprehensive farm labor contract in the history of American
agriculture.3 Nevertheless, the
bracero workers were systematically lied to, cheated and “shamefully
neglected.4 In practice, there is little difference between the bracero program of yesterday and today’s H-2
guestworker program. Federal law and DOL regulations provide a few protections to H-2 guestworkers, but they exist mainly on paper.
Government enforcement of guestworker rights is historically very weak. Private attorneys typically won’t take up their cause. And nonagricultural workers in the program are not eligible for federally funded legal services. The H-2 guestworker system also can be viewed as a
modern-day system of indentured servitude. But unlike European indentured servants of old, today’s guestworkers have no prospect of
becoming U.S. citizens. When
their temporary work visas expire, they must leave the United States. They are,
in effect, the disposable workers of the U.S. economy. U.S. workers suffer as a result of these flaws in the
guestworker system. As long as employers in low-wage industries can rely on an endless stream of vulnerable
guestworkers who lack basic labor protections, they will have little incentive to hire U.S. workers or make jobs
more appealing to domestic workers by improving wages and working conditions. Not surprisingly, many H-2
employers discriminate against U.S. workers, preferring to hire guestworkers, even though they are required to certify that no
domestic workers are available to fill their jobs. In addition, it is well-documented that wages for U.S. workers are
depressed in industries that rely heavily on guestworkers. This report is based on interviews with
thousands of guestworkers, a review of the research on guestworker programs, scores of legal cases and
the experiences of legal experts from around the country. The abuses described here are too common
to blame on a few “bad apple” employers. They are the foreseeable outcomes of a system that treats foreign
workers as commodities to be imported as needed without affording them adequate legal safeguards, the protections of the free market, or
the opportunity to become full members of society. When the Southern Poverty Law Center published the first version of this report in 2007,
we recommended reform or repeal of the H-2 program. Unfortunately, even after the enactment of modest reforms in recent years,
guestworker programs today are still inherently abusive and unfair to both U.S. and foreign workers. In
the past several years, the DOL has proposed two sets of regulations to better protect non-agricultural H-2 workers – one related to wage rate
guarantees and one more comprehensive set of regulations. These regulations also would better protect the jobs and wages of U.S. workers.
Unfortunately for workers, neither set of regulations has gone into effect; employers have filed multiple lawsuits challenging them, and
Congress has effectively blocked implementation of the new wage regulations. For workers, then, the abuses continue unabated. It
is
virtually impossible to create a guestworker program for low-wage workers that does not involve
systemic abuse. The H-2 guestworker program should not be expanded in the name of immigration
reform and should not be the model for the future flow of workers to this country. If the current H-2 program is
allowed to continue, it should be completely overhauled. Recommendations for doing so appear at the end of this report.
Uniqueness – Slavery Down Now
Federal efforts to combat human trafficking have been made
White House 12 (‘Fact Sheet: the Obama Administration Announces Efforts to Combat Human
Trafficking at Home and Abroad’ Published on September 25th, 2012 http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2012/09/25/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-efforts-combat-human-trafficki)
LShen
In March 2012, President Obama directed his Cabinet to redouble the Administration’s efforts to
eliminate human trafficking, which afflicts more than 20 million people around the world, including in
communities here at home. Today, building on the strong record of the President’s Interagency Task
Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and its member agencies, the President is
announcing several initiatives: • Executive Order Strengthening Protections in Federal Contracts: To
strengthen the U.S. Government’s existing zero-tolerance policy on human trafficking in government
contracting, the President has issued an Executive Order that outlines prohibitions on trafficking-related
activities that will apply to all federal contractors and subcontractors, requires compliance measures for
large overseas contracts and subcontracts, and provides federal agencies with additional tools to foster
compliance. • Tools and Training to Identify and Assist Trafficking Victims: The Administration is
providing human trafficking training and guidance to federal prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and
immigration judges; to commercial transportation officials; to state and local law enforcement partners;
and to state workforce agencies and educators. Through this training, these professionals will be better
equipped to detect trafficking wherever it exists, and to help ensure that victims are always treated as
victims and not criminals. • Increased Resources for Victims of Human Trafficking: The Administration is
announcing initiatives to expand services and legal assistance to victims of trafficking, and will partner
with Humanity United, with support from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, to launch $6 million in
Partnership for Freedom Innovation Awards to challenge local communities to develop collaborative and
comprehensive solutions to help trafficking victims. The Administration also will work to streamline
current procedures for the existing T-visa process, which allows victims to remain in the United States
and aid the prosecution of their traffickers. In addition, the President is announcing his intent to
establish a new Presidential Award for Extraordinary Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons, which will
be awarded annually to incentivize and recognize exceptional contributions in the field. •
Comprehensive Plan for Future Action: The President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat
Human Trafficking in Persons will develop the first-ever federal strategic action plan to strengthen
services for trafficking victims. In a related effort, the interagency Human Smuggling and Trafficking
Center (HSTC) will develop its first-ever domestic human trafficking assessment to track trends within
the United States, enabling both law enforcement and service providers to deploy resources more
effectively. These efforts will be assisted by the intelligence community, which is increasing its focus on
human trafficking internationally, and working more closely with the HSTC here at home. The
Administration’s efforts augment the work of business, non-profits, educational institutions and
foundations to combat trafficking. Key announcements that will help to advance this shared work
include: • The creation of the Global Business Coalition Against Trafficking, a business-to-business
network that will mobilize its members to fight trafficking, including through the identification and
development of best practices; • The U.S. Travel Association’s compilation of an anti-trafficking “toolkit”
to drive awareness within the travel and tourism industry; • The Administration’s launch of the CounterTrafficking in Persons Campus Challenge to raise awareness and inspire activism among college students
and to develop innovative technology approaches to combatting human trafficking; • The Johns Hopkins
University Bloomberg School of Public Health’s cross-disciplinary research partnership with the
Gossldman Sachs Foundation and the Advisory Council on Child Trafficking, which will focus on the
prevention of child sex trafficking and treatment for survivors; and • The launch of the Made in a Free
World initiative to help buyers and suppliers identify and eliminate supply chain vulnerabilities, and
demonstrate their commitment to combatting human trafficking. In addition, the faith-based
community has been a leader in combatting human trafficking at home and around the world, raising
awareness and providing services. The President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood
Partnerships will focus its efforts on the issue of trafficking and identify opportunities to expand
partnerships with faith and community-based groups.
International law ensures several basic human rights
Levin 13 (Leah Sarah Levin is a member of the Human Rights Committee of the UN Association,
director of JUSTICE and a member of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Human
Rights‘Human Rights: Questions and Answers’ Page 29) LShen
The covenant elaborates the political and civil rights identified in the Universal Declaration, which
include the rights to life, privacy, fair trial, peaceful assembly, equality before the law, freedom of
expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom from torture., as well as the
prohibition of slavery in all of its forms , and the rights of persons belonging to ethnic religious and
linguistic minorities. According to Article 2 of the Covenant, these rights should be immediately
guaranteed by states and they should take the necessary steps in the fields of legislation and social
policy to ensure this.
Links – Exploitation
US farms oppress guest workers—it’s modern day slavery
Stanley 11
(Eduardo, Communications Phd at University of Bucharest, taught logic and semiotics at University of Sinaloa,
“California Farm Workers Stuck Between Poverty And Neglect, Suffer From Low Wages And Lack Of Organization”
8/11 pg online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/california-farm-workers-lowwages_n_923941.html//sd)
No one knows the exact number of farm workers who year after year raise and harvest the crops grown in the Central Valley of California and
which earn an estimated $18 billion annually. Farms in this vast geographic area produce a varied selection of crops, ranging from grapes to
Dominant economic forces try to keep the price of these products low to
maintain and increase consumption, while also confronting the growing threat of competition from
abroad. This all leads to keeping wages low for field workers, the weakest link in the production chain. To
this end, farm owners use different tactics. For example, piecemeal or “contracted” work is paid per bucket of
oranges or cranberries, not by the hour. Using this system, the workload ratchets up in intensity as laborers hustle
and scramble to fill enough buckets and equate to the legal minimum wage of $8 an hour. It is a feat they
rarely achieve. “In tomato-picking, the worker follows the tractor and cannot fall behind,” explains Juan Santiago, a
nuts, from corn to strawberries.
23-year-old farm worker from Madera, Calif. “The ‘tomateros’ work very hard and can earn about $120 a day.” Although that daily $120 sounds
attractive to underpaid laborers, the harsh reality puts things in perspective. “This job lasts about three months,” said Santiago, who at 23
seems to know each row in the Central Valley. “In general, most
that farm
field workers make about $11,000 annually.” The problem is
workers, who don’t know the labor laws or the worker rights delineated by them, are at the mercy of
contractors . What’s more, they lack any organizational structure to represent them. For example, isntead of receiving at
least the $8 per hour minimum wage under California law, most farm labor is paid at “piece rate,” or “contracted.” “ This
system is
[designed] to increase worker productivity while reducing pay for working too slowly,” s aid Luis Magana,
an activist with the American Friends Service Committee of Stockton, Calif. “For example, onion producers pay 80 cents per person (per bag or
sack), so a family of three can earn $60 a day; divide that by three [people] and it’s a mere $20.” “On the ‘table,’ the [grape producers] pay 45
cents for each one,” Santiago said. The “table” is actually just a large sheet of paper where the laborer places the grapes collected to dry
beneath the sunlight, after which they are processed and cleaned, transforming them into flavorful, aromatic raisins. Field
laborers must
work intensely to collect sufficient “tables” for them to earn a decent wage. A field laborer can collect
about 12 “tables” an hour – in other words $5.40 an hour. That too is less than the legal $8 minimum
wage, and laborers are not paid overtime. “The law says that the worker is to receive the minimum
salary,” Magana says, “but nobody pays it and nobody claims it.” Because of a lack of organization and a group consciousness,
the field laborer looks for the individual way out. “Many workers prefer the ‘contract’ pay because they think that they’ll make more money in
less time, but the reality is different,” according to Magana. “In general, based on my experience and knowledge, a
field laborer earns
about $10,000 a year.” Santiago draws a similar conclusion. “There are exceptions, but generally that is the income for a Central Valley
field worker.” He says the salary system in the field “is chaotic.” Sometimes the pay is ‘contractual’ and other times by the
hour, something producers decide based on their own financial interests . “The field worker doesn’t raise
his voice nor seeks to organize,” Magana says. “[The worker] also doesn’t know the struggles of the 1960s
and ’70s.” Since then, the “illegal” status of the majority of field laborers contributes to their trepidation in claiming labor rights, just
salaries and organizing as a united front. Santiago ponders for several seconds before continuing, almost resisting, but finally says, “There’s
just not much interest” in organization among field laborers. According to Magana, workers themselves don’t
even know who Cesar Chavez is. Chavez was the leader and co-founder of the farm workers’ labor union known as the United Farm
Workers, which was founded in the 1960s in the Central Valley. The union galvanized its resolved during legendary battles
with farm owners, successfully winning benefits such as a minimum wage, the right to unionize, restrooms and drinking
water at labor camps. Nearly 30 years later, little, if anything is left of this fight. Meanwhile, field laborers are
working overtime for less than minimum wage and at the mercy of global forces which conspire to
keep things as they are.
Plan perpetuates labor exploitation
La Vanguardia 6-26 (Spanish newspaper, “Mexican report sees human trafficking in USA growing”,
7/9/13, lexis)
"Human trafficking is a hidden crime. The data is very scarce, but it is clear that too many people are
being subjected to it in the US," said Tsu Human trafficking, a scourge whose global impact was reported
this week by the US Government, is growing in the shadows of in their own land, spurred by fear of
denouncing the undocumented and the impunity of criminals. Human trafficking, a scourge whose
global impact was reported this week by the US Government, grows in the shade in their own territory,
spurred by fear of denouncing the undocumented migrants and the impunity of criminals. "Human
trafficking is a hidden crime. The data is very scarce, but it is clear that too many people are being
subjected to it in America," he told Efe Naomi Tsu, responsible for Immigrant Justice Programme of the
Southern Poverty Law Centre , an organization that monitors abuses of illegal immigrants. Although the
problem does not reach the range you have in China or Russia, three of the 21 countries identified by
their complicity with trafficking in a State Department report on Wednesday, the US has "structural"
factors that make "modern slavery", especially labour, continual with" no brakes "said Tsu. In 2012, the
Justice Department described human trafficking as the second fastest growing criminal industry in the
United States, behind only drug trafficking, but official data remains scarce. The Polaris Project, a
support centre for victims of human trafficking in the United States, estimates that "hundreds of
thousands" of children and adults are subjected to sexual or labour exploitation in the country, its
president Bradley Myles said this weekend. This wide spread problem is evident, especially when the
authorities dismantle a human trafficking network, as happened twice this week. The first incident took
place on Monday when New York authorities indicted nine 7-Eleven store franchise owners exploiting
illegal immigrants from Pakistan and the Philippines; it was like "a modern plantation", in the words of
Attorney Loretta Lynch. The second incident occurred on Tuesday, when authorities arrested four
people for keeping a mentally ill woman and her son for two years at his home in a rural location in slave
like conditions. According to the State Department report, the majority of victims of human trafficking in
the US come from Mexico, followed by Thailand, the Philippines, Honduras, Indonesia and Guatemala.
Undocumented immigrants are "particularly vulnerable to crime, as they resist seeking help from the
authorities for fear of being deported and separated from their families," said Tsu. The Southern Poverty
Law Centre, whose attorneys represent thousands of US immigrants, has further determined that "guest
workers who are in the country with valid visas risk being trafficked due to the lack of regulation" on the
programmes that allow them to enter the country, he said. "Some of my clients paid USD 15,000 in fees
to get a green card and a job in the US, and instead entered the country with an H-2B visa and 10
months to work with a company that would charge more than 1,000 dollars a month to live in
overcrowded accommodations, "he said. The immigration reform that on which the Senate is currently
deliberating would improve oversight of such programmes, but not eliminate the link between many
types of visas and a single employer, and would be subjected to "immense pressure" to stay in "an
abusive job" , warned the lawyer. Labour exploitation is a form of human trafficking is most widespread
in the US, but 85 per cent of the legal processes that open in the country are cases of sexual
exploitation, according to a 2012 study by the National Institute of Justice. "This imbalance allows traffic
to continue moving forward without brakes work," lamented Tsu. According to the Department of
Justice, the US opened an average of 24 cases per year related to the exploitation of labour between
2009 and 2011, more than double between 2006 and 2008, while investigating about 11 cases a year.
Aid organizations recognize that victims in the US recognize US standards have improved greatly in the
last decade, but ask for more prevention and process guarantees so they do not have to read again, as in
the report Wednesday that forced labour persists among household employees or ambassadorial
residences or indigenous girls being forced into prostitution.
Misleading guest worker programs mask exploitation
Wise et. al 13 (Raúl Delgado Wise is the President of the International Network on Migration and
Development; UNESCO Chair on Migration and Professor of the Doctoral Program in Develop Studies @
University of Zacatecas ‘Reframing the Debate on Migration, Development and Human Rights’ Published
on May 14th, 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/psp.1783/asset/psp1783.pdf?v=1&t=hixl31th&s=224cacb90c7f4f4111d4
d22c5d5b44010e303fb9 ) LShen
The human rights of migrants in sending, transit, receiving, and return communities must be upheld by
all governments and international bodies. These include the right to permanence, which should extend
to second generations. With this in mind, the concept of forced migration should be rethought and
expanded in order to counteract migration policies that, by appealing to sovereignty and national
security, criminalise migrants and violate their rights. Many current guest-worker programmes
exemplify apparently humane setups that, in reality, mask the continued exploitation of migrants and
the violation of their human rights. Associated key topics include irregular migration; human trafficking
and smuggling; discrimination; the safety of human rights defenders; labour standards and a decent
labour agenda; and international instruments that ensure the protection of human and working rights,
and their progressivity and non-regressive implementation as part of any state’s duty.
Increased labor trafficking causes loss of freedom
OSCE 10 (Organization for Security and Co-operation, “COMBATING TRAFFICKING AS MODERN-DAY
SLAVERY: A MATTER OF RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND SECURITY”, OSCE, 2010,
http://www.osce.org/cthb/74730)
Thousands of people are being trafficked to the UK for forced labour in a "hidden crime" where victims go unnoticed, experts have said. The
workers are forced to put in long hours with little food while living in squalid conditions, the UK Human Trafficking
Centre (UKHTC) said, and may be employed by firms unaware of the abuse. UKHTC has launched a campaign with Crimestoppers and the Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO) to highlight the plight of the workers. James Behan, head of operations for UKHTC, said: "It's probably one of the least understood areas of human
trafficking. If you asked a member of the public they would probably understand sexual exploitation and child trafficking, but when it comes to labour trafficking it's
a hidden crime." The idea is to raise the awareness of the general public as they're going about their daily business to see the signs. It can range from a 15-year-old
being made to work in a field to a middle-aged man who has fallen on hard times and become alcohol-dependent. It isn't one specific group, one nationality, one
age group, it's very encompassing." More
than 1,000 victims of trafficking for forced labour have been referred to the centre since
workers are typically used
in low-paid jobs where they have to work for long hours, have to live in poor-quality, cramped housing
and can suffer malnutrition because they are fed so little. Jobs include being made to work in private houses as well as the
hospitality, farming, manufacturing and construction industries. Mr Behan said: " The people live in difficult conditions. Quite often
they will share beds, it's very poor-quality housing and there's no real downtime because they have to
work long hours. They have no possessions and no freedom ."
2009 but Mr Behan said this could be "the tip of the iceberg", and he believes there are potentially "many more". The
Links – Disposability
Guest-worker programs are deeply embedded in a history of violence and systematic
exploitation—new programs will only preserve the notion that guest workers should
be and can be rendered disposable
Bauer et. al 13 (Mary Bauer is the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center; JD and Skadden
Fellow @ UVA Law; College of William & Mary // ‘Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United
States’ http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publication/SPLC-Close-to-Slavery2013.pdf) L Shen
Congress should look before it leaps. The current H-2 program, which provides temporary farmworkers and non-farm
laborers for a variety of U.S. industries, is rife with labor and human rights violations committed by employers who
prey on a highly vulnerable workforce. It harms the interests of U.S. workers, as well, by undercutting
wages and working conditions for those who labor at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder . This
program should not be expanded
or used as a model for immigration reform. Under the current H-2 program overseen by the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), employers brought about 106,000 guestworkers into this country in 2011 — approximately 55,000 for
agricultural work and another 51,000 for jobs in forestry, seafood processing, landscaping, construction and other non-agricultural industries.
far from being treated like “guests,” these workers are systematically exploited and abused.
Unlike U.S. citizens, guestworkers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor
market — the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who
“import” them. If guestworkers complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other
retaliation. Bound to a single employer and without access to legal resources , guestworkers are routinely: Cheated out
But
of wages Forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs Held virtually captive
by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents
Subjected to human trafficking and debt servitude Forced
to live in squalid conditions Denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.
Committee Chairman Charles Rangel put it this way: “ This
Former House Ways and Means
guestworker program’s the closest thing I’ve ever seen to
slavery .”1 Congressman Rangel’s conclusion is not mere hyperbole nor the first time such a comparison has
been made. Former DOL official Lee G. Williams described the old “bracero” program — an earlier version of
the guestworker program that brought thousands of Mexican nationals to work in the United States
during and after World War II — as a system of “legalized slavery.2 On paper, the bracero program had
many significant written legal protections, providing workers with what historian Cindy Hahamovitch, an expert on guestworker
programs, has called “the most comprehensive farm labor contract in the history of American agriculture.3 Nevertheless, the bracero
workers were systematically lied to, cheated and “shamefully neglected.4 In practice, there is little
difference between the bracero program of yesterday and today’s H-2 guestworker program. Federal law
and DOL regulations provide a few protections to H-2 guestworkers, but they exist mainly on paper. Government enforcement of
guestworker rights is historically very weak. Private attorneys typically won’t take up their cause. And
non-agricultural workers in the program are not eligible for federally funded legal services. The H-2
guestworker system also can be viewed as a modern-day system of indentured servitude. But unlike
European indentured servants of old, today’s guestworkers have no prospect of becoming U.S. citizens.
When their temporary work visas expire, they must leave the U nited S tates. They are, in effect , the
disposable workers of the U.S. economy.
Links – Discrimination
Guest workers face formidable discrimination
Bauer et. al 13 (Mary Bauer is the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center; JD and Skadden Fellow
@ UVA Law; College of William & Mary // ‘Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States’
http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publication/SPLC-Close-to-Slavery-2013.pdf) L
Shen
U.S. workers suffer as a result of these flaws in the guestworker system. As long as employers in low-wage industries can rely on an endless
stream of vulnerable guestworkers who lack basic labor protections, they will have little incentive to hire U.S. workers or make jobs more
appealing to domestic workers by improving wages and working conditions. Not surprisingly, many
H-2 employers discriminate
against U.S. workers, preferring to hire guestworkers, even though they are required to certify that no
domestic workers are available to fill their jobs. In addition, it is well-documented that wages for U.S.
workers are depressed in industries that rely heavily on guestworkers. This report is based on interviews with
thousands of guestworkers, a review of the research on guestworker programs, scores of legal cases and the experiences of legal experts from
around the country. The abuses described here are too common to blame on a few “bad apple” employers.
They are the foreseeable
outcomes of a system that treats foreign workers as commodities to be imported as needed without affording
them adequate legal safeguards, the protections of the free market, or the opportunity to become full members of society. When the Southern
Poverty Law Center published the first version of this report in 2007, we recommended reform or repeal of the H-2 program. Unfortunately,
even after the enactment of modest reforms in recent years, guestworker programs today are still
inherently abusive and unfair to both U.S. and foreign workers.
Links – Sexual Abuse
Women in the Ag Industry face Rape and Sexual Abuse – Plan only increases abuse
Yeung 2013, Bernice Yeun: Reporter in Center For investigative Reporting, SFGate News, “Female
Workers face rape, harassment in US agriculture Industry”
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Female-workers-face-rape-harassment-in-U-S-4619767.php
SUNNYSIDE, Wash. – Esther Abarca said the foreman drove to parts of the apple orchard that she had never seen. Deep into the farm, in what
she could describe only as a “desolate place,” he parked the truck, reached over and tried to grab her. Weeping as she told her story, Abarca
said the foreman got out of the truck when she resisted his advances. He opened the side door, climbed on top of her, and began to kiss and
grope her. She called for help and tried to push him away, but he got her pants halfway off. “I kept screaming, but there was nobody there,”
Abarca said. Abarca said she kept screaming as the foreman groped her. But then, as if suddenly chastened by her crying, kicking and pushing,
she said he stopped. He told her that if she didn’t tell anyone what had happened, he’d give her $3,000 for a new car. Abarca, a mother of
three, said she refused the money. “I told him that that was the very reason why I had come here to work, that I did not need him to give me
any money at all,” she said. The foreman’s alleged first assault came in 2009, during the long days of the Yakima Valley apple harvest in central
Washington. An immigrant from Mexico, Abarca was new to the Evans Fruit Co., one of the country’s largest apple producers. Nearly four years
later, Abarca’s story was the subject of a federal court case testing whether the owners of Evans Fruit looked the other way as their workers
claimed they were subjected to repeated sexual violence and harassment by an orchard foreman and crew bosses. It was a rare public
accusation for an immigrant, many of whom fear retaliation and deportation if they speak up. Abarca
was testifying in only the
second case of a farmworker claiming sexual harassment to reach a federal court trial. Although the
exact scope of sexual violence and harassment against agricultural workers is impossible to pinpoint, an
investigation by The Center for Investigative Reporting and the Investigative Reporting Program at the
UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism reveals persistent peril for women working in the food
industry. An estimated 560,000 women work on U.S. farms. In partnership with FRONTLINE and Univision, CIR and
IRP spent nearly a year reviewing thousands of pages of documents and crisscrossing the nation – from
the tightly ordered orchards of the Yakima Valley to the leafy tomato fields of southern Florida – to hear
workers’ stories of sexual assault. Hundreds of female agricultural workers have complained to the
federal government about being raped and assaulted, verbally and physically harassed on the job, while
law enforcement has done almost nothing to prosecute potential crimes. In virtually all of the cases reviewed, the
alleged perpetrators held positions of power over the women. Despite the accusations, these supervisors have remained
on the job for years without fear of arrest. At the trial, Abarca was among more than a dozen women who had accused a
foreman, Juan Marin, and a handful of crew leaders at Evans Fruit of sexually assaulting or harassing them. For her part, Abarca said she had
been topping off bins with just-picked apples when the foreman called to her from his pickup. He told her to get in the truck, she testified.
Marin said he never sexually assaulted or harassed Abarca or any of the other women, and he has not been arrested or prosecuted in criminal
court for the allegations. At a federal civil trial this year, a jury found that whatever had happened at Evans Fruit, it did not create a sexually
hostile work environment, which had to be established before the company could be held liable. Government attorneys who prosecuted the
civil case have requested a new trial. In court filings, they called the verdict “unmoored from the actual evidence.
Impacts – Slavery
Any instance of slavery must be rejected
Sage & Kasten 8 (Jesse Sage and Liora Kasten are directors of the American Anti-Slavery Group
Enslaved: True Stories of Modern Day Slavery) LShen
This collection concludes with an unusual twist: the narrative of a slaw owner. Abdel Nasser Ould Yessa,
our colleague for over five years, is the foreign secretary of the Mauritanian anti-slavery group S.O.S.
Slaves. He is also a former master, having been born into an elite clan of Mauritanian Arabo-Berbers
who owned hundreds of black slaves. As Yessa recounts, he grew up surrounded by slaves, who existed
to attend to his every need. His narrative describes Mauritania’s unusal system of chattel slavery, but
also the moment that sparked his conversion from slave owner to abolitionist. Yessa’s unusual
perspective reveals the human complexity of contemporary slavery, particularly in a society in which
servitude is accepted as an established institution. His narrative of personal rebellion and ethical
enlightenment sheds new light on the position of the slaveholder without drawing moral equivalents
between the shareholder and the slave, as Yessa himself comes to define slavery as immoral and
utterly unacceptable.
Impacts – Dehumanization
Dehumanization outweighs nuclear war
Berube 97 (Berube, David. Professor. English. University of South Carolina. “Nanotechnological
Prolongevity: The Down Side.” 1997. http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm.)
Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview
smacks of eugenics and Nazi racial science. This would involve valuing people as means. Moreover, there
would always be a superhuman more super than the current ones, humans would never be able to
escape their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This means-ends dispute is at the
core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive
toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its
potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that
reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the
genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and
dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson,
1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had
on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would
be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly
inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is
nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they
become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once
justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful
weapon.
Reject dehumanization – causes violence and genocide
Moshman 07 (David, professor of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska, “Us and
Them: Identity and Genocide”, 1-1-07,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=edpsychpapers)
The language of dehumanization is extensive. Members of dehumanized groups have been variously
portrayed and seen as weeds, rats, vermin, dogs, cows, viruses, maggots, microbes, parasites, plague,
pests, snakes, spiders, lice, locusts, cockroaches, cancerous cells, and malignant tumors. Less
biologically, they have been portrayed and seen as heretics, heathens, infidels, barbarians, savages,
subversives, or terrorists. And then there are the many specialized dehumanizing labels and stereotypes
for specific groups around the world. What all of these conceptualizations have in common is that they
restrict the moral universe to “us.” “We” are moral individuals who acknowledge and respect our
obligations to each other. “They” are not just different but are not fully persons at all and thus not
among those to whom our moral obligations extend: There can be no moral obligation to cockroaches,
whether they are literally insects or the equally contemptible Tutsi. We have no moral obligation to the
welfare of a cancer, maggot, or parasite eating away at the body politic. We need not respect the
human rights of lice infesting our hair, weeds overwhelming our gardens, or vermin invading our homes.
We cannot share a common moral ground with heretics, heathens, or infidels who deny (what we see
as) the very basis for morality. There is no moral limit on what can be done to (those who have been
labeled) savages, subversives, or terrorists. Dehumanization reinforces and extends dichotomization. If
“they” are something other than human, then they cannot share interests, values, or commitments with
“us.” Our own identities are diverse enough to affirm our individual humanity but converge with regard
to whatever it is we see as the fundamental difference between any of us and any of them. That
difference is so fundamental, in fact, that our moral obligations to others, which are of course
obligations to other people, are not obligations to “them.” Thus we draw a moral circle around what we
construe to be “us,” with a shared understanding of who lies within that circle, and who lies outside it
(Brewer, 2001; Staub, 2001; Woolf & Hulsizer, 2005). Our moral obligations are obligations to each other
and to our collective identity. This need not lead to action against “them,” provided we perceive them as
keeping in their place and meeting what we perceive as our legitimate expectations. But human groups
often get in each other’s way and fail to meet each other’s expectations. Groups often perceive each
other as threatening, whether the threat is genuine or not. Under these circumstances we may come to
feel morally obligated to join together against those who threaten or impede us, and do what must be
done. If we and they are evenly matched, the result may be war. If not, it may be genocide.
Dehumanization is a d rule – key to understanding the plight of the exploited
OSCE 10 (Organization for Security and Co-operation, “COMBATING TRAFFICKING AS MODERN-DAY
SLAVERY: A MATTER OF RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND SECURITY”, OSCE, 2010,
http://www.osce.org/cthb/74730)
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the OSCE participating States have a decisive role in stepping up
national and regional efforts in the fight against trafficking in human beings. Our future common
commitment should start from acknowledging that trafficking in human beings exists as a widespread
form of modern-day slavery and a component of illegal markets generated by organized crime. This
situation requires a proactive approach aimed at simultaneously supporting and empowering trafficked
persons in their aspiration to take their lives and their destinies into their own hands; stepping up the
criminal justice response; and detecting emerging threats for security at the global and regional levels.
To this end, we need strong political will, adequate human and financial resources and concrete action
on the ground. This is our common challenge for the coming years and we appeal to all countries of the
OSCE region to take action to forge their cultural, social, political and legislative environment for a new
understanding of trafficking in human beings as well as an understanding of the plight of trafficked
persons with a view to promoting solidarity and a humane attitude towards the victims. Our common
and first challenge is to protect their rights, freedoms and human dignity.
AT: Portability Solves
Slavery occurs even with portability – regulations not enforced and can’t find new jobs
Mitchell 5-9-13
Latin American reporter for Public Radio International with a B.A. in History from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Chip Mitchell “Proposed visa could tie more foreigners to abusive employers
WBEZ” http://www.guestworkeralliance.org/2013/05/proposed-visa-could-tie-more-foreigners-toabusive-employers-wbez-5913/
Supporters of a proposed visa for low-skilled, nonseasonal laborers say it would break the mold for U.S.
guest-worker programs. They point out that the visa, part of a sweeping immigration bill that a Senate
committee took up Thursday, would allow foreigners to switch employers and would provide a path to
citizenship. But a WBEZ examination of the legislation suggests that the W Visa could, in practice, tether
the foreigners to potentially abusive bosses and would not provide any guarantee of a future in the
country. The program, developed in talks between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO,
would set up a legal mechanism for bringing in as many as 200,000 foreigners a year to worksites that
could range from meatpacking plants to nursing homes. Business groups behind the plan say it would
help provide a “future flow” of legal workers into positions that Americans don’t want. The AFL-CIO, the
nation’s largest labor federation, agreed to help formulate the W Visa as part of the proposed
immigration overhaul, which would provide legal status to millions of low-skilled workers who lack
authorization to be in the country. The federation negotiated despite viewing guest-worker programs as
a drag on wages. For W Visa holders, the AFL-CIO managed to insert safeguards. The foreigners would
have whistleblower protections and the employers would be subject to all labor laws. Theoretically the
workers would get overtime pay, safety gear, lunch breaks and so on. The practical question is whether
the W Visa holders would have the freedom to speak up for such rights. Saket Soni, executive director of
the New Orleans-based National Guestworker Alliance, points out that existing guest-worker programs
tie the foreigners to their employer. “If they complain about working conditions or organize, there is a
readymade retaliation button,” Soni said. “Employers can simply terminate a worker and deport their
problem because, once they’re fired, those workers are deportable.” The groups behind the W Visa say
the program would be different. They point to a “portability” provision that would allow the foreigners
to switch employers. “Portability is, really, the foundation of all labor rights,” said Tamar Jacoby,
president and CEO of a pro-business group called ImmigrationWorks USA. “If you want to ask for better
wages or better conditions or better anything, your leverage comes from being able to say, ‘I’m leaving.’
” But there’s some fine print. The Senate bill, as it stands, would require unemployed W Visa holders to
find a job within 60 days. And they could not apply just anywhere. They would have to work for another
employer registered in the program. The search for such an employer could be daunting. Few of the
workers would speak English well and know their way around. “Sixty days to find a job these days is
pretty challenging,” Soni said, even for workers born and raised in the United States.
AT: Regulations Solves
Regulatory guest worker programs are impossible—employers and congress make
new restrictions unattainable
Bauer et. al 13 (Mary Bauer is the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center; JD and Skadden Fellow
@ UVA Law; College of William & Mary // ‘Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States’
http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publication/SPLC-Close-to-Slavery-2013.pdf) L
Shen
In the past several years, the DOL has proposed two sets of regulations to better protect non-agricultural H-2
workers – one related to wage rate guarantees and one more comprehensive set of regulations. These
regulations also would better protect the jobs and wages of U.S. workers. Unfortunately for workers, neither set of
regulations has gone into effect; employers have filed multiple lawsuits challenging them, and Congress has
effectively blocked implementation of the new wage regulations. For workers, then, the abuses continue
unabated. It is virtually impossible to create a guestworker program for low-wage workers that does
not involve systemic abuse . The H-2 guestworker program should not be expanded in the name of immigration
reform and should not be the model for the future flow of workers to this country. If the current H-2 program is
allowed to continue, it should be completely overhauled. Recommendations for doing so appear at the end of this report.
Past efforts to regulate abuses have all failed
Bauer et. al 13 (Mary Bauer is the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center; JD and Skadden
Fellow @ UVA Law; College of William & Mary // ‘Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United
States’ http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publication/SPLC-Close-to-Slavery2013.pdf) LShen
Recognizing these problems, the DoL has attempted to better regulate – though not prohibit – the
involvement of job contractors in the h-2A and h-2B programs in recent years. Unfortunately, these
efforts have either fallen short or been defeated by employer challenges. In 2010, the DoL enacted new
regulations that require farm labor contractors to list the employers that will actually be using the labor
on their application for the temporary labor.69 The regulations also require labor contractors that apply
for h-2A workers to post a bond. In theory, these measures should prevent sham companies with no
assets from obtaining h-2A workers and hiring out their labor. In practice, however, farmworker
advocates report that labor contractors are part 8 • lack of government enforcement 29 circumventing
these protections by supplying fraudulent information to the DoL, including claims that they are growers
or employers, to avoid the bond requirement. under the current h-2B regulations, job contractors may
petition for h-2B workers by demonstrating that the ultimate employer, rather than the contractor, is
experiencing a temporary labor shortage. The DoL has attempted to change this practice by proposing
regulations that require job contractors to establish their own temporary labor shortage and to file
applications jointly with their employer-clients as a pre-condition of applying for h-2B workers. These
regulations have been blocked, however, by employer-driven legal challenges.
Employers are willing to overcome legal and moral hurdles to take advantage of guest
workers
Bauer et. al 13 (Mary Bauer is the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center; JD and Skadden
Fellow @ UVA Law; College of William & Mary // ‘Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United
States’ http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publication/SPLC-Close-to-Slavery2013.pdf) LShen
It often begins even before guestworkers are hired and is intended to ensure that u.S. workers are
effectively locked out of the job. employers may bring in guestworkers only if u.S. workers are
unavailable.77 As a result, the DoL requires employers to make an effort to recruit u.S. workers before it
will approve their application for guestworkers. But because many h-2 employers simply prefer
vulnerable foreign workers over domestic workers, employers often engage in discriminatory tactics to
weed out u.S. workers. For example, during an investigation into illegal or fraudulent activities within
the h-2B visa program, the u.S. Government Accountability office found that some employers
“preferentially hired h-2B employees over American workers in violation of federal law.” undercover
investigators captured recruiters suggesting tactics that employers could use to discourage u.S.
applicants, such as requiring them to demonstrate their ability to run around carrying a 50-pound bag,
scheduling interviews before 7 a.m., and requiring drug testing prior to interviews.78 one recent case
against a large agricultural grower further illustrates how employers discriminate against u.S. workers.
After receiving complaints from dozens of u.S. farmworkers, the equal employment opportunity office
(eeoC) filed charges against the agricultural company hamilton Growers, Inc. (d/b/a Southern valley Fruit
and vegetable, Inc.) in 2011 alleging that the grower discriminated against more than 600 u.S. workers
based on race and national origin. over the course of three years, the grower fired virtually all of its u.S.
employees while continuing to bring in Mexican h-2A workers. The eeoC alleged that the termination of
at least 16 African Americans “was coupled with race-based comments by a management official.” The
grower also subjected u.S. workers to disparate working terms and conditions, giving them fewer hours
or denying them work when guestworkers were allowed to continue working. upon reaching a
settlement in December 2012, u.S. workers succeeded in recovering $500,000 in back wages and
damages.79 employers also routinely engage in discriminatory practices when it comes to hiring
guestworkers. In fact, one federal appellate court has placed its stamp of approval upon such
discrimination. In Reyes-Gaona v. NCGA,80 the 4th u.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that even explicit
age discrimination in hiring h-2A workers was not unlawful. In that case, there was little dispute that the
recruiter, Del-Al Associates, which recruited thousands of guestworkers to the united States, told Luis
reyes-Gaona, who applied in Mexico to be an h-2A worker in 32 close to slavery: guestworker
programs in the united states north Carolina, that it was the policy of the north Carolina Growers
Association (nCGA), for whom Del Al was recruiting, that nCGA would not accept new employees over
the age of 40. The court found that because this choice had occurred outside the territory of the united
States, it was not actionable under the Age Discrimination in employment Act. Although it is possible
that other courts will reach a different conclusion on this issue, there is little doubt that such
discrimination is pervasive.81 Indeed, the ability to choose the exact characteristics of a worker (male,
age 25-40, Mexican, etc.) is one of the very factors that make guestworker programs attractive to
employers.
Agricultural exceptionalism blocks enforcement of regulations
Hansen 13 (Elise Hansen, Johnson scholar @ Washington & Lee, StudiedThe Exploitation of Legal,
news director at On Poverty ‘Temporary Workers in the United States’
http://www.wlu.edu/documents/shepherd/academics/2013.Capstone.Hansen.pdf
) LShen
Exploitation has trailed the agricultural industry since the creation of large, specialized farms in the
1800s, and agricultural exceptionalism, insufficient legal protections for workers, and negligence in
regulation enforcement are all to blame.1 “Agricultural exceptionalism” refers to the privileged
relationship that farm operators have historically enjoyed with government officials. It was born out of a
variety of characteristics 1 The history of non-agricultural, seasonal work is diverse and not always
thoroughly documented, so this paper will focus on the history of seasonal work in the agricultural
industry.5 specific to the agricultural industry in the 1800s, in particular the industry’s unusual labor
needs and its economic power. Agriculture and other seasonal industries had rather exceptional labor
needs, and used their economic power to secure favorable policies from Congress. Congress provided
the immigration policies that supply farmowners’ workforce and removed the rights that would make
their employment more expensive. Abysmal work conditions even today are in part the result of
Congress perpetuating the near-total power of the employer over employees.
AT: It’s Good For The Workers
The seemingly ‘mutually beneficial’ guest worker relationship is one sided and is
distorted and reductionist
Wise et. al 13 (Raúl Delgado Wise is the President of the International Network on Migration and
Development; UNESCO Chair on Migration and Professor of the Doctoral Program in Develop Studies @
University of Zacatecas ‘Reframing the Debate on Migration, Development and Human Rights’ Published
on May 14th, 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/psp.1783/asset/psp1783.pdf?v=1&t=hixl31th&s=224cacb90c7f4f4111d4
d22c5d5b44010e303fb9 ) LShen
The relationship between migration, development, and human rights is a topic of growing interest
among international organisations, academics, and civil society organisations. To varying degrees,
international organisations such as the World Bank and the International Organization for Migration see
remittances as an essential tool in the development of migrant-sending, underdeveloped countries.
They also envisage international migration management as a core element in the design and
implementation of migration policies that are apparently beneficial for all parties. We argue that this
perspective, which has dominated the academic and policy agendas, is essentially onesided, decontextualised, reductionist, and misleading. It overlooks the realm of neoliberal globalisation and
unequal development in which contemporary migration is embedded. It also disregards human and
labour rights as central and intrinsic elements of coherent migration and development policies, as well
as the exploitation, social exclusion, human insecurity, and criminalisation suffered by international
migrants. In addition, it masks most of the fundamental contributions made by migrants to the
destination countries and ignores the costs of migration for the countries of origin; costs that go far
beyond the overemphasised ‘positive’ impact of remittances. The purpose of this article is to provide
some key elements for reframing the debate on migration, development, and human rights with
particular emphasis on the promotion of a comprehensive, inclusive, and human-centred alternative
agenda.
Mexican Labor Drain DA
1NC Mexican Labor Drain DA
Migration is moving back to Mexico – aging and economic growth
Papademetriou 12 (DemetriosG. Papademetriou, Presidentofthe Migration Policy Institute, 9/12/12,
“Migration Meets Slow Growth”,
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/09/papademe.htm#author)
The United States’ long-standing argument with Mexico over illegal migration is on the wane. Net
migration from Mexico is near zero and apprehensions of illegal immigrants (many non-Mexican) at the U.S.
southern border are at levels last seen in 1970 (U.S. Border Patrol, n.d.).¶ Massive U.S. investments in border controls,
aggressive interior enforcement measures, a Mexican economy that has been growing much faster than
the U.S. economy since 2010, and ever-deeper cooperation with the United States on the issue explain a
good part of the decline in illegal migration. But even more important is that a sustained decline in
Mexican fertility means that fewer new Mexican workers are entering the labor force each year at the same
time that job opportunities in the United States are much lower as a result of the ongoing economic distress.¶ The aftermath of the Great
Recession has not only affected immigration between the United States and Mexico.
Immigrants from lower- and middleincome countries have been particularly vulnerable to the destruction of jobs in most advanced
economies. Migration—which has been both driving force and byproduct of globalization and the everincreasing interconnectedness it fuels—now comes face to face with the global crisis.¶ The crisis may
have ended a period in which the benefits of openness, including large-scale immigration, were embraced with
relatively few questions across advanced economies. In the years ahead, immigration is likely to become more
selective, and lower-skilled migrants are likely to be less welcome—at least as prospective permanent residents, let
alone as fellow citizens
American agricultural visa programs drastically reduce the workforce in Mexico—SAW
proves
(note: SAW is the Special Agricultural Worker program [mirrors guest worker programs] that allowed agricultural workers from
out of the country to attain temporary residence in the U.S.)
Martin 5 (Phillip Martin is the Chair of the Comparative Immigration and Integration at UC Davis; PhD @ University of
Wisconsin-Madison ‘NAFTA and Mexico-US Migration’ Published on December 16th, 2005
giannini.ucop.edu/Mex_USMigration.pdf) LShen
A million Mexican men eventually became US immigrants under the SAW program, equivalent to a sixth
of the adult men in rural Mexico in the mid- 1980s. Their families were deliberately excluded from
legalization, under the theory that rural Mexican men simply wanted to commute to seasonal US farm
jobs from homes in Mexico. Many SAWs soon found nonfarm jobs and settled in US cities with their
families, so that outlays for education, health, and other public services rose
Mexican workforce key to biofuels – residue and supply
UNCTAD 13 (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 7/9/13, “Mexico’s Agriculture
Development: Perspective and Outlook”, 157-159)
Estimations are conservative, as only industrial-phase residues were considered. This approach was used
due to at least three reasons: the larger residue-density at industrial / processing plants; the oftenpolluting characteristic of residue flows at processing sites (e.g. water contamination from untreated
manure in confined livestock production); and the role played by harvest-phase residues (straw) in soil
cover, fertilization and protection against erosion. Results can be seen in Table IV.3. Results are
compatible with other studies assessing the residue-to-biofuels potential in Mexico (IEA, 2010; REMBIO,
2011).¶ Residues from agricultural sectors beyond the thirteen products of interest were not considered
in the assessment. In addition to that, the calculations also did not consider other large feedstock bases
such as forestry residues and solid municipal waste. It is safe to assume that overall potentials would be
much greater when also considering these mentioned residues from other agricultural products in
Mexico.215¶ Estimation results should be taken with caution, since results depend on assumptions
which may not be uniform for the total production of the products analyzed. The adopted conversion
factors between biomass residues and their energy potentials, while based on specialized sources, are
always subject to debate and could vary depending on regional characteristics of crops and livestock
produced. Additionally, as in any theoretical potential, the capacity to deliver the potentials identified
ultimately depends on various aspects of technological capacity, agricultural market dynamics,
investment and conducive policy frameworks for bioenergy development.¶ The estimations did not
consider agricultural residues which have a dual use as food, nor residues from harvest-phase of crops
(which serve as a natural fertilizer to the fields). Figures in Table IV.3 also did not consider resources
from forestry or municipal waste. Even so, the survey found large biofuel and bioelectricity production
potentials based on low-cost agricultural residues for the 13 products analyzed in the country.¶ The
production of biofuels from agricultural residues could also boost income in rural areas. By considering
only residues from the 13 agricultural products analyzed, the production of bioelectricity, bioethanol
and biodiesel could bring between USD 2.2 and 4.1 billion in additional revenue for Mexican agriculture.
Biogas potentials could add another USD 234 million in revenue.¶ Based on the 13 products surveyed,
bioelectricity could produce 10.55 per cent of the yearly national electricity consumption in Mexico;
second generation bioethanol could replace 6.33 per cent of gasoline used (in energy terms); biomassto-liquid biodiesel could replace 23.22 per cent of diesel demand and biogas could make up to 14.03 per
cent of natural gas demand in the country.¶ Biofuels from residues could also deliver substantial
employment to Mexican agriculture. Bioelectricity from agricultural residues could add over 39.000 new
jobs (direct and indirect), bioethanol over 49.400 jobs; biodiesel 71.700 jobs and biogas 4.000 jobs.
Those jobs would have better wages and demand higher qualification than the current average in
Mexican¶ agriculture. While the average revenue per job created in the entire Mexican agricultural
sector is USD 9.020 per person employed, equivalent in bioenergy has been estimated to average USD
57.400 per employee (Bacon and Kojima, 2011).¶ Before becoming reality, those potentials depend on
the establishment of conducive frameworks to accelerate technology development and demand for
biofuels produced from residues. Comprehensive policy frameworks to bring down costs and investment
risks, as well as research and deployment of second generation biofuel technologies, either indigenously
or in cooperation with other countries, will be critical for the realization of those potentials. Policy
efforts should also go beyond the 13 products of interest, targeting all agricultural residues, as well as
forestry products and municipal waste.
Biofuels key to solve warming
Filho and Macedo 10 (Luiz, visiting researcher with the Institute for Advanced Studies of the
University of São Paulo. He has a degree in Electronic Engineering from the Aeronautics Technology
Institute (ITA), São José dos Campos, Brazil, and a doctoral degree from the University of Colorado,
Boulder, U.S.A. and Dr. Isaias, Mechanical Engineer from Brazil's Aeronautical Institute, 2010,
“Contribution of Ethanol to Climate Change,”
http://sugarcane.org/resourcelibrary/books/Contribution%20of%20Ethanol%20to%20Climate%20Chang
e%201.pdf)
Biofuels; Ethanol in Brazil and Climate Change¶ Global studies (Pacala 2004) show that renewable
biofuels are a necessary part of this transformation. It will not be possible to reach the desired goal for
limiting the increase in temperature without a significant increase in the participation of renewable
biofuels in the new energy matrix. It is interesting to consider the impact on global temperature increase
caused by the introduction in Brazil of fuel ethanol to replace gasoline. To do this we must first establish
a baseline. It has been common lo use as a baseline a "business as usual" scenario that corresponds to
what would occur if no action were taken to reduce emissions. This emissions scenario is adopted by the
lPCC and is based on demographic projections, the intensity of energy use and the technology used for
its generation. This is done for the whole world, although it may sometimes be compiled regionally. In
the case of individual projects, such as those in the CDM, the baseline is constructed using an approved
methodology that seeks to establish the most plausible scenario. The "business as usual" (BAU) baseline
scenarios are hypothetical, or counterfactual - future scenarios that could happen, but have not
happened-and therefore are not subject to objective demonstration or verification. Furthermore, these
scenarios lend themselves to manipulation.
Uniqueness – No Migration Now
Migration is moving back to mexico-Middle Class rising and Aging
Wolgin and Garcia 11(Philip E. Wolgin and Ann Garcia, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for
American Progress and Policy analyst at the center for American progress, 8/8/11, “What Changes in
Mexico Mean for U.S. Immigration Policy”,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2011/08/08/10203/what-changes-inmexico-mean-for-u-s-immigration-policy/)
A combination of an aging population and economic growth means there will be fewer Mexicans in a
position to migrate to the United States and more job opportunities within Mexico itself. Even though out-oftouch nativists continue to shout inflamed rhetoric warning of the threat of millions of Mexicans waiting to cross the border to lay waste to the
American Dream, the reality
is that the supply of people looking to leave Mexico is not limitless. All evidence
suggests that Mexico’s demographic and economic shifts will only increase in the future, further
decreasing the pressures to emigrate.¶ These shifts in Mexico will deeply affect the shape of immigration in the United States.
Mexican immigrants comprise close to 60 percent of undocumented immigrants (6.5 million out of 11.2 million) and 30 percent of all
immigrants (11.5 million out of 38.5 million).¶ Here we take a closer look at the changes within Mexico and offer recommendations for
adjusting to a future with far fewer Mexican immigrants seeking to enter the country. ¶ Why immigration from Mexico is declining¶ The aging
population¶ The
bottom line is that changing demographics mean that Mexico will have less surplus
population to send to the United States. One of these changes is that the country’s population is leveling
out. Mexico’s birth rate has been in a freefall since the 1960s when the average Mexican mother gave birth to nearly
seven children over the course of her life. Today that number is down to 2.1 children per woman—just more than the United States’ present
fertility rate of two children per woman. (see Figure 1)¶ The
characteristics of Mexico’s population have changed as the
country has gradually aged. While in the 1960s more than 45 percent of Mexico’s population was under
age 15, by 2009 less than 30 percent of the population was in its childhood years (0 to 14). On the flipside, the
elderly population above 65 has slowly crept up from 3 percent in the 1960s to 6 percent in 2009. (see Figure 2)¶ Mexico’s median age tells a
similar tale. In the 1960s it was only 18 years of age but by 2010 it had risen to 26, suggesting an aging population.¶ What
these shifts
tell us is that soon there will be far fewer people seeking to enter the labor force in Mexico and far more
people leaving it. An important factor in pushing young Mexicans to leave their home country is quickly
evaporating with fewer people competing for jobs.¶ Economic improvements¶ Mexico’s economic fortunes
have increased as its demographics have shifted. Per capita GDP, which hovered close to $6,000 at the
turn of the new millennium, shot up to a high of more than $10,000 by 2008, before the country was hit by the
global economic slump. (see Figure 3)¶ Likewise, the percentage of the population living in poverty—based on the cost to feed themselves and
their families—has fallen significantly since the middle of the decade, from roughly 40 percent between 2002 and 2007 to less than 20 percent
currently. While the official unemployment rate still remains at 5.2 percent, up from 2.6 percent at the turn of the millennium, once
Mexico emerges from the recession, its economy, along with job availability, will only grow.¶ This
economic development, coupled with the demographic changes, increased border security, and the
scarcity of jobs within the United States during the recession, has led to an unprecedented drop in
unauthorized immigration from Mexico. The Pew Hispanic Center reports that the average inflow of undocumented immigrants
from Mexico fell from around 500,000 per year from 2000 to 2005 to only 150,000 per year in 2007 through 2009.¶ Likewise, Figure 4 shows
that the number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico living in the United States began to decline after 2007 following a precipitous
increase at the turn of the century.¶
Migration is moving back to mexico-Nieto
Capobres 13(Kacy Capobres, Reporter for Fox News, 2/26/13, “Mexico’s Strengthening Economy
Could bode well for Immigratoin Reform”,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2013/02/26/mexicos-strengthening-economy-could-bodewell-for-immigration-reform/#ixzz2YYvd6lcI)
Thanks to an improving economy in their country, Mexicans are staying home.¶ A Gallup poll released Monday said just
14 percent of Mexicans say they would emigrate from the country, compared to 21 percent in 2007.¶ In an
interesting twist, the current numbers are almost identical to the 11 percent of Americans who say they would leave the U.S. if given the opportunity.¶ Since taking
office, Mexico's new president, Enrique Peña Nieto,
has made it a point to stress that his country "will work to improve
the quality of life and opportunities in Mexico so that migration is a personal decision and not a
necessity."¶ Due to burgeoning economic opportunities, the United States' largest immigrant group
already has few reasons to cross the border.¶ As the United States continues to struggle to gain economic momentum following the 2008
recession, the Mexican unemployment rate has dropped to just 5 percent. U.S. Hispanics still have one of the highest
unemployment rates in the country, at 9.8 percent. ¶ Antonio Garza, a former U.S .Ambassador to Mexico, says the poll “is a snapshot of a trend that you have seen
in the country over the last several years.”¶ “An expanding middle class in Mexico means more
he said.¶ Mexico’s economic performance is closely linked to the U.S., where it sends almost 80 percent of its exports.¶
people are working here,”
Links – Guest Workers Trade Off
US guest worker programs trade off with Mexican labor—creates dependent networks
Martin 5 (Phillip Martin is the Chair of the Comparative Immigration and Integration at UC Davis; PhD @ University of
Wisconsin-Madison ‘NAFTA and Mexico-US Migration’ Published on December 16th, 2005
giannini.ucop.edu/Mex_USMigration.pdf) Lshen
The roots of Mexico-US labor migration lie in the US-government approved recruitment of about five
million Mexican workers between 1917 and 1921 and again between 1942 and 1964, as well as fast labor force and slow and uneven
job growth in Mexico, especially since the 1980s. The result of these guest worker programs and emigration pressure
was distortion and dependence: some US farmers made investment decisions that assumed there
would be a continued influx of Mexican workers , and some Mexicans became dependent on US jobs
and earnings. A combination of increased demand-pull pressures in the US, especially during the job booms of the late
1980s and late 1990s, and increased supply-push pressure in Mexico, especially after economic crises in the mid-1980s and
mid- 1990s, helped to diffuse the origins and destinations of Mexican migrants—more are coming from
southern and urban Mexico, and more are going into farm and nonfarm jobs outside the western states.
The 2004 US labor force of 148 million included 19 million Hispanics (13 percent), with perhaps 40 percent born in Mexico. The Hispanic
share of net US labor force growth over the past decade, 44 percent, is three times the Hispanic share of
the labor force.1 Mexico-US trade has increased as a result of NAFTA, but the rate of increase in Mexico-US migration has been even
faster.
Guest worker programs promote migration
Tsuda 8 (Takeyuki Tsuda—PhD in anthropology @ UC Berkeley; Associate director of Immigration Studies @ UC San Diego;
Professor at the School of evolution and social change @ ASU Bringing Humanity Back into International Migration:
Anthropological Contributions
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1525/city.2007.19.1.19/asset/city.2007.19.1.19.pdf?v=1&t=hj0cayfg&s=2eb47b16fcdf8
f39bd60596babc54bb03b7f9b92) LShen
Philip Martin offers
an economic means to deal with such problems of global labor migration by proposing a
of managing labor migration through improved guest worker programs that will reduce its negative
economic and human rights consequences. Using the terminology Martin adopts in his paper, guest worker programs have
become very popular in advanced industrialized countries because they are in principle designed to promote
“virtuous” migratory cycles through the “three Rs” by recruiting temporary migrant laborers for certain
industrial sectors with labor shortages, allowing them to benefit economically by sending remittances,
and then returning them to their countries of origin when they are no longer needed through a rotation
system. However, as Martin’s global survey of guest worker programs in his book demonstrates, most of them have set off vicious cycles by
better system
encouraging further migration, subjecting migrant workers to economic exploitation and human rights abuses, and promoting their permanent
settlement.
Guest worker programs catalyzes chains of migration
Rodriguez 2 (Esmeralda Rodriguez is a fellow at the Center for International Studies ‘Patterns of Mexican Migration to the
United States’ http://www1.appstate.edu/~stefanov/proceedings/rodriguez.htm ) LShen
In addition to the economic factors, Richard Mines and Douglas Massey (1985) believe that
to understand the "phenomenon of
international migration" one must understand how immigrants form ties that develop and change over
time (Mines and Massey 1985, 104). This change helps make migration a social process. Sociologists have found that the
process begins when a country, such as the U.S. encourages or recruits from labor surplus countries such as
Mexico through guest worker programs. The process evolves because the social and economic situations of migrants change
over time. For example, the braceros closer to theE border could afford to move back and forth daily across the border without an increasing
expense burden. However, as migrants began to move toward the Pacific North, for example, it was no longer feasible to travel as often to see
their family. Thus, they began the process of commuting seasonally to their country of origin. According to Mines and Massey and Mines (1985)
"the cost and benefits of migration become cleared and others are induced to move.the cost drops,
slowly at first and then dramatically, as friend and relatives acquire contacts and knowledge in the
receiving society. They also point out that some migrants choose to settle in a particular places and create a
"ready made support network for further migration" (Massey and Mines 1985, 105) The characteristics that influence
individuals to migrate depend on their own characteristics and vary from person to person and place to place. These differences may lie in the
different levels of education, work history, and prior migration experiences. In addition, when deciding whether the risks, costs, and distance of
migrating are beneficial or not, the individual must also take into consideration characteristics in the place of origin that also influence
migration such as levels employment/unemployment ages, speed of technological changes, economic and political situations, socio-economic
status, social networks, and local opportunities (Kanaiaupuni 2000). Studies find that people with a better economic situation are less likely to
migrate than are people of lower incomes. However, in
the past few decades there has been a change in the
demographics of the people that migrate as well as an increase in more skilled, urban, and educated
individuals migrating from Mexico to the United States.
US AG workers tradeoff with Mexican ag workers-shrinking labour supply
Carney 13(John Carney, Senior Editor at CNBC.com, 3/12/13,
“What’s Really Behind the Decline in Mexican Farm Workers?”, http://www.cnbc.com/id/100547277)
Tighter U.S. immigration enforcement, as well as brutal cartel-driven violence along the Mexican border,
have deterred many potential workers from attempting to cross.¶ And, amid a rebounding economy in
Mexico, Mexican farms are facing their own labor shortage and have plenty of work to offer at home.¶
The farm lobby and its libertarian allies want you to concentrate on the central reason Hecht offers:
border enforcement and cartel violence. The problem is that the evidence doesn't really support this
view very well. ¶ In a recent post on the Oxford University Press blog, Taylor and co-author Diane
Charlton explain:¶ Tighter border enforcement and drug-related violence along the border may deter
migration, but our analysis suggests that for US agriculture their main effect is largely secondary,
reinforcing a negative trend in rural Mexicans' willingness to do farm work. For example, after the "great
recession" in 2008, the share of Mexican immigrants working in agriculture decreased more than the
share working in non-agriculture. The recession had a large negative impact on construction and service
jobs in the non-farm sector while labor demand in the farm sector remained steady and commodity
prices rose. If unemployed workers in the non-farm sector sought jobs on US farms during the recession,
then one might expect the supply of agricultural labor to increase. Data show that some immigrants did
shift from non-farm to farm work after the recession, but more shifted from farm to non-farm in the US.
If the decrease in immigration in recent years were the result of increases in border patrol or drugrelated violence, then the decrease in farm labor supply should be similar to the decrease in non-farm
labor supply, but the data show the opposite.¶ In other words, the supply of farm labor is shrinking
faster than the supply of non-farm labor. Which means that a good deal of the supply problem is not
about the borders. Rather, it's competition from better jobs.¶ This isn't confined to Mexicans or
Mexican-Americans in California. It's happening in Mexico, too.¶ "Mexico is following the pattern of
countries around the world: as its income rises, workers shift out of farm work into other sectors.
Mexico's per-capita income, adjusted for the cost of living, now exceeds $15,000 per year. Growth in
Mexico's non-agricultural employment began before the recession and persists now. As non-farm
opportunities increase, the Mexican workforce will continue moving out of agriculture," Taylor and
Charlton write.¶ So what should farms do to attract labor?¶ "US farmers will need to offer higher wages
to induce new workers to migrate northward to US farm jobs," write Taylor and Charlton.¶ But the farm
lobby has another idea. Instead of paying the workers larger shares of farm revenues, they want to pay
them with citizenship.¶ "Farm lobbyists and elected officials are discussing remedies that include
granting legal status to more than 1 million undocumented farmworkers in the United States and
establishing an expanded guest worker visa program for agriculture to ensure a steady supply of
laborers," Hecht reports.¶ From the point of view of farm owners, the nice thing about granting legal
residency to farm workers is that they get to increase the value of a laborer's compensation without
increasing what the farm owner has to pay. The farm profits stay private but the labor costs are
socialized.¶ Expanding the guest worker visa program is great for farmers because it effectively blocks
out non-farm competition for these workers. In fact, one of the farm lobby groups is proposing requiring
multiyear contracts in exchange for legal residency. They don't have to worry about workers being lured
away by factories or retail outlets or construction jobs because the terms of their visa lock them in to
farm work. ¶ In short, the farm lobby's response to increased competition for Mexican labor is to pay
workers with U.S. citizenship and prevent other businesses from competing for these workers. Which
makes perfect sense. Why improve working conditions or pay workers competitive wages when you can
just get the government to bail out your noncompetitive compensation?
Links – Hurts Mexican Ag
Aff pulls agricultural workers from Mexico – displaces small Mexican farmers and net
increases illegal immigration
Zabin and Hughes ‘95 Carol Zabin, PhD and researcher in labor economics, and Sallie Hughes,
researcher in Latin American political communication; “Economic Integration and Labor Flows: Stage
Migration in Farm Labor Markets in Mexico and the United States;” 1995; International Migration
Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 395-422, The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.;
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2546787 JSTOR RMJ
This article examines a case study that sheds light on the potential impact of NAFTA on migration of workers in the agricultural sector. Mexican
agriculture is a pivotal sector in the migration debate because the liberalization of corn prices is expected to result
in the displacement of at least several hundred thousand small farmers, according to estimates provided
by a number of studies (Hinojosa-Ojeda and Robinson, 1992; Levy and van Wijnbergen, 1991). At the same time, export horticulture is a
sector that is expected to grow and could thereby absorb displaced small-scale corn producers. However, new jobs in
export agriculture can also increase the number of people at risk of migrating to the United States from
southern Mexico by providing them with a stopover place in northern Mexico and lowering the costs
and risks of migration to the United States.] An analysis of the effects of growth of agro-export production on migration over the last fifteen years
can shed light on the future effects of NAFTA because economic integration to a large degree has already taken place. Between 1986 and 1991, U.S.-Mexico trade
almost doubled as Salinas accelerated free-trade policies begun when Mexico joined the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1992). Horticultural exports to the United States doubled between 1980 and 1990 (Runsten and Young, 1992) as a consequence of U.S. investment and technology
transfer, the incorpora? tion of Mexican exports into U.S. marketing systems, and growth in U.S. demand (Cook, 1992). Over the last ten years, migration
linkages between rural Mexican villages and U.S. job sites have also matured and expanded. The 1986 U.S.
immigra tion law reforms both failed to stem illegal Mexican migration (Bustamante, 1989; Donato et al, 1992) and increased the
number of legal Mexican migrants in the United States. More family migration, increased settlement, and
dispersal throughout U.S. agriculture and into other economic sectors have supplemented the
traditional seasonal migration of single males to work in U.S. labor-intensive horticulture production
(Massey etal, 1987; Martin, 1992; Cornelius, 1992). As the flows of investment and trade in agriculture increased, historical patterns of Mexico-U.S. migration of
agricultural workers have also changed. 'Stage'
migration, with the migrant trail beginning in southern Mexico, stopping temporarily
in commercial Mexican agricultural venues, and continuing into the United States is an important new
outcome of the growth of commer? cial agro-export zones in northwest Mexico. This article presents evidence that growth in employment in
export agricul? ture has increased stage or 'stepwise' migration to the United States. This trend suggests that an
expansion of agro-export production induced by NAFTA is likely to increase the flow of stage migrants, primarily
because of the predicted displacement of large numbers of small corn producers in the central and
southern part of the country.2 The proposition that expanded employment in export agriculture will lead to greater U.S. migration is examined
using a case study of indigenous migrants from Oaxaca who work in labor-intensive horticultural production in both Baja California, Mexico, and the U.S. State of
California.
Increased immigration destroys rural Mexican agriculture – forces reliance on
remittances and they give up on farms
Bustamante et al. ’92 “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Labor Market Interdependence;” ed. Jorge A.
Bustamante, prof. Sociology @ Notre Dame, Clark Winton Reynolds, Raúl Andrés Hinojosa Ojeda; 1992;
Stanford Univ. Press http://books.google.com/books?id=QcSrAAAAIAAJ RMJ
Recent data suggest that an increasingly large proportion of Mexican migrants to this country, both documented and
undocumented, are staying longer and appear to be settling here. This trend is a function of both the Mexican economic crisis
and the rising demand for low-wage labor in the U.S. economy. Migrants to San Diego, Chavez reveals, base their
decisions to enter the community and to settle there on the availability of employment; more jobs are available
for longer-term immigrants. Furthermore, San Diego immigrants are overwhelmingly young and have young children, many of whom
are born in the United States. Their households often contain members who are not part of the immediate family, and the number of workers
per household is higher than among documented immigrants. For this young community, education and child and maternal health care are
primary concerns, and the immigrants avail themselves of local resources – a fact not fully considered by those studying social services and
social integration. According to Chávez, “The long-term impact of immigration on the local community will depend on the larger society’s
resolution [of] this question of social integration. The price the local community pays for paradise could pale in comparison to future costs,
should society fail to plan for the eventual integration of long-term undocumented residents and their families.” Rafael Alarcón
explores
the concept of norteñizacíon – the way in which Mexican migration to the United States has caused
certain areas of Mexico to become dependent on U.S. labor markets. These dependent areas, usually
socially cohesive rural communities, have in effect specialized in producing international migrant
workers. This has led to profound transformations in the economic, political, familial and cultural realms.
Alcarón examines the broad impact of this process on the town of Chavinda, Michoacán, which has a tradition of sending many
of its workers to the United States. Over one-fourth of the adult males of Chavinda reported having
worked in the United States sometime between 1980 and 1982, and over half had worked in the United
States at some point in their lives. He found that from March to November each year, a significant
proportion of the young adult male population leaves the town for the United States. As a result, older
men and children have played an increasingly important role in the town’s agricultural sector. Women,
however, have not become further involved outside the home. Chavindans use their U.S.-earned income primarily for
subsistence as well as for home purchase and improvement. The strong demand for housing by returned migrants has
sparked land speculation and rapidly rising housing prices as well as a tendency toward urban-type
modernization. According to Alarcón, for many peasant families, migration to the north actually subsidizes their desire to remain tied to
their land. However the savings accumulated from work in the United States are seldom sufficient to permit a
peasant family to initiate empresarial agricultural production, especially given the poor quality of local
resources; rather, maintaining their higher standard of living while retaining residences in the rural community requires a perpetuation of
the migration process. The norteñizacíon of cultural life in Chavinda should not be confused with North Americanization. Migrants from
Chavinda in the United States are influenced by Chicanos and other Mexicans, but have little direct contact with Anglo culture because of the
social discrimination they experience here. Bernardo González-Aréchiga argues that U.S.
immigration policy has segregated
borderland Mexicans according to their documented or undocumented status. The undocumented in the United
States and Mexico have less mobility and employment opportunities than the documented, and they represent a captive market for commerce
and services on the Mexican side of the border. The documented border population, in contrast, can choose between markets for the purchase
of goods and services, may hold jobs on either side of the border, and are able to participate more freely in the border economy and society.
Economic engagement floods the Mexican market with cheap corn and collapses rural
ag
ISA ’08 International Studies Association, “Uncovering Sites of Global Restructuring: The Case of Rural
Mexican Women;” 2008; publ. ISA Conference Papers; EBSCO RMJ
Processes of global restructuring leading to the integration of developing countries into the global economy
can lead to increased inequality and poverty in these countries. Western subsidies and protectionism,
combined with unequal trade relations within the global economy have undermined the prices of agricultural
produce. In Mexico, forexample, this has led to a wave of cheap, subsidised US maize flooding the domestic
market, making it impossible for Mexican subsistence farmers to compete, and increasing flows of
emigration from rural areas. At the same time, processes of global restructuring have led to increasing
pressure on labour to become more mobile and flexible, which has resulted in growing migration flows
worldwide. Against this backdrop, Mexico has become a major exporter of labour power to the US. Migrants from
rural areas are still mainly men, although more and more women are taking part in this migration process.This contribution looks at the
implications of processes of global restructuring for gender relations in the lives of rural Mexican women who stay behind when their husbands
migrate. Based upon fieldwork research in rural Mexican communities, my contribution illustrates how these women are influenced by, and
drawn into, processes of global restructuring in two ways: indirectly through the migration of their family members, anddirectly through their
participation in 'productive projects' in partnership with migrant women living in the US. ..PAT.
Links – Mexican Economy
Plan affects the Mexican economy
Bustamante et al. ’92 “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Labor Market Interdependence;” ed. Jorge A.
Bustamante, prof. Sociology @ Notre Dame, Clark Winton Reynolds, Raúl Andrés Hinojosa Ojeda; 1992;
Stanford Univ. Press http://books.google.com/books?id=QcSrAAAAIAAJ RMJ
Changes in relative factor prices, such as the cost of farm technology and the wages of immigrant workers in the United
States, therefore affect how the sector will develop within and between Mexico and the United States. The state of California has
a comparative advantage over other regions because of its large landholdings, subsidized irrigation, and access to immigrant-hired farm labor.
Its agricultural exports depend to a large extent on the opportunity cost of such labor, while rising
incomes in Mexico will
increase the demand for food and feed grains from the Midwest of the United States as well as the products
of Western agriculture.
Mexican economy doesn’t determine migration rates
Bustamante et al. ’92 “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Labor Market Interdependence;” ed. Jorge A.
Bustamante, prof. Sociology @ Notre Dame, Clark Winton Reynolds, Raúl Andrés Hinojosa Ojeda; 1992;
Stanford Univ. Press http://books.google.com/books?id=QcSrAAAAIAAJ RMJ
There is a belief, as popular as it is erroneous, that the Mexican economy, expressed in terms of poverty and
unemployment, singlehandedly determines the exodus of migratory workers into the United States. Various
independent researchers have demonstrated that undocumented migrants do not come from the
poorest regions nor from the poorest sectors of Mexico and that the majority of them have jobs in Mexico
before they cross the U.S. border on their way to the United States. Both countries explain the migratory labor phenomenon in terms of
differences in salary: the greater the wage difference, the greater the incentive to look for work in the United States
Links – Rural Economies
Immigration stagnates rural economies
Bustamante et al. ’92 “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Labor Market Interdependence;” ed. Jorge A.
Bustamante, prof. Sociology @ Notre Dame, Clark Winton Reynolds, Raúl Andrés Hinojosa Ojeda; 1992;
Stanford Univ. Press http://books.google.com/books?id=QcSrAAAAIAAJ RMJ – note – from Google books
so parts of paragraphs are cut off by pages not shown in the preview – this card is entirety of p. 317
...gone through an intense monetarization that has led to the destruction or undercutting of craft manufactures. The peasantry requires
currency, and to obtain it, it must sell its labor; thus producing more for the market and less for consumption. Mexico’s
current economic crisis has exacerbated the crisis of rural Mexico since the early 1980s. Unemployment and a falling
standard of living are now generalized among the working population. The concept of norteñizacíon fits within the
analysis of social reproduction that seeks to identify the strategies by which popular sectors seek not only to survive, but to gain higher levels of
wellbeing. The sectors achieve these goals by advantageously exploiting their domestic resources and by inserting these resources into local,
regional, and international markets. Norteñización, which presupposes various degrees of involvement in international migration, lends itself to
a comparative analysis. From a national point of view, western Mexico is the region with the highest level of norteñización. In part this is true
because the labor-recruiting efforts of U.S. railroad companies at the beginning of this century were directed primarily at this region. This helps
to explain why California, apart from the large communities of migrants from the states of Jalisco, Michoacán, and Guanajuato, there are no
important concentrations of migrants from states such as Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, Veracruz, or Chiapas. There are also differing degrees of migratory
activity within western Mexico. For example, communities with similar socioeconomic profiles within traditional sending areas such as the
Zamora Bajio or Los Altos de Jalisco display very different migratory flows. This fact shows the need to pay attention to the particular regional
and local histories of migration. The sociological and anthropological literature offers several works
about communities that
are markedly experiencing processes which parallel those underway in Chavinda such as (1) a growing number of families whose
well-being depends on work in the “north,” (2) dynamic growth or stagnation in the local economy provoked
by migrant remittances (the direction of the economic trend depends on the regional context), (3) predominance of international over
internal migration, (4) social and cultural adaptations to make migration possible, (5) the transformation over time from a
temporary and seasonal migration pattern to...
Immigration policies like the aff uniquely increase migration from rural Mexican
communities
Cornelius ’89 Wayne A. Cornelius, distinguished + emeritus prof. Pol Sci + Mexican Relations @ UC
San Diego; “Impacts of the 1986 US Immigration Law on Emigration from Rural Mexican Sending
Communities;” 1989; Population and Development Review, Vol. 15, No. 4;
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972595 JSTOR RMJ
A greater volume of emigration to the United States from our research communities and similar labor-exporting communities of west-central
Mex- ico probably occurred in 1988 than in any previous year.'3 A large
part of the 1988 migration surge-which included
many first-timers, women, and children-consisted of persons taking advantage of the IRCA-mandated
legalization options, especially the SAW program. In the commnunities that we have studied, 39 percent of all household heads and 41
percent of residents who had migrated to the United States since 1982 acknowledged having relatives who had gone to the United States
principally to legalize their status under one of the IRCA amnesty programs. Now that the application period for the SAW program has closed,
many prospective migrants to the United States-as well as undocumented migrants already working there who did not qualify or apply for the
earlier IRCA amnesty programs-are awaiting implementation of the Replenishment Ag- ricultural Workers (RAW) program authorized by the
1986 immigration law. Under the RAW program, at least 50,000 short-term migrant farmworkers, to be chosen by lottery among the applicants,
may be authorized to work in the United States for the four fiscal years from October 1989 through September 1993, if the federal government
determines that a shortfall in agricultural labor exists.'4 The
legalization programs created by IRCA seem to have
propelled into the migratory stream substantial numbers of Mexicans who had not previ- ously sought
work in the United States. Many of these first-timers probably would have migrated anyway, as undocumented entrants, without the
in- ducement of an opportunity to arreglar papeles (obtain legal entry papers). For others, however, this inducement was both a
necessary and sufficient motive for migration.
Legal immigration policies reduce remittances and hurt Mexican local economies
Cornelius ’89 Wayne A. Cornelius, distinguished + emeritus prof. Pol Sci + Mexican Relations @ UC
San Diego; “Impacts of the 1986 US Immigration Law on Emigration from Rural Mexican Sending
Communities;” 1989; Population and Development Review, Vol. 15, No. 4;
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972595 JSTOR RMJ
Advocates and critics of IRCA alike have postulated a variety of contradictory effects that the law would supposedly have on the economies of
migrant families and their home communities. Some feared that
employer sanctions would dry up remittance
income, causing serious hardship in areas that had become heavily dependent on this income source.
Others anticipated that legalization would boost the income-earning potential of the "amnestied" workers and thus their contributions to
household and community econo- mies. But for
the majority of families in the Mexican communities we have
studied, IRCA per se has had no dramatic impact on their economic con- ditions. The aggregate flow of cash remittances
from US-based workers to these communities appears to have been reduced somewhat by IRCA's
legalization programs, at least in 1987 and 1988. Our interviewees noted that amnesty applicants spent more time in the
United States than usual and sent less money home to their relatives during the application period. This is not
surprising, since the costs incurred in applying for legalization reduced migrants' income. Thirty percent of the household
heads interviewed reported receiving less money from relatives in the United States in the post-IRCA period (i.e., since January 1987); only 12
percent reported an increase in remittances. But the majority of households (57 percent) had experienced no change in the level of remittance
income since the enactment of IRCA.22 To the extent that legalization reduces shuttle migration and encourages permanent settlement in the
likely to have a negative impact on remittance flows in the longer term . The direct,
short-term economic benefits of legalization under IRCA seem to have been overestimated. The median hourly wage
United States, however, it is
received by post- 1982 migrants from our research communities whose last trip to the United States had been made in the pre-IRCA period was
US$5.50; among those whose most recent migration occurred during 1987-89, the median hourly wage received was $6.00. Some migrants
interviewed in the summer of 1988 and early 1989 complained to us that wages in agricultural areas of California with heavy concentrations of
Mexican workers were being depressed by the arrival of large numbers of SAW permit-holders.23 Studies of labor-intensive, non- agricultural
industries in California conducted by the Center for U.S.-Mex- ican Studies in 1983-84 and 1987-88 revealed considerable rigidity in wage scales
for production workers. However, wages in these sectors of the Cal- ifornia economy were being held down mainly by general competitive
pres- sures, the weakness of unions, and other factors essentially unrelated to the size of the immigrant labor supply.24 Most employers in
these industries have not considered raising wages in order to attract workers in the post-IRCA period; nor have they found it necessary to do
so. Among household heads in the communities we have studied in Mex- ico, only 15 percent could cite any specific economic benefit to their
family resulting from IRCA's legalization programs. Most
of those who felt they had benefited mentioned having more
stable work in the United States, or not having to pay a coyote to guide illegal entries. Clearly, legal access to the US labor
market has not translated automatically into increased income for the majority of
"amnestied"
workers
and their families . In our research communities, most confirmed nortenos25 try to maintain a house in their hometowns that can be
occupied during family vacations, and sometimes by a spouse or older relative who prefers to remain at home. House construction and
improvement remain the most common forms of capital investment in the sending communities by persons who migrate to the United States.
There is no evidence that IRCA has changed the way in which earnings accumulated in the United States are used. As legalization continues to
promote permanent settlement on the US side of the border, however, more of the houses built or expanded with dollars earned in the United
States are destined for use not as primary residences but as vacation homes.
Migration significantly increases rural income – studies
Taylor and Feldman ’10 J. Edward Taylor and Alejandro Lopez Feldman, profs Rural Ag @ UC Davis;
“Does Migration Make Rural Households More Productive? Evidence from Mexico;” Mexico Journal of
Development Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1, 68–90, January 2010; EBSCO RMJ
International migration may reshape rural economies in myriad ways, particularly in an imperfect-markets setting. Our goal in this paper has
been to explore the potential influences, both direct and indirect, that Mexico-to-US migration may have on rural incomes and their
determinants, using data from the 2003 Mexico National Rural Household Survey. Our
findings indicate that rural households’
access to US migrant labour markets significantly increased incomes as well as the productivity of land
in rural Mexico. The land productivity effect increases with time since the ‘migration treatment,’ up to a point.
Households’ migration status in 2001 has little effect on land productivity in 2002. However, land productivity in 2002 is significantly higher for
households that had migrants in 2000, and higher still for those with migrants in 1995. A number of studies have posited that migrants
alleviate liquidity and/or risk constraints on household investments in production activities. The findings
reported here suggest that it takes several years for these positive effects of migration to play out. Studies that consider only the short-run
effects of migration, therefore, are likely to provide a biased and misleading picture of how migration shapes productivity and incomes. The
findings also suggest that migration competes primarily with local wage work, altering the composition of rural incomes away from local wages
and in favor of migrant remittances, and that the income effects of migration depend critically on 82 J. E. Taylor & A. Lopez-Feldman165other
household assets, particularly landholdings. In households without migrants in the United States, the returns to land are lower, and the head’s
education plays a more important role in income generation, primarily via off-farm activities. After controlling for observable factors, we find
that non-migrant
households are systematically different from migrant households in terms of their
generation of income in Mexico. This mirrors findings reported by Taylor (1987) on the selectivity of individuals into Mexico-to-US migration.
There is evidence of positive sample selectivity bias for non-migration but not for the migration-treatment group. If migrant households were
suddenly deprived of migration, their expected (non-migration) incomes would be lower than those of otherwise similar households that do not
participate in migration. The analysis of migration impacts is complex and challenging, particularly when one uses cross-sectional data, and
further econometric investigation is warranted. A high priority for future research is to seek out possible instruments to control for the nonrandomness of the process that allocates households across migration regimes, as well as to identify specific ways by which migration
influences productivity in rural households over time.
Internal Link – Ag Key to Biofuels
Agriculture is key to biofuels-Mexican biofuels heavily dependent on crop creation
Vazquez et al 10(Idania Valdez-Vazquez, Researcher at the Lab of Enrivronmental Biotechnology and
Biofuels and at the Department of Marine Biotechnology in Baja, Jorge Acevo-Benitez-see Vazquez,
Cuitlahuac Hemandez-Santiago, Researcher at the Universidad del Mar, 9/4/10, “Distribution and
potential of bioenergy resources from agricultural activities in
Mexico,”http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032110000961)
Biomass is the most abundant and versatile form of renewable energy in the world. The bioenergy
production from crop residues is compatible with both food and energy production. Currently, several
technologies are available for transforming crop residues into utilizable energy such as direct
combustion and fermentation. Mexico is the third largest country in LAC in terms of the cropland area
and would become a central focus of attention for the production of biofuels. In this paper we examined
the type, location and quantities of various crop residues in Mexico to evaluate their potential for
conversion into bioenergy through combustion and fermentation. It was estimated that 75.73 million
tons of dry matter was generated from 20 crops in Mexico. From this biomass, 60.13 million tons
corresponds to primary crop residues mainly from corn straw, sorghum straw, tops/leaves of sugarcane
and wheat straw. The generation of secondary crop residues accounted for 15.60 million tons to which
sugarcane bagasse, corncobs, maguey bagasse and coffee pulp were the main contributors. The
distribution of this biomass showed that several Mexican municipalities had very high by-product
potentials where each municipality could have an installed capacity of 78 MW (via direct combustion) or
0.3 million m3 of bioethanol per year (via anaerobic fermentation). The identification of these
municipalities where the biomass potential is high is important since it constitutes the first step towards
evaluating the current biomass availability and accurately estimating the bioenergy production capacity
from crop residues.
Ag industry is key to biofuels and economy-development of second generation fuels
UNCTAD 13(United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 7/9/13, “Mexico’s Agriculture
Development: Perspective and Outlook”, 157-159)
The promotion of biofuels in conjunction with the agricultural sector in Mexico can help enhance
income opportunities and improve access to energy services. Mexico’s policies supporting sustainable
development open significant business and job opportunities for biofuels and bioenergy. In particular,
residue streams from agriculture can enhance value chains of agricultural products. This could
considerably help rural areas improve economic diversification while supporting a national transition to
a low-carbon economy.¶ The use of residual by-products of agriculture to produce biofuels can add value
to the lifecycles of agricultural goods whilst addressing energy needs in rural areas. The large availability
of agricultural residues in Mexico improves prospects for the production of biofuels using low-cost, nonedible feedstocks. Other co-benefits can also be tapped, such as employment creation, income
generation and alternative energy solutions, while safeguarding food security in Mexico. Potentials are
estimated for the production of bioelectricity, biogas and second-generation liquid biofuels using
residue streams from the industrial processing of 13 agricultural products in Mexico (corn, sugarcane,
beans, wheat, rice, sorghum, coffee, egg, milk, beef, pork, poultry and fish). The use of harvest residues
as a feedstock was not considered due to their role in protecting soils against erosion and their use as a
natural fertilizer.¶ Energy potentials considering residues from the 13 selected products only show a
large under-utilized and untapped potential: bioelectricity could produce 10.5 per cent of the yearly
national electricity consumption in Mexico; 2nd generation bioethanol could replace 6.3 per cent of
gasoline used (in energy terms); biodiesel produced via biomass-to-liquid technologies could replace
23.2 per cent of diesel demand; and biomethane could meet up to 14 per cent of natural gas demand in
the country.¶ By integrating energy and agricultural production, estimates suggest significantly increased
income-generation in rural areas. By considering residues from the 13 agricultural products analyzed,
the production of bioelectricity, bioethanol and biodiesel could generate between USD 2.2 and 4.1
billion in additional revenue for Mexican agriculture. Biogas potentials could add another USD 234
million to revenue earnings.¶ The production of biofuels from agricultural residues could also provide
important net employment opportunities in Mexico, including from the development of bioelectricity
(direct and indirect), bioethanol, biodiesel and biogas. These jobs would provide better worker wages
and offer higher-skilled employment opportunities than the current average in Mexican agriculture.
While the average revenue per job created in the entire Mexican agricultural sector is USD 9.020 per
employee, the equivalent in bioenergy has been estimated to average USD 57.400 per employee. Since
many of the products analyzed are also cultivated in smallholder systems with low remuneration,
income diversification arising from the additional bioenergy revenue streams could help to reduce rural
poverty, seasonal fluctuations in agricultural employment and income, and rural emigration.¶ However,
before these potentials can be realized, many regulatory and technological hurdles need to be
overcome. The legal framework for biofuels in Mexico has advanced since the publication of the
National Biofuels Law in 2008. While it has prompted an interest in first-generation biofuel production,
little attention has been paid to the use of agricultural residues to produce biofuels or to foster
technological options for 2nd generation biofuels. Demand-pull instruments have been based on public
procurement mechanisms that focus primarily on first generation anhydrous ethanol, without including
provisions to encourage second generation biofuel development and production. The new strategy for
anhydrous ethanol blending in the country calls for the company Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) to
procure indicative amounts of ethanol to be blended into gasoline starting in 2012. However, there are
currently no foreseen minimum purchase requirements on biofuels produced from residues.¶ Moving
beyond the current focus on first generation biofuels is very important. In order to tap the wealth of
resources existing in agricultural residues, the country may need a comprehensive framework to
accelerate technology development and demand for biofuels produced from residues. Since second
generation biofuels are not yet produced at commercial scales, the Mexican government has made
efforts to support research, as well as development and transfer of technologies in the sector. A number
of programs are in place to support rural investments and R&D efforts in biofuels activities, notably in
biogas projects from anaerobic digestion. Even as the government has sought to facilitate
communication about existing instruments supporting production, storage, transport and retail of
biofuels, it remains unclear for producers which programs are best suited to support development of
biofuels made from agricultural residues. That, coupled with the lack of foreseeable market
opportunities for advanced biofuels in the country, leads to market uncertainty and discourages private
investments in research and development.¶ Clear strategies to bring down costs and investment risks, as
well as to promote research and deployment of second generation biofuel technologies, both
indigenously and in cooperation with other countries, will be critical for the realization of the potential
economic gains identified in this Outlook. In addition, international cooperation will be important to
meet initial R&D costs, as well as to generate markets of sufficient size to exploit available economies of
scale. For that, Mexico can benefit from its ongoing biofuel partnerships in the Mesoamerican region,
and from cooperation with countries and regions engaged in advanced biofuels research and
deployment, such as the United States, Brazil and the European Union.¶ The institutional dimension also
deserves attention. The rural policy approach in Mexico has sought to promote dialogue and
cooperation between different government ministries. An inter-ministerial working group composed of
Ministries of Energy, Agriculture, Economics, Finance and Environment has been established to define
public policies for biofuels. While a similar inter-ministerial structure has been set up to cater for rural
policy matters, the role of the energy ministry in the later has been unclear. For the realization of an
integrative approach between agriculture and biofuel production from residues, coordinated policies
and common funding schemes will be important, especially SAGARPA and the Ministry of Energy
(SENER).¶ Mexico’s territorial heterogeneities call for solutions which are flexible enough to
accommodate different residue streams and produce different outputs to meet local energy demand, be
it for transport, cooking or electrification needs. In addition to the 13 agricultural products analyzed,
policies and incentives should thus support production from a wider spectrum of residues, including
forestry and municipal waste.¶ If agricultural policy objectives including reform of existing rural
investment programs, investment in research and development, expansion of rural infrastructure;
diversification of rural incomes, collectivization of atomized smallholders, are met, then a second
generation biofuels industry is not only attainable but represents a “low- hanging fruit” that can quickly
result in significant development gains.
Internal Link – Mexico Biofuels Spillover
Mexican biofuels spillover-leadership
Castillo 11(Mariano Castillo, Reporter for CNN-Siting Gilberto Lopez, Airports and Auxiliary Services in
Mexico, 8/13/11, “Mexico sees future with biofuels”,
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/08/12/mexico.biofuels/index.html)
The engines on that flight were powered by a fuel mixture that was 30% biofuel from the jatropha plant,
and the trip followed a pair of Mexican domestic commercial flights by Interjet that used the same
formula.¶ Mexico is known for its oil production, but it could be its less obvious flats of arid and marginal
land that will be the future of Mexico's energy resources. The country has quietly positioned itself to
become a potential leader in biofuel production as scientists develop a second generation of fuels
derived from sources that don't compete for arable land or with food.¶ Jatropha-based biofuels are
being increasingly used in Mexico, and agave -- the plant from which tequila is made -- is being studied
as a new source for ethanol. But some observers warn that Mexico's cumbersome land laws make it too
hard to purchase the land needed for cultivation at competitive prices.¶ Some biofuels, such as ethanol
derived from corn and sugar, can indirectly raise the prices of staple foods in many places, along with
raising ethical issues, said Gilberto Lopez Meyer, director of Airports and Auxiliary Services (ASA), the
Mexican government agency that oversaw the biofuel flights.¶ So in 2007, Mexico, along with 14 other
member countries of the International Civil Aviation Organization, committed to developing new
strategies for second-generation biofuels that would not affect food production.¶ "We returned to
Mexico with a mission," Lopez told CNN.¶ Lopez's agency teamed up with the state of Chiapas, where
Gov. Juan Sabines had already made a name for himself pushing his state toward alternative fuels.
Chiapas began cultivating jatropha, whose seeds contain oil that can be extracted and converted into
biofuel. The state already uses a jatropha biofuel mix on its buses and trucks, and President Felipe
Calderon was on hand in November of last year to inaugurate a biodiesal plant there.¶ ASA partnered
with American company UOP, which refined the Chiapas jatropha into jet fuel.¶ When the standards for
biofuel use in commercial flights was approved July 1, Mexico was ready to make the domestic Interjet
and international AeroMexico flights a possibility.¶ The goal of ASA, which provides almost 100% of the
jet fuel in Mexico, is to commercialize and distribute biofuels, Lopez said.¶ "We've been working on this
project as part of a global effort to combat climate change," he said.¶ By 2015, the goal is to have 1% of
all jet fuel in Mexico be biofuel, and by 2020, 15%, he said.¶ "This is a huge goal," Lopez said. "One
percent doesn't sound like a lot, but it equals more than 40 million liters (10.6 million gallons)."¶ Mexico
has several things in its favor to become a leader in biofuels, he said. It has plenty of land not being used
for food, it has a high demand for energy, and it is located next door to the energy-hungry United
States.¶ "Mexico has made the very important first step to be in a very priviledged place," Lopez said.¶
Halfway across the world, researchers at Oxford recently published a study extolling the benefits that
ethanol derived from agave.¶ Agave can grow in arid land, and produces less than half of the carbon
dioxide emissions produced by corn-based ethanol, Oliver Inderwildi, one of the study's authors, told
CNN.¶ Sugar-based ethanol produces even less emissions, but it needs arable land for cultivation.¶ "We
need every space we can get, every arable land, for food," Inderwildi said. "We think agave may be one
part of the solution."¶ For their study, the researchers did a life-cycle analysis for the production of
ethanol based on a hypothetical plant in Jalisco, Mexico, where 90% of tequila is produced.¶ Potentially,
agave plantations could boost local economies and create jobs, Inderwildi said.¶ Mexico, the native
home of agave plants, stands to benefit if such an ethanol industry takes off. Food prices would be
spared, but would drinkers have to pay more for their margaritas and tequila shots?¶ The tequila
business is very small compared to the fuel business, and is also more expensive than fuel ethanol, so
Inderwildi predicts that alcohol prices would remain stable.¶ And unlike tequila, which requires the
harvesting of the agave stem only, ethanol production would also require harvesting the leaves of the
plant.¶ "Our study backs up that this is a good idea from an environmental perspective," he said.¶ The
catch, for now, is that neither jatropha or agave biofuel production is cost-effective. But technological
advances and oil prices make such alternatives more desirable.¶ When that tipping point comes, Mexico
will be ready, the experts said.¶ But James Row, CEO of Houston-based Producers Energy and part owner
of a Mexican-based biodiesel company, told CNN that Mexico is still far from being an ideal place to
produce biofuels.¶ "Mexico is absolutely a perfect country for biodiesel, especially if it can be
domestically grown," he said, but the country's ejido system -- collectively-held land in rural areas -creates hurdles for private investment. The result is difficulty in finding continuous large areas of rural
land that can be negotiated for use for cultivation, or high prices that make it cost prohibitive.¶ Without
land reform, issues with land availability will continue, and Mexico will fall a decade or more behind
other countries in the biofuels sector, Row said.¶ The demand is there, the land is there, but there is no
way to get it, he said.¶ "Now is the time for Mexico to get its act together for biofuels," he said.
Latin America Biofuel production is key-Labour and Resources
Fernandez 7(Geronimo Gutierrez Fernandez, The Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico, 6/7, “MexicoBrazil Relations: Status and Prospects”, http://www.focal.ca/pdf/focalpoint_june2007.pdf)
As long as world oil prices remain high it appears that ethanol, along with other biofuels, are here to
stay however the impact that it will have on Latin America is still unknown. The region has the resources
and labour force to lead the world in production and trade of this product. However, measures should
be taken now so that both developed and developing nations of this hemisphere enjoy the benefits
while minimizing the potential negative side effects of increased ethanol production
AT: Link Turns
Their ev is flawed – the growth is due to NAFTA and deregulation not emigration
Hanson ’07 Gordon H. Hanson, prof. Econ @ UC San Diego; “Emigration, Labor Supply, and Earnings in
Mexico;” May 2007; National Bureau of Economic Research, Mexican Immigration to the United States,
ed. George J. Borjas http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0097.pdf RMJ
However, emigration was by no means the only shock to the Mexican economy during the 1990s. Other shocks may have also
contributed to changes in regional relative wages. A large literature documents how NAFTA and other aspects of
globalization appear to have increased regional wage differentials in Mexico. It is not clear how globalization interacts
with emigration. States more exposed to globalization appear to have lower migration rates to the United States, suggesting that emigration
and globalization may be complementary mechanisms for integrating Mexico into the North American labor market. Another
important
shock was the Mexican peso crisis in 1995. This may have hurt high-migration states more than low-migration states (as highmigration states have larger industrial bases and smaller tourist industries), suggesting my estimates may understate the true effect of
emigration on regional wages. Other
policy changes, such as the privatization and deregulation of Mexican
industry or the reform of Mexico’s land-tenure system, may also have had differential regional impacts.
Privatization and deregulation appeared to lower union wage premiums in these sectors (Fairris 2003). Since
more heavily unionized industries are concentrated in Mexico’s north and center and relatively absent in Mexico’s south (Chiquiar 2003), we
might expect a loss in union power to lower relative wages in Mexico’s highmigration states, in which case my results would tend to understate
the true effect of emigration. The reform
of Mexico’s land tenure system allowed the sale of agricultural land that
had previously been held in cooperative ownership. We might expect this change to have raised relative incomes in
southern Mexico, which specializes in agriculture. Because low-migration states are concentrated in southern Mexico, this is another reason my
results may tend to understate the true effect of emigration.
Impact – Ag Key Mexican Economy
Ag Key to Sustainable economic growth
Fox News 13(2/18/13 “Mexico’s Economic Growth Holds Steady for Second Consecutive Year”,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2013/02/18/mexicos-economic-growth-holds-steady-forsecond-consecutive-year/#ixzz2YZneXq2K)
¶ ¶ Thanks to a spike in the agriculture industry, the economy in Mexico grew by close to 4 percent for the
second consecutive year.¶ According to Mexico's national statistics institute, the country's economy grew by 3.9 percent in 2012.¶ While the findings were in line with government projections made
last year, the data shows growth in the country is holding steady as 2011 registered similar numbers.¶ Mexico’s economic performance is closely linked to the U.S., where it sends almost 80 percent of its exports. ¶ To put the value
The institute said the reason for the consistent
growth was the country’s volatile agricultural production, which increased by 7.2 percent in the last
quarter of the year.¶ Thanks to higher production of products such as beans, corn, wheat and sugarcane,
a strong domestic demand was able to offset the weaker demand for exports from Latin America's
second-largest economy.
of Mexico’s trade relations into context, the country’s exports and imports account for 60 percent of its GDP.¶
Mexican economy is key to stop illegal immigration
Bansal 07 (Monisha Bansal, Staff Writer, citing Doug Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration
Project at Princeton University 1/20/07, “Helping Mexican Economy Key to Ending Illegal Immigration,
Says Expert.” http://www.religiontoday.com/1466713/)
Amid a growing national debate over how to deal with illegal aliens, one expert suggested Monday that the way to solve
the immigration problem in the United States is to boost the Mexican economy. "If you solve the Mexico
problem, the rest becomes much easier to deal with. That is the heart of the problem," said Doug
Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton University. Massey was joined at a Capitol Hill
press conference by Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Center. According to Passel, the number of illegal
immigrants has been steadily increasing over the past 20 years and is probably now approaching 12
million. About 56 percent of them are from Mexico, he said. As many as 85 percent of Mexicans who enter
the United States each year do so illegally. "There is a very strong relationship between availability of
jobs in the U.S. and the flow of illegal immigration," said Passel, adding that undocumented aliens comprise five percent of
the workforce in the U.S. Massey said the goal of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. is not to live in the
country permanently but "to use the U.S. labor market as an instrument to raise money to solve an
economic problem at home." "We've tried this experiment over the last 20 years of trying to integrate
the North American economy without including labor, and it has backfired," he argued. "It has resulted in a
record number of illegal people working in the United States." Massey said the policy was one of "contradiction." "It's
not because there was an increase in the inflow. It's because there is a decrease in the outflow," he said.
"The decrease in the outflow is due to our own border policies." Massey advocated "amnesty" for those who entered
the United States as minors and a path for earned legal immigration status for other illegal immigrants in the U.S. To disincentivize
Mexicans from crossing the border illegally, Massey said, the U.S. should help their home country to raise its
economic outlook.
Impact – Biofuels Key Economy/Defo
Biofuels key to economy and deforestation-Job Production and Resources
Eisentraut 10(Anselm Eisentraut, Bioenergy Analyst at the International Energy Agency, 2/10,
“Sustainable Production of Second-Generation Biofuels”,
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/second_generation_biofuels.pdf)
Even though Mexico is a net crude oil–exporting country19, second-generation biofuels production could help reduce
expenditure for derivates imports. Mexico needs to import roughly 40% of its gasoline because of the
lack of refinery capacity and thus spent some USD 22 billion for importing oil derivates and natural gas in
2008 (PEMEX, 2009). With roughly USD 6 billion in 2007, Mexico spent a considerable amount on supporting agricultural activities compared with other
developing and emerging countries, such as USD 24 billion in the US and USD 134 billion in the EU (OECD, 2008f). Thus, adding value to agricultural
by-products and residues through second-generation biofuels production could help reduce the
necessity to support sugar cane growers and forestry communities in general. Currently there are special payments for
jatropha plantations (USD 500/ha/yr) but the overall impact of specific biofuel-related subsidies on the national budget is quite limited (Rembio, 2009). ¶ The
potential for additional job creation through second-generation biofuels production in Mexico is high, at
least at the agricultural or forestry level; for example, 0.005-0.3 person days/t could be realised in forestry for logging, crosscutting and piling (Rembio, 2009). The
diversification of income through selling forestry by-products or residues would be especially beneficial for the 12 million people that live in or adjacent to forests in
Mexico, since they are generally considered the poorest segment of the rural population (ITTO, 2005). The
added value to forestry products
could also reduce the high deforestation rate in Mexico, since deforestation often results from the
absence of economic alternatives (Ibarra, 2007). Since sugar cane and maize are also cultivated in smallholder systems with low remuneration
(158000 cane growers with an average of 4ha), income diversification could help to reduce rural poverty in general and thus migration to cities from these less
developed rural areas (Rembio, 2009; PNUD, 2007).
Capped Visas CP
1NC Capped Visas CP
The United States federal government should implement a renewable, portable guest
worker visa for agricultural workers from Mexico, capped at 337,000 over five years
with future caps not to exceed 200,000 visas and determined by economic indicators.
Only need 150,000 to solve the case
Fennelly 4-18-13
“Will the Senate bill’s “W” Visa help to reduce the flow of unauthorized workers and meet the demand
for labor?” Katherine Fennelly On April 18, 2013 http://thinkimmigration.org/2013/04/18/will-thesenate-bills-w-visa-help-to-reduce-the-flow-of-unauthorized-workers-and-meet-the-demand-for-labor/
Thinking more broadly about migrant flows and the economy, the annual flow of unauthorized
immigrants from Mexico alone was about half a million per year between 2000 and 2005. In subsequent
years the numbers declined dramatically, to about 150,000 per year between 2007 and 2010, as a result
of the recession of 2007-2009 and increased border security.
Solvency
Solvency – Ag Labor Shortages
CP solves shortages – portability and wages sufficient
Buchanan 7-17-13
Reporter for Highlands Today
John, “Ag labor program traverses Congress” http://highlandstoday.com/list/highlands-agri-leader-news/ag-laborprogram-traverses-congress-20130717/
The ag worker program created by the Senate bill effectively replaces the old and much maligned H2A
program. The new program includes both contractual and at-will provisions for farm labor. The contract
visa program will be preferable for many growers and workers, Carlton said, because it ensures the
stability of labor availability and employment. The at-will visa program will be preferable to some
growers and workers because it allows workers to move from operator to operator and farmers to bring
workers in to meet specific short-term needs. The Senate program also includes new wage rates that are
above minimum wage, but significantly below old "adverse effect wage rates" specified by U.S.
Department of Labor in H2A. There are six categories of wage rates: $9.64 per hour for farm workers
and laborers, $9.84 per hour for graders and sorters, $11.37 per hour for dairy and livestock, and $11.87
for equipment operators. Rates for first-line supervisors and animal breeders are yet to be finalized.
There also are significant changes to the transportation cost provisions of H2A. Under the Senate plan,
contract via workers must still be provided inbound transportation and return transportation must be
paid by employers if they complete at least three-quarters of their contract. For at-will visa workers,
however, there is no transportation cost requirement. That's because it was deemed unfair for a
worker's initial employer to absorb transportation costs if he would likely be working for multiple
employers during his stay.
No shortage even without migrant workers – natives fill
Ruark and Moinuddin ‘11
Ruark: Director of Research for the Federation for American Immigration Reform Instructor, Department
of History at University of Maryland Adjunct Instructor, Master’s Program at Virginia Commonwealth
University
Moinuddin: Research Assistant at Federation for American Immigration Reform Research Associate at
Complementary Program Development, Mount Holyoke College
“Illegal immigration and Agribusiness” Eric A. Ruark research and content provided by aniqa moinuddin
April 2011 http://fair.thinkrootshq.com/docs/agribusiness_rev.pdf
Unauthorized migrant workers have consistently accounted for roughly half of all jobs in farming since
2000 and their wages have been lower than that of the legal work force for all tasks surveyed and across
all farm types. 3 Therefore, the replacement of illegal labor with higher paid legal workers will provide a
worst-case scenario for The entire agriculture sector. A report by the Congressional Research Service
found that there is no evidence of a strained labor market for agricultural workers nationwide. 4 During
1994–2008, the unemployment rate for Farmworkers was consistently higher than the unemployment
rate for all other occupations. 5 Furthermore, over The same time period, the average hourly wages of
field workers was half that of nonfarmworkers of comparable skill
wages and the high unemployment rate, relative to other sectors of the economy, suggests that the
supply of farmworkers has continued to exceed demand, with the possible exception of area or
temporal spot shortages. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies(CIS)shows that high levels of
unemployment of native workers Exist in industries with the highest concentration of migrant
workers(tAblE A). 7 In 2007,the farming, fishing and forestry 8 occupations had both the highest
proportion of migrant workers (36 percent of the workforce) and at the same time the highest
unemployment rate (10 percent) for native workers which was more than double the national average
at the time of 4.6 percent. 9 It was closely followed by Meat/Poultry/Fish processing operations where
33.9 percent of workers employed were immigrants while there was a 7.9 percent native
unemployment rate. There is a strong correlation (0.87) between immigrant composition of labor force
and native unemployment rate. While a causal relationship cannot be established by this simple
correlation, we can assert that, on a nationwide level, a reduced supply of migrant workers is not likely
to cause a labor shortage, as there are sufficient native workers to fill the void.
Americans will fill farm jobs
Ruark and Moinuddin ‘11
Ruark: Director of Research for the Federation for American Immigration Reform Instructor, Department
of History at University of Maryland Adjunct Instructor, Master’s Program at Virginia Commonwealth
University
Moinuddin: Research Assistant at Federation for American Immigration Reform Research Associate at
Complementary Program Development, Mount Holyoke College
“Illegal immigration and Agribusiness” Eric A. Ruark research and content provided by aniqa moinuddin
April 2011 http://fair.thinkrootshq.com/docs/agribusiness_rev.pdf
More importantly, the argument that Americans will not do farm work entirely ignores the point that
low wages and long, difficult workdays are presently the norm due to the fact that for the past several
decades there has been an inexhaustible supply of workers without any legal rights or bargaining power.
It is not an “American value” to have an ingrained disdain for farm work. If this was the case, it would be
difficult to explain why one in every five farm worker is American, or, more importantly, why 95 percent
of farm operators are American. Furthermore, why has the average American farm worker over the past
decade continued to work more hours than his illegal co-worker?
Ag survives even with price increases
Ruark and Moinuddin ‘11
Ruark: Director of Research for the Federation for American Immigration Reform Instructor, Department
of History at University of Maryland Adjunct Instructor, Master’s Program at Virginia Commonwealth
University
Moinuddin: Research Assistant at Federation for American Immigration Reform Research Associate at
Complementary Program Development, Mount Holyoke College
“Illegal immigration and Agribusiness” Eric A. Ruark research and content provided by aniqa moinuddin
April 2011 http://fair.thinkrootshq.com/docs/agribusiness_rev.pdf
The basic purpose of this study was to gauge the economic impact of replacing the unauthorized labor
force with authorized workers in a sector which has grown increasingly dependent on cheap migrant
labor. However, it is clear from the findings of this study that the impact will be insignificant. The impact
would be greatest for fruits, nuts, and vegetables farms, but all commercial farms would remain
profitable. Any policy that can realistically be expected to deal with the situation would require policy
makers to fully acknowledge both the existing dependency of the American agriculture industry on
illegal labor and at the same Time their sufficient capacity to pay higher wages for legal workers. Several
studies make the unreasonable assumption that all unauthorized workers will disappear overnight and
then use a computer model to calculate The subsequent impact on the economy the next morning and
draw even the more absurd conclusion that all these “jobs will be lost” (meaning positions being
vacated not people losing jobs). 36 An implementable policy would essentially be one that paves the
way for a shift to a legal workforce giving the market sufficient time to adjust.
Their shortage arguments are false – bad definitions and multiple checks on shortage
Martin ‘07
Professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Davis
Philip, “Farm Labor Shortages: How Real, What Response?” November 2007
giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v10n5_3.pdf
With no standard government or economic definition of persisting labor shortage, the term can have
very different meanings. The labor shortages reported in the press are usually instances of fewer
workers employed than desired at current wages, leading to farm work not being done in a timely
fashion or crops not being harvested. Many farm employers say there is a labor shortage when they
have a crew of 30 workers, but they prefer 40. Other farmers say there is a shortage if they want crews
to work today but contractors do not bring crews until tomorrow. Economists evaluating claims of labor
shortages look to what employers do to attract additional workers, such as adjusting wages. The first
expected response to a shortage is higher wages, which should increase the supply of workers, perhaps
drawing workers from other jobs or areas, and reduce the demand for them, as farmers skip a third or
fourth harvest. Farm employers can also take other steps in response to fewer workers, including
stepping up recruitment efforts, offering additional benefits such as housing, or making work easier to
enlarge the pool of workers available, such as using conveyor belts in the field to eliminate carrying
harvested produce, hydraulic lifts to eliminate ladders or, in some cases, mechanize.
Solvency – Loopholes
CP brings in more than 200,000 workers – loopholes and dependents
Bauer 5-6-13
Writer featured in Huffington Post and National Review, founder of the Certain Enthusiasm blog “More
Immigration Duplicity “ By Fred Bauer MAY 6, 2013
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347438/more-immigration-duplicity
In addition to its revision of the agricultural guest-worker program’s rules, this bill creates a whole new
program for “unskilled” guest workers: the W visa. The cap for the W visa bandied about in the media is
200,000 a year, but this provision could allow significantly more workers than that into the country.
When dependents of visa holders are included, these two guest-worker programs alone could
conceivably bring in over half a million individuals a year. At what could be the high end of estimates,
Senator Jeff Sessions’s office has released a report suggesting that, all told, the Gang of Eight’s guestworker programs could issue up to 25 million visas over the course of a decade. Measuring the precise
magnitude of this guest-worker expansion is hard because of the (perhaps deliberate) opacity and
complexity of certain provisions of this bill. The loopholes matter a lot. Current H-1B law illustrates the
power of loopholes. The cap on H-1B visas is commonly reported as 65,000 a year. But the law grants an
additional 20,000 visas to holders of master’s or higher degrees, and current law does not count H-1B
workers who work for certain nonprofit institutions against the cap. So even though the H-1B visa cap is
officially 65,000 a year, about 136,000 H-1B visas were issued in 2012. Various loopholes will persist or
expand in the Gang of Eight’s revision and expansion of the H-1B program. For instance, the exception
for holders of advanced degrees is increased to 25,000, bringing the potential number of H-1B visa
workers admitted to the country to over 200,000 (combining the new cap of 180,000 visas with the
25,000 visas for holders of advanced degrees). Perhaps the biggest innovation of the Gang of Eight’s
temporary-worker program would be its creation of the W visa for “low-skilled” labor, so it is worth
paying particular attention to this part of the proposal. Holders of the W visa would be allowed to work
in certain W-visa-designated jobs (such as retail and food service), and the visa could be renewed every
three years. After employers fulfill certain conditions in terms of advertising a position, that position can
become registered as a W-visa position, opening it up to workers who have a W visa. The W-visa
program also includes some industry carve-outs and giveaways. In addition to the usual number of W
visas granted, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can make available an extra
number for individuals who work in “animal production subsectors” (which would seem to include
mostly meat cutters). This extra number of visas can reach as high as 10 percent of the number of
standard W visas granted during a year. So up to 20,000 guest workers in the meat-preparation field
could enter in a year. Moreover, the DHS secretary could add additional positions over the usual W-visa
cap if employers met certain conditions. But it would be a mistake to focus only on the W-visa holders
themselves, because the treatment of the dependents of these visa holders could also have far-reaching
effects. The spouse and minor children of a W-visa holder will be allowed to accompany the W-visa
holder, so each visa issued could result in multiple individuals’ migrating to the U.S. And the spouses of
visa holders will be able to do more than just live here. They will also, as the bill puts it, be “authorized
to engage in employment in the United States” during the period of admission. A Senate source
confirms that this authorization would be an “open-ended authorization,” allowing the spouse to work
in any field — not just W-visa-registered positions. While W-visa holders are limited in where they can
seek employment, their spouses do not seem to be so limited. So reports suggesting that the W-visa
program would be capped at 200,000 annually could substantially underestimate the number of
workers brought in under this program. The giveaway to the meat-preparation industry pushes this
figure up to 220,000, and each holder of this visa could bring along another possible worker (a spouse)
in addition to minor children. So 300,000 workers a year admitted under this program would not be an
impossible number — and that’s not including the other extra W visas that DHS could supply through
various other loopholes.
Solvency – Immigration
CP solves immigration better – only 3% work in ag
Mangaliman ’05
Reporter for mercury news quoting a report from the Pew Hispanic Center, subset of Pew Research
Center, American think tank organization
“Study counters beliefs about illegal immigrants (Only 3 percent work in agriculture) “ Jun. 15, 2005 |
Jessie Mangaliman http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1423667/posts”
One quarter of the country's 10.3 million illegal immigrants have some college education and live with
families, shattering a stereotype that this sector of the population is made up of poorly educated single
men who work menial jobs, according to a national report released Tuesday. The report from the Pew
Hispanic Center paints a portrait of the illegal-immigrant population in the United States that will be
important as the country debates the controversial subject of immigration reform. "The stereotype we
all know is single males working in agriculture," said Doris Meisner, senior fellow at the Migration Policy
Institute, which commissioned the study. "That is not the reality today." Jeffrey S. Passel, senior
research associate for Pew and author of the report, found that one quarter of illegal immigrants in the
U.S. have some college education and another quarter completed high school. Still, 49 percent of illegal
immigrants have less than a high school education, making them less educated than legal immigrants
and the general U.S. population. The Pew report also found that an estimated 13.9 million people -- onethird are children -- live in households where one head of household or a spouse is undocumented.
More than one-fourth are U.S. citizens. "The policy we come up for dealing with immigrants, particularly
for undocumented, puts people into little boxes," Passel said. "Well, this says, wait a minute, the box is a
whole family and not everybody in there is the same." Passel's report dismantled another widely held
assumption: Only 3 percent of the undocumented immigrants work in agriculture. The greatest
numbers, 33 percent, work in the service industry. The rest work in construction, production, installation
and repair, sales and administration, transportation and material moving, and management and
business.
CP solves immigration
Calabresi 4-8-13
Reporter for TIME magazine and graduated from Yale University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in
Philosophy in 1989
“Immigration Reform: The Coming Fight Over The Low-Skilled Worker Visa” By Massimo Calabresi April
08, 2013 http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/08/immigration-reform-the-coming-fight-over-the-lowskilled-worker-visa/
At the heart of a soon-to-be-released bipartisan compromise on immigration reform is a controversial
proposal that would create several new government bureaus and offices to oversee a new generation of
legal, low-skilled immigrants—as many as 200,000 a year when the program gets up and running. The
proposal tries to address the ultimate cause of illegal immigration: not merely porous borders or
unscrupulous employers, but the immutable fact that jobs here pay better here than ones back there.
When Washington has tried to end illegal immigration in the past, Congress has ignored that simple
labor market reality. This time, surprisingly, instead of trying to stop the illegal flow of low-skilled foreign
workers to unfilled American jobs by increasing penalties and enforcement, the bipartisan bloc of
Senators proposes to legalize it, in part. Under the terms of a deal struck between the AFL-CIO and the
Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the Gang of Eight over Easter weekend, the bill would create a new,
low-skilled worker visa: the “W-visa”. After listing a low-skilled job and receiving no acceptable American
applicants, an employer could register to recruit a foreign worker. Entering the country for one job, a Wvisa holder could legally change jobs immediately. Their initial employer could turn around and hire
another W-visa holder the next day. What if a low-skilled worker decides he or she wants to stay?
Holders of the W-visa could get on a path for citizenship after one year. Some immigration experts and
economists view the bill as a historic breakthrough. “It’s thoughtful and innovative,” says Tamar Jacoby
of ImmigrationWorks USA., a pro-business immigration group. “Supply and demand is going to generate
a flow of [foreign low-skilled] workers,” says Jacoby, “It’s our choice whether we want them to come
here legally or illegally.”
Capped version is sufficient - cites their author
Curtis 6-13-13
Reporter for Minnesota Public Radio
Stephanie “ The Senate’s guest worker program will provide a flexible workforce”
http://blogs.mprnews.org/daily-circuit/2013/06/op-ed-pick-the-senates-guest-worker-program-willprovide-a-flexible-workforce/
Debate began in the U.S. Senate this week on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act. Jacoby argues that the guest-worker program outlined in the bill would
be an important change at a time when the United States is facing a wave of baby boomer retirements.
We need foreign workers, she says, and the Senate bill is a smart way forward
Politics NB
1NC Politics NB
Uncapped visas tank CIR – breaks the delicate compromise between business and
labor
Werner 3-30-13
Congressional reporter for AP specializing in immigration
“Immigration Reform: Business, Labor Get Deal On Worker Program, Source Says” By ERICA WERNER
03/30/13 08:41 PM ET EDT http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/immigrationreform_n_2985521.html
Big business and labor have struck a deal on a new low-skilled worker program, removing the biggest
hurdle to completion of sweeping immigration legislation allowing 11 million illegal immigrants
eventual U.S. citizenship, labor and Senate officials said Saturday. The agreement was reached in a
phone call late Friday night with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, U.S. Chamber of Commerce head
Tom Donohue, and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who's been mediating the dispute.
The deal resolves disagreements over wages for the new workers and which industries would be
included. Those disputes had led talks to break down a week ago, throwing into doubt whether Schumer
and seven other senators crafting a comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill would be able to
complete their work as planned. The deal must still be signed off on by the other senators working with
Schumer, including Republicans John McCain of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida, but that's expected
to happen, according to a person with knowledge of the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity.
With the agreement in place, the senators are expected to unveil their legislation the week of April 8.
Their measure would secure the border, crack down on employers, improve legal immigration and
create a 13-year pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already here. It's a major
second-term priority of President Barack Obama's and would usher in the most dramatic changes to the
nation's faltering immigration system in more than two decades. "The strength of the consensus across
America for just reform has afforded us the momentum needed to forge an agreement in principle to
develop a new type of employer visa system," Trumka said in a statement late Saturday. "We expect
that this new program, which benefits not just business, but everyone, will promote long overdue
reforms by raising the bar for existing programs." Schumer said: "This issue has always been the
dealbreaker on immigration reform, but not this time." The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce,
longtime antagonists over temporary worker programs, had been fighting over wages for tens of
thousands of low-skilled workers who would be brought in under the new program to fill jobs in
construction, hotels and resorts, nursing homes and restaurants, and other industries. Under the
agreement, a new "W" visa program would go into effect beginning April 1, 2015, according to an AFLCIO fact sheet. In year one of the program, 20,000 workers would be allowed in; in year two, 35,000; in
year three, 55,000; and in year four, 75,000. Ultimately the program would be capped at 200,000
workers a year, but the number of visas would fluctuate, depending on unemployment rates, job
openings, employer demand and data collected by a new federal bureau pushed by the labor movement
as an objective monitor of the market. One-third of all visas in any year would go to businesses with
under 25 workers. A "safety valve" would allow employers to exceed the cap if they can show need and
pay premium wages, but any additional workers brought in would be subtracted from the following
year's cap. The workers could move from employer to employer and would be able to petition for
permanent residency after a year, and ultimately seek U.S. citizenship. Neither is possible for temporary
workers now. The new program would fill needs employers say they have that are not currently met by
U.S. immigration programs. Most industries don't have a good way to hire a steady supply of foreign
workers because there's one temporary visa program for low-wage nonagricultural workers but it's
capped at 66,000 visas per year and is only supposed to be used for seasonal or temporary jobs.
Business has sought temporary worker programs in a quest for a cheaper workforce, but labor has
opposed the programs because of concerns over working conditions and the effect on jobs and wages
for U.S. workers. The issue helped sink the last major attempt at immigration overhaul in 2007, which
the AFL-CIO opposed partly because of temporary worker provisions , and the flare-up earlier this
month sparked concerns that the same thing would happen this time around. Agreement between the
two traditional foes is one of many indications that immigration reform has its best chance in years in
Congress this year. After apparent miscommunications earlier this month between the AFL-CIO and the
Chamber of Commerce on the wage issue, the deal resolves it in a way both sides are comfortable with,
officials said. Workers would earn actual wages paid to American workers or the prevailing wages for
the industry they're working in, whichever is higher. The Labor Department would determine prevailing
wage based on customary rates in specific localities, so that it would vary from city to city. There also
had been disagreement on how to handle the construction industry, which unions argue is different
from other industries in the new program because it can be more seasonal in nature and includes a
number of higher-skilled trades. The official said the resolution will cap at 15,000 a year the number of
visas that can be sought by the construction industry. Schumer called White House chief of staff Denis
McDonough on Saturday to inform him of the deal, the person with knowledge of the talks said. The
three principals in the talks – Trumka, Donohue and Schumer – agreed they should meet for dinner soon
to celebrate, the person said. However, in a sign of the delicate and uncertain negotiations still ahead,
Rubio sent a letter Saturday to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., calling for a
deliberate hearing process on the new legislation and cautioning against a "rush to legislate." Rubio and
a number of other Republicans are striking a tricky balance as they simultaneously court conservative
and Hispanic voters on the immigration issue. Separately, the new immigration bill also is expected to
offer many more visas for high-tech workers, new visas for agriculture workers, and provisions allowing
some agriculture workers already in the U.S. a speedier path to citizenship than that provided to other
illegal immigrants, in an effort to create a stable agricultural workforce.
Ext – Politics NB
Capped programs are key to negotiations
Harrison 3-15-13
Covers immigration, labor, retirement security and other social policy for Roll Call
“Business-Labor Talks on Guest Workers Falter” By David Harrison Roll Call Staff March 15, 2013, 4:17
p.m. http://www.rollcall.com/news/business_labor_talks_on_guest_workers_falter-223189-1.html
The question of guest workers has been controversial in the past and was one of the main sticking
points that sunk the last immigration overhaul effort, in 2007. This year, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y.,
a member of the bipartisan working group, said he preferred to outsource those talks to the business
and labor representatives, freeing up time for senators to discuss other aspects of immigration policy.
The chamber and the AFL-CIO put out a joint statement last month outlining the points on which they
had reached agreement. The statement was silent on some of the most difficult questions, and the two
sides have yet to resolve those issues. Although sources on both sides say the talks are ongoing, the
negotiators have come to the conclusion that they will not have a fully formed program to present to
the Senate group, which hopes to unveil its immigration bill in April. “The idea that we were going to
negotiate a final bill and present it as a baked cake was a little bit unrealistic,” said Randel K. Johnson,
the chamber’s senior vice president for labor and immigration. The sticking points remain the same as
they’ve always been. One of the main areas of disagreement concerns how many new visas should be
issued. The chamber, while it would prefer an uncapped program, agreed to set the ceiling at 400,000
visas per year, Johnson said. Labor, in order to protect American workers from competition, wanted an
annual cap of about 10,000. That number would ebb and flow based on economic conditions. Business
groups insist that employers should be able to hire foreign workers once they’ve exhausted all
possibilities of finding American workers. The number of guest workers allowed into the country should
be determined by employer demand, they say, rather than by government officials.
Capped programs are historically more popular – union support means Democrats get
on board
AP ‘07
“Senate slashes guest worker program” 5/23/2007
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-23-senate-immigration_n.htm
The Senate voted Wednesday to slash the number of foreign workers who could come to the U.S. on
temporary visas as part of a broad bipartisan immigration bill. A new guest worker program would be
capped at 200,000 a year under the proposal, which passed 74-24 over strong opposition by the Bush administration. Commerce Secretary Carlos
Gutierrez said the change, proposed by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., would interfere with a "central component" of the White House-backed immigration measure. That plan provided for 400,000 worker visas annually, plus an
option to increase that number to 600,000 if market conditions demand it. "The Bingaman amendment would eliminate this critical flexibility and cut the size of the temporary worker program in half," Gutierrez said in a statement.
His comments came as the administration urged the Senate to approve the immigration legislation despite fresh criticism from presidential hopefuls and lawmakers in both parties. "The proposal offers a much-needed solution for
our nation's broken immigration system," the White House budget office said in a statement. "This proposal would deliver an immigration system that is secure, productive, orderly and fair." The measure would grant an estimated
12 million unlawful immigrants quick legal status, toughen border security. It also would create a new workplace verification system to bar undocumented workers from getting jobs. It would set up a point system for future
immigration applicants that would place less emphasis on family connections and more on education and skills in demand by U.S. businesses. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democratic presidential hopeful, announced plans to
challenge the point system, saying it devalued family. The scheme "constitutes at minimum a radical experiment in social engineering and a departure from our tradition of having family and employers invite immigrants to come,"
Obama said, adding that he would work to phase it out. A 2008 rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said she would seek to lift new caps the measure would place on visas for family members of legal permanent residents.
Republicans sought to respond to conservative critics by trying to bolster security provisions and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get on a path to citizenship. Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed cracking down on illegal
border crossers with mandatory prison sentences. "Everyone needs to know that America is changing its immigration laws. We're going to be serious about enforcing them. If you break our laws, you do so at your own peril, and
you will lose your freedom," said Graham, R-S.C. The Senate was also considering a proposal by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, that would allow visas to be revoked without court review. "Current law allows aliens to run to the
Democrats heard
objections from labor unions and immigrant groups about the guest worker program and focused on
shrinking or altering it.
steps of our country's courthouses and take advantage of our system," Grassley said. He said potential terrorists could stay in the country unless lawmakers approved his change.
Caps critical to AFL-CIO support
Trumka 6-17-13
President of AFL-CIO, Richard L, June 17, 2013, letter to Senators
http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/17/trumka_s_744_letter_june_17_2013.html
With those two overarching goals in mind, the following are the AFL-CIO's priorities with regard to the Border Security, Economic
Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744. For convenience, I have divided our priorities into two categories: important
provisions we are committed to defend and provisions that require improvement. Access to citizenship for low-wage workers: A
very high percentage of undocumented individuals work in the underground economy — misclassified as independent contractors or paid cash
under the table. Therefore, the AFL-CIO would like to ensure the first step towards citizenship — Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status
— does not include an employment requirement; requiring employment documentation at RPI application would prevent many individuals
from getting on the path to citizenship. We strongly support the exception and waiver provisions related to the employment requirement at
renewal and adjustment. These reasonable exceptions provide needed flexibility so that individuals unable to work while in API status do not
fail off the path to citizenship when there are extenuating circumstances. The AFL-CIO opposes any efforts that would threaten the ability of
individuals to legalize their status, including any amendments that: • Create a "hard trigger" related to the border such as Grassley 1195; Thune
1196, 1197, 1270 and 1271; Coats1277; and, Vitter 1228 and 1254. • Impose prohibitive fees or other financial requirements such as Lee 1209,
1212, and 1213; Wicker 1232; and, Hatch 1247. • Impose onerous documentation requirements, such as Lee 1214. • Restrict who would qualify
for API status, including Lee 1210. • Limit the ability of young people to qualify for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors
(DREAM) Act, including Manchin 1219. Worker
protections in the W visa program: The basic outline of the new W visa
program that appears in Title IV, Subtitle G was carefully negotiated by the labor movement with representatives of
the business community. The agreed-upon language contains several protections crucial for both U.S.
workers and W visa holders, including: reasonable limits on the number of W visa positions tied to the state
of the U.S. labor market, prevailing wage requirements for W visa positions; portability between registered employers so that W visa holders
are not indentured to abusive employers; the ability of W visa holders to self-petition for legal permanent resident status (i.e., to petition for
themselves rather than relying on their employer to petition for them); and a responsive complaint process to identify misuse of or abuse in the
W visa program. All of these
elements are fundamental to our support
for the new W visa program. The AFL-CIO
opposes any amendments that threaten any part of the carefully negotiated agreement between the
labor movement and business, including any amendment that attempts to raise any caps currently in
the bill, such as Lee 1217
Changes to guest worker cap cause union backlash
Gannett 7-3-13
Reporter for the Gannett Washington Bureau
Erin Kelly, “Immigration bill faces tough path in full Senate” Gannett Washington Bureau 4:21 a.m. EDT
June 3, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/03/immigration-reformbill/2376243/
Jacoby said she doesn't think the bill will drastically change on the Senate floor, even though she and
other business advocates would like to see an increase in the number of visas made available to lowerskilled workers. She cited the influence of the labor giant AFL-CIO, which seeks to protect American
workers. "There will be some drama, but I think a lot of it is locked in by the Gang of Eight," said Jacoby,
whose organization is a national coalition of small- and medium-size-business owners that pushes for
immigration reforms to benefit employers. "They have a pretty protective approach, the Gang of Eight
does, and they feel that if they change any of the labor stuff, the AFL will bolt , and that basically gives
the AFL a trump card ."
Guest worker changes upset COC and labor – lobbyists prove
Kim 5-13-13
Assistant editor who covers Congress for POLITICO degrees in journalism and political science from the
University of Iowa, and also has a master’s degree in journalism from American University. She is the
current president of the Washington, D.C.-chapter of the Asian American Journalists Association
By SEUNG MIN KIM | 5/13/13 11:47 PM EDT “Gang of 8 looks to defend guest worker plan”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gang-of-eight-immigration-guest-worker-plan-91303.html
Another Franken amendment would call on businesses to essentially double their recruiting efforts
domestically before they hire foreign guest workers. But any significant changes to the program could
disturb the carefully calibrated agreement between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO —
two powerful Washington forces whose backing of the Senate legislation will be pivotal to its success .
On Monday, the Chamber upped the pressure on senators, urging members of the Judiciary Committee
to keep the “sound structure” for the less-skilled worker program in place. “The Chamber strongly
opposes any amendments that would weaken this bill or upset the delicate balance the sponsors of this
legislation achieved when they crafted it,” the Chamber’s top lobbyist, Bruce Josten, wrote in a letter to
senators.
Link Uniqueness – Labor Supports CIR Now
The biggest unions support CIR – their author
Davidson 6-11-13
By Joe Davidson “Two labor groups buck trend of union support of Obama on immigration
“ http://failover.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/two-labor-groups-buck-trend-ofunion-support-of-obama-on-immigration/2013/06/11/cac5c30e-d2b9-11e2-a73e826d299ff459_story.html
In contrast, the AFL-CIO, which includes AFGE and 56 other unions, is a highly visible supporter of the
legislation. AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka demonstrated that by standing behind Obama as he
pushed the legislation during White House remarks Tuesday.
Labor supports current CIR – worker protections key
Durazo 6-27-13
Chair of the National AFL-CIO Immigration Reform Committee
Maria Elena Durazo “Statement by Maria Elena Durazo On Senate Immigration Bill”
http://launionaflcio.org/2013/176152/statement-by-maria-elena-durazo-on-senate-immigrationbill.html
We applaud the U.S. Senate for moving our nation closer to a just immigration system that will allow
millions of workers who are American in every way but on paper to be recognized as American citizens.
We urge Speaker John Boehner and the House of Representatives to embrace America’s diversity and
move swiftly to pass an immigration reform bill that tends to the needs of working families and provides
a secure path to citizenship to immigrant workers. The Labor movement and our allies will continue to
work to make sure the final bill offers more protections to workers, fair access to needed benefits, a far
less militarized, more sensible border security program and fewer obstacles to aspiring Americans. No
further compromise to the roadmap to citizenship will be tolerated. We also call on federal agencies to
stop all deportations until the Comprehensive Immigration Reform is enacted. It is a tragedy that over
one thousand working families are separated every day in America because of deportations. There is
nothing American about that. We will spare no effort in making sure the voices workers are heard in
Washington. We want a commonsense immigration reform with a real path to citizenship, and we want
it now. Maria Elena Durazo Chair of the National AFL-CIO Immigration Reform Committee
Labor supports CIR
Blau 7-10-13
Reporter for the Herald-Times
Jon Blau Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:15 pm “Local Democrats, union leaders line up to support
immigration reform” http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/news/local/local-democrats-union-leadersline-up-to-support-immigration-reform/article_e2357a54-e9a5-11e2-a4f8-0019bb30f31a.html
With the Senate’s immigration reform bill heading to the U.S. House of Representatives, local politicians
and union leaders gathered Wednesday at the Monroe County Courthouse to advocate for the
legislation’s passage. Monroe County Commissioner Iris Kiesling, once an immigrant from the
Netherlands herself, was flanked by fellow Democrats and supporters of comprehensive immigration
reform, including Mayor Mark Kruzan, Bloomington City Council President Darryl Neher, Monroe County
Council members Shelli Yoder and Lee Jones, Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott and White River
Central Labor Council President Jackie Yenna.
Unions Key CIR
Unions key to Dems
Mooney 2-6-13
CNN White House producer
“Unions could again be key to immigration reform” February 6, 2013 Alex Mooney
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/politics/immigration-reform-unions
It should come as no surprise that prominent union leaders are among the first group President Barack
Obama courts as he seeks support for overhauling immigration policy. It was organized labor that
helped ensure defeat of a bipartisan effort to reform the nation's immigration laws five years ago. At
that time, the AFL-CIO and other prominent union groups came out against the initiative, fearing a
proposal for a temporary guest worker program for seasonal workers would weaken union membership
and bargaining clout. That led to a handful of liberal-leaning Democrats to vote against the bill, including
Sens. Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin and Debbie Stabenow. Mindful that a potential split in the Democratic
coalition this time around could again prove fatal to the passage of an immigration bill, Obama met on
Tuesday with more than a dozen labor leaders. They included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Eliseo
Medina of the Service Employees International Union, and Arturo Rodriguez of United Farm Workers.
AFL-CIO opposition kills the bill – empirics prove
Munro 6-11-13
White House correspondent for The Daily Caller
06/11/2013 “Trumka says immigration deal needs worker protections” Neil Munro
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/11/trumka-says-immigration-deal-needs-worker-protections/
AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said his deputies will be pushing senators to improve worker-protection
measures in the Senate’s draft immigration bill. “Is there every protection I would have liked? No,” he
told The Daily Caller after a media event at the White House. Asked if his union is pushing for more
protections, Trumka said, “We are.” How many? “A couple,” said Trumka, who is supporting passage of
the controversial bill. Asked by TheDC to describe the sought-for protections, Trumka laughed and said,
“No.” Trumka’s push for extra protections may be a problem for the bill’s prospects. In 2006 and 2007,
the bills failed amid union opposition to guest-worker programs demanded by business. Trumka was at
the White House today to help Obama champion the immigration bill. The current bill would bring in or
legalize roughly 30 million people in the next 10 years, despite the current high jobless rate. The bill
would also grow the current guest-worker system to bring in roughly 1.3 million guest-workers each
year. This inflow includes at least 100,000 “W visas” for blue-collar workers, as well as roughly 500,000
university-trained workers. The inflow is not popular with voters. The visas last for up to seven years, so
the bill will allow a resident guest-worker population of more than 2.5 million university-trained
workers. Union members generally oppose immigration bills. But union leaders work closely with
progressive groups and Democratic legislators, who support immigration rules that can bring in more
Democratic-leaning voters. The split is pushing Trumka to support the bill and urge significant changes.
AFL-CIO specifically key
Law360 ‘09
Reporting program for LexisNexis
New York “A Chance For Real Immigration Reform” April 30, 2009
http://www.law360.com/articles/99438/a-chance-for-real-immigration-reform
Many commentators have opined that union opposition to the 2007 reform contributed to that
proposal’s failure. While several union organizations supported the 2007 reform proposal, others, such
as AFL-CIO, opposed it because of provisions for an expanded guest worker program. Given the present
economic climate, the chance for immigration reform is marginal, and union support or opposition may
again play an important role. It is the position of many business groups that while businesses want to
see a commitment to comprehensive reform that includes a process for bringing millions of
undocumented workers out of the underground economy, they also want to see a true comprehensive
reform effort that includes a guest worker program and other new avenues for bringing in much-needed
skilled labor.
Unions push CIR
Liptak 6-16-13
Associate Producer at CNN Washington
“Labor backs immigration plan with million-dollar ad buy” June 11th, 2013 Kevin Liptak
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/11/labor-backs-immigration-plan-with-million-dollar-adbuy/
Labor unions and business leaders were initially at odds over immigration reform, but reached an
agreement on guest workers earlier this year that allowed the Gang of Eight plan to move forward. The
SEIU, which represents 2.1 million workers in a wide swath of American service industries, has long
endorsed Democrats in political races, and backed President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. "We're
seeing a growing consensus across the country that we need to get immigration reform done and get it
done now," Mary Kay Henry, SEIU International president, said in a statement. "These ads show the
breadth of support for commonsense immigration reform and highlight the diverse voices that are
integral to moving this debate forward." Henry and AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka will join Obama
on Tuesday at the White House in voicing support for the Senate immigration plan. Labor leaders,
including Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahue, will also be present.
Displacement NB
CP Solves Displacement
CP solves displacement – flexible cap resolves shortages but protects American
workers
Werner 3-30-13
Congressional reporter for AP specializing in immigration
“Immigration Reform: Business, Labor Get Deal On Worker Program, Source Says” By ERICA WERNER
03/30/13 08:41 PM ET EDT http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/immigrationreform_n_2985521.html
Under the agreement, a new "W" visa program would go into effect beginning April 1, 2015, according
to an AFL-CIO fact sheet. In year one of the program, 20,000 workers would be allowed in; in year two,
35,000; in year three, 55,000; and in year four, 75,000. Ultimately the program would be capped at
200,000 workers a year, but the number of visas would fluctuate, depending on unemployment rates,
job openings, employer demand and data collected by a new federal bureau pushed by the labor
movement as an objective monitor of the market. One-third of all visas in any year would go to
businesses with under 25 workers. A "safety valve" would allow employers to exceed the cap if they can
show need and pay premium wages, but any additional workers brought in would be subtracted from
the following year's cap. The workers could move from employer to employer and would be able to
petition for permanent residency after a year, and ultimately seek U.S. citizenship. Neither is possible for
temporary workers now. The new program would fill needs employers say they have that are not
currently met by U.S. immigration programs. Most industries don't have a good way to hire a steady
supply of foreign workers because there's one temporary visa program for low-wage nonagricultural
workers but it's capped at 66,000 visas per year and is only supposed to be used for seasonal or
temporary jobs.
Displacement Links
Expanded guest worker programs displace American workers and drive down wages
Williams ‘11
Director of Florida Legal Services’ Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. WILLIAMS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT
September 8,2011 http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Williams%2009082011.pdf
Most people associate the words "prevailing wage" with the "average wage" or the wages generally paid
workers in an area but that is not how the prevailing wage is defined in the Smith bill. Under his
approach the prevailing wage is defined as the "first level" in a four level wage system. The first level is
actually the median wage for the lowest third of workers in an occupation while the level four wage is
the median for the top two thirds of the wage distribution. The mean wage or the average wage for
workers in the occupation is actually the level three wage. In practice, 80 to 85% of the workers
surveyed are paid more than the first level wage— it is by definition a substandard wage. In many areas
of the country, the level one wage is a dollar or more less than the average wage paid crop workers. If
large numbers of workers are admitted to the United States at this wage rate, the average wages paid
agricultural workers will fall to even lower levels than they are today, hastening the exodus of the
remaining U.S. workers from agriculture. In fact, the incentive to displace U.S. workers, as opposed to
unauthorized workers, is greater precisely because U.S. workers are generally paid more than
unauthorized workers.21 The incentives to replace U.S. workers with the new H-2C workers are further
enhanced when one considers that the employer will not have to pay FICA or FUTA taxes on the H-2C
workers' wages. This will make it roughly 10% cheaper to employ an H-2C worker than to employ an
American worker, even without the considerable wage differential established by the new wage
methodology. A concrete example will show just how large the economic incentive to discriminate
against U.S. workers would be under the proposed legislation. The most recent information available
from DOL's Online Wage Library for Foreign Labor Certification shows that livestock workers in Ventura
County, California are paid an average of S12.00 per hour. For a year-round employee that adds up to an
annual income of $24,960. Under the Smith bill, an employer seeking to hire a livestock worker under
the H-2C program would only have to advertise the job at $8.93 per hour. US workers would either have
to accept a rate more than three dollars under the going rate or see the job go to a guest worker. For
the employer, hiring an H-2C worker instead of an American will save $6,386 per year in wages.
However, that is not the only savings; the employer doesn't have to pay employment taxes on the
wages of the H-2C worker resulting in an additional saving of about $2,500 per year. The total savings to
the employer is nearly $9,000 per year. The short-term impact of the Smith bill in reinstating the level
one wage under the H-2A program would be to transfer approximately $150 million per year from U.S.
workers and guest workers to the current H-2A employers. The long-term impact, should the program
expand to the 500,000 worker cap, would be to reduce the earnings of the poorest group of workers in
America by at least a billion dollars per year.
Low skill visas raise domestic unemployment
Dane 5-13-13
Communications Director at Federal for American Immigration Reform
Bob Dane May 15, 2013 “American Workers Ask: "What's in it for me?”
http://www.fairus.org/opinion/american-workers-ask-whats-in-it-for-me
In almost all the occupations to which unskilled and semi-skilled foreign — and illegal — workers
gravitate, Americans already hold most of the jobs. Native born workers account for well over half of all
housekeepers, maids, and taxi drivers in the U.S., almost two-thirds of all the butchers, meat processors,
ground maintenance and construction workers, and three-fourths of all porters, bellhops and janitors.
The refrain "These are jobs American's won't do" has never been true, but if the Senate bill becomes
law, there will be plenty of jobs Americans can't do because they'll be shut out by huge flows of new
immigrants and foreign guest workers willing to work for ever decreasing wages. And, the impact will be
felt hard in communities already disproportionately affected by low skill illegal and legal immigration,
including African-American males who face a 13.2% unemployment rate.
Excess guest workers raise American unemployment
Hira 5-23-13
Research Associate for Economic Policy Institute,Ph.D., Public Policy, George Mason University, and
professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology
“Could More Highly Skilled Guest Workers Help Spark Tech-Driven Economy?”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/immigration_05-23.html
Well, I think the facts are pretty clear that, in fact, American -- these companies don't have to look for
Americans workers first. They have -- actually, in the bill, the way it's written right now, they would have
to collect resumes, but they don't actually have to hire Americans, and they could displace Americans.
So they can clearly bypass American workers. And there's an incentive for them to do so. Even though
the bill does raise the wage floors for H-1Bs a little bit, they're still below-market wages. They're still
cheaper. So there's a real incentive to bring in these guest workers, because they can be paid lower,
below-market wages, less than American workers. Plus, they're tied to the employer. The employer
controls the visa program.
Unemployment Key Economy
Unemployment increases collapse the economy
BLS ‘12
Bureau of Labor Statistics “The Recession of 2007–2009” February 2012
http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/
One of the most widely recognized indicators of a recession is higher unemployment rates. In December
2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the
previous 30 months. At the end of the recession, in June 2009, it was 9.5 percent. In the months after
the recession, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.0 percent (in October 2009). Before this, the most
recent months with unemployment rates over 10.0 percent were September 1982 through June 1983,
during which time the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8 percent. Compared with previous recessions,
the higher proportion of long-term unemployed (those unemployed for 27 weeks or longer) in the
recent recession and its postrecession period is notable.
Wages Key Poverty
Low wage jobs cause poverty
Trevino ‘11
Reporter for MarioWire, "Low-wage Job Growth Bad Thing for Latinos and the Nation." Marisa Trevino
June 2, 2011. http://www.mariowire.com/2011/06/02/low-wage-job-growth-bad-for-latinos/
Yet, today’s job market seems to be building upon a foundation of low-wage employment.It doesn’t help
our economy in the long-run, but most importantly, it doesn’t help people of color who want to break
the cycle of poverty in their families.Another report looking at national job creation finds that jobs
created in the coming years will not provide economic security wages to the majority of workers who do
not have 4-year college degrees. Fewer than 13% of jobs the US Department of Labor expects to be
created by 2018 are likely to provide economic security to a single parent raising two or more children. A
small majority of new jobs are expected to pay economic security wages for single workers without children, and approximately 43% of the new
jobs will pay economic security wages for two workers raising two young children.
Farm Mechanization CP
1NC Farm Mechanization CP
The United States Federal Government should invest in farm mechanization
technology.
Tech can solve farm labor shortages – makes farms more efficient
Siegler 4/30 [Kirk Siegler; April 30, 2013; Why An Immigration Deal Won't Solve The Farmworker Shortage; Siegler is a correspondent
for NPR specializing in immigration policy http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/04/30/180053057/why-an-immigration-deal-wont-solve-thefarmworker-shortage]
In the Salinas Valley town of Gonzales, Frank Maconachy
with the company Ramsay Highlander may have an answer for
farmers worried about big labor shortages. "The labor resource is dwindling, so we needed to develop a
machine that could mechanically cut ... efficiently, effectively, safely and get the crop to market
competitively," he says. That machine is an automatic spinach harvester. His company custom builds them to suit individual
farmers' needs — different blades and equipment to pick celery, for example. But the main point is it reduces the need for workers.
"One operator can now harvest 12- to 15,000 pounds of spinach or baby leaf in an hour, where typically
a crew of 30 people would be on their hands and knees cutting this with knives and would do half of
that volume at best," Maconachy says. But efficiency comes with a price: $250,000 for one of these machines. Sammy Duda isn't quite ready to make
that kind of investment. Machines can't do everything, he says. "It's very difficult to duplicate the eyes and the feel of a worker when it comes to maturity and
quality of the crop." Even
as he focuses on the current immigration bill and whether it will help him get enough
workers to get through these next few years, he knows his business is going to have to change.
Technology once radically changed this valley when refrigeration allowed iceberg lettuce to be shipped all over the country. "This
particular valley was founded on innovation," he says. "There's a lot of bright people that have their
radar going, and so as labor issues change, we adapt or we die."
Ext – Farm Mechanization Solves
Aff can’t solve labor shortages—only new ag tech can fill the void
Washington Post 1/29
(“We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help.” 2013 pg online at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farmworkers-immigration-reform-may-not-help///sd)
But a new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico is getting richer. And, when a
country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting into
other sectors like construction, but Mexico’s own farms are increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will
have to pay higher and higher wages to attract a dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers. “It’s
a simple story,” says Edward Taylor, an agricultural economist at U.C. Davis and one of the study’s authors. ”By the
mid-twentieth century, Americans stopped doing farm work. And we were only able to avoid a farm-labor crisis by
bringing in workers from a nearby country that was at an earlier stage of development. Now that era is
coming to an end.” Taylor and his co-authors argue that the United States could face a sharp adjustment period as a result.
Americans appear unwilling to do the sort of low-wage farm work that we have long relied on immigrants to do. And,
the paper notes, it may be difficult to find an abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else — potential targets such as Guatemala and El
Salvador are either too small or are urbanizing too rapidly. So the labor
shortages will keep getting worse. And that leaves
several choices. American farmers could simply stop growing crops that need a lot of workers to harvest,
such as fruits and vegetables. Given the demand for fresh produce, that seems unlikely. Alternatively, U.S. farms could
continue to invest in new labor-saving technologies, such as “shake-and-catch” machines to harvest
fruits and nuts. “Under this option,” the authors write, “capital improvements in farm production would increase
the marginal product of farm labor; U.S. farms would hire fewer workers and pay higher wages.” That
could be a boon to domestic workers — studies have found that 23 percent of U.S. farm worker families are
below the poverty line. In the meantime, however, farm groups are hoping they can fend off that day of reckoning by revamping
the nation’s immigration laws. The bipartisan immigration-reform proposal unveiled in the Senate on Monday contained several
provisions aimed at boosting the supply of farm workers, including the promise of an easier path to citizenship. Taylor, however, is not
convinced that this is a viable long-term strategy. “The idea that you can design a guest-worker program or any other immigration
policy to solve this farm labor problem isn’t realistic,” he says. “It assumes that there’s a willingness to keep doing farm
work on the other side of the border. And that’s already dropping off.”
Farm mechanization mazimizes efficiency during peak season solves the aff
Reddy et. Al 13 (Amarender Reddy A, Special Project Scientist, RP–MIP, ICRISAT, Patancheru Andhra
Pradesh, India; MCS Bantilan, Research Program Director, Markets, Institutions and Policies, ICRISAT,
Patancheru Andhra Pradesh, India; Geetha Mohan, Project Research, The University of Tokyo. May 2013
Pulses Production Scenario: Policy and Technological Options
http://oar.icrisat.org/6812/1/26_Policy_BriefIndia%20_2013.pdf)
Farm mechanization: One of the reasons for success of expansion of area under chickpea in Andhra
Pradesh is the increased mechanization of farm operations. Farm mechanization can further be
enhanced by developing varieties suitable for harvesting by combine harvesters. Hence, farm
mechanization in peak season activities such as harvesting and threshing needs to be encouraged
Mechanization solves labor productivity and labor stability
Napasintuwong 04 (IMMIGRANT WORKERS AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE: AN INDUCED
INNOVATION PERSPECTIVE ON FLORIDA AND U.S. AGRICULTURE By ORACHOS NAPASINTUWONG 2004
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0004414/napasintuwong_o.pdf)
There remain several opportunities for the development of farm mechanization in U.S. agriculture,
particularly for fruits and vegetables. Not only does mechanization increase labor productivity, but it
also stabilizes labor requirements, particularly in the production of seasonal crops. While low-income
countries employ inexpensive labor, and other developed countries invent new machinery, U.S. fruit and
vegetable production remains dependent largely on low-wage foreign labor. Establishing the
competitiveness of American agriculture on the basis of foreign labor is a questionable policy approach.
For instance, the labor cost of citrus production in Brazil is much lower than in Florida. It is estimated
that during the 2000-2001 harvesting season, the costs for picking and loading of fruit into trailers ready
for transport were $1.60 and $0.38 per box in Florida and Saõ Paulo, respectively (Muraro et al. 2003).
The estimated labor cost saved by the continuous canopy shake and catch harvester being tested by
some harvesting companies is $0.56 per box (Roka September 2001a). The question implicitly being
considered in the Florida citrus industry is whether it should adopt mechanical citrus harvesting, which is
potentially less expensive and more productive than hand harvesting, in an effort to compete with
Brazilian producers, or it should continue to depend on hand harvesting with a high presence of
immigrant workers. Some analysts (Sarig et al. 2000) argue that mechanization will help the U.S. remain
competitive in the world market. An example cited is Australia which has become the most mechanized
in wine grape harvesting, while U.S. wine grape production relies on low-wage workers, and is still not
the lowest cost wine producer (Sternberg et al. 1999). Another illustration is Holland, using mechanical
technologies, which successfully exports cut flowers and green house tomatoes to North America
(Mines 1999).
Mechanization reduces financial risks-itll be widely adopted
Napasintuwong 04 (IMMIGRANT WORKERS AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE: AN INDUCED
INNOVATION PERSPECTIVE ON FLORIDA AND U.S. AGRICULTURE By ORACHOS NAPASINTUWONG 2004
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0004414/napasintuwong_o.pdf)
In a competitive world market, low-wage labor may not be a competitive advantage of U.S. agricultural
production. While several developed countries utilize advanced technology (e.g., Australian wine grape
harvesting), the U.S. continues to rely heavily on low-wage foreign workers. With relatively abundant
land in the U.S, the development of farm mechanization can increase production by increasing labor
productivity. However, due to readily available unauthorized farm labor, it is often argued that laborsaving technology has not been developed or adopted (Krikorian 2001). With readily available low-wage
immigrant workers in U.S. agriculture, the incentive for producers to adopt new labor-saving technology
is reduced. Although some farmers are concerned that a reduction of the supply of foreign workers will
result in a shortage of farm workers, the success of the mechanized tomato harvester after the end of
the Bracero program provides a counter-example to this concern. After September 11, 2001, there was
a great uncertainty on foreign labor supply as the country became more aware of immigrants’ roles in
the U.S. economy and security. A reduction in financial risk associated with labor uncertainty and
stabilization in agricultural production are arguments in favor of farm mechanization. In addition, farm
mechanization may also decrease government welfare expenditures on education and health care of
foreign workers, and can conceivably strengthen national competitiveness in agricultural production.
Mechanization solves already working on apple farms
AIC 13 (Americans for Immigration Control inc. jan 09 2013 Machines Can Harvest Those Apples
http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/?p=749)
Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute asked in a recent article “Who Will Pick Our Apples.” The
gist of the article was that Americans, according apple producers, won’t pick apples, so therefore we
must have a presumably unending flow of foreigners to come here and do the work. Fact Check: The
labor shortages may be real, or they may not be. David North, a former assistant Secretary of Labor,
cautions that claims of “labor shortages” resulting in “crops rotting in the fields” can’t always be taken
at face value. Usually these are claims of growers unverified by outside sources. Sometimes the reality is
much more complex. Source: Caution: Watch for Farmers’ Fibs on “Labor Shortages” www.cis.org 1/12
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that we truly don’t have enough apple pickers. Does this
mean that we will never have any alternative to admitting a generally low-paid foreign workforce? Not
really. Suppose someone in the 19th century had asked, “Who will pick our cotton, if we don’t have
slaves or free workers whose living standards aren’t much better than those of slaves? The answer is
that we developed technology to make masses of field workers unnecessary to bring in cotton crops.
The question now to ask is: why can’t we develop technology to harvest all or most of our other crops as
well? As we progress into the 21st century, it seems strange to tie ourselves to a pre-technological
economy of muscle, toil and sweat. The fact of the matter is that apple harvesting technology is rapidly
developing. In Washington state, where Nowrasteh cited the labor shortage, The Wenatchee Times
reported (12/12/09) that “Apple harvest is moving ever closer to looking like corn, wheat and potatoes
with machines starting to play bigger roles.” One problem still to be resolved completely is developing
technology that can pick apples, without bruising them, as well as the human hand. But this is now on
the horizon. As noted by the Associated Press (9/6/07) “[N]ew pickers rely on advances in computing
power and hydraulics that can make robotic limbs and digits operate with near-human sensitivity.
Modern imaging technology also enables the machines to recognize and sort fruits of varying qualities.”
Said Derek Morikawa, who has worked with the Washington State Apple Commission to develop a fruit
picker, “The technology is maturing just at the right time to allow us to do this kind of work
economically.” Another economic gain is eliminating the cost to taxpayers of social services provided to
foreign workers. A key factor holding back the advance of agricultural mechanization, observes Philip
Martin, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California (Davis), is “the
ready availability of farm workers” at low wages. Source: www.cis.org, Backgrounder, November 2007.
Consequently, slowing the flow of legal and illegal farm workers would assist mechanization. This in the
long-run would be in the interest of U.S. farmers who produce apples and other crops. Increasingly, they
will have to face competition from foreign producers who have cheap labor at home, or those who are
mechanizing themselves. Technological advance has always been the American way. We lose if we stay
dependent on a mode of production more appropriate to the 19th century than the 21st.
Farm mechanization mazimizes efficiency during peak season solves the aff
Reddy et. Al 13 (Amarender Reddy A, Special Project Scientist, RP–MIP, ICRISAT, Patancheru Andhra
Pradesh, India; MCS Bantilan, Research Program Director, Markets, Institutions and Policies, ICRISAT,
Patancheru Andhra Pradesh, India; Geetha Mohan, Project Research, The University of Tokyo. May 2013
Pulses Production Scenario: Policy and Technological Options
http://oar.icrisat.org/6812/1/26_Policy_BriefIndia%20_2013.pdf)
Farm mechanization: One of the reasons for success of expansion of area under chickpea in Andhra
Pradesh is the increased mechanization of farm operations. Farm mechanization can further be
enhanced by developing varieties suitable for harvesting by combine harvesters. Hence, farm
mechanization in peak season activities such as harvesting and threshing needs to be encouraged.
Borders CP
1NC Open Borders CP
The United States Federal Government should adopt an open borders policy.
Eliminating visas solves undocumented migration
Tim Cavanaugh, April 16, 2006 columnist for Reason's print edition
Open the Borders: Forget guest workers—why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all?
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/16/open-the-borders
Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that
visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter. Is that a problem? I
don't think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be.
Competition – Abolishing Visas
Abolish visas means the CP competes
Tim Cavanaugh, April 16, 2006 columnist for Reason's print edition
Open the Borders: Forget guest workers—why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all?
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/16/open-the-borders
The solution to the immigration crisis, if there is such a crisis, does not rest in guest worker programs or
higher visa quotas, but in the one possibility nobody is mentioning: eliminating visas altogether within
the NAFTA countries, and allowing Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans with legitimate passports to
travel freely among our three countries for any reason or for no reason. This was the early vision of
Ronald Reagan, and it was certainly an implied outcome of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"NAFTA had an effect on the Mexican economy, in terms of encouraging campesinos to leave the farm
and seek better opportunities," says Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant
Rights, "but we've shut off the legal opportunities for people to do that." The pathetic aspect of this
debate is that visaless NAFTA borders would not even be a novel step. They would be a partial return to
the way things were in the golden age, when the Tancredos, the Sensenbrenners, and the Cavanaughs
first fouled these shores. Anti-illegal-immigrant types who never tire of pointing out that their ancestors
came here legally are making a hollow argument: Until fairly recently in American history, there was no
motive for illegal immigration; all a prospective American had to do was show up. It's a sign of a timid
and tired nation that, in a period of economic expansion, we're not even willing to allow such an open
system for our immediate neighbors and closest trading partners. "Guest worker provisions are an
attempt to recapture some of the circularity that happened in the past, when people moved more freely
between countries," says Tsao. "Whether that's going to work, I don't know."
Net-Benefit – Entrepreneurialism
Guest worker approach trades off with entrepreneurial expansion
Tim Cavanaugh, April 16, 2006 columnist for Reason's print edition
Open the Borders: Forget guest workers—why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all?
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/16/open-the-borders
Considering how much the SEIU and UFW contributed to last week's impressive pro-immigrant
demonstrations, it may seem paradoxical to argue that the interests of the unions conflict with the
interests of freer immigration. "Most labor unions see that their ranks will be swollen by these people,"
says Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens. "So you'd be shooting
yourself in the foot to say 'I oppose these people.'" But the modest goal of a more functional guest
worker program raises problems for a principled supporter of free immigration. First, as Jesse James
DeConto demonstrated in Reason's February issue, even a fully functioning guest worker program
creates cruelties for the people who are actually participating in it. More important, there's something
paradoxical in allotting visas or guest worker provisions only to people who are tied to employee
situations in the United States. Immigrants have always been among the most entrepreneurial classes in
American life. You could make the case that small business startups have been the single greatest
national benefit of immigration. It's an idiocy worthy of, well, the United States government to make the
promise of immigration dependant upon your ability to find a clock-punching job at an already-existing
company.
Guest worker approach undermine an entrepreneurial approach
Tim Cavanaugh, April 16, 2006 columnist for Reason's print edition
Open the Borders: Forget guest workers—why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all?
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/16/open-the-borders
Beyond that, the arguments of realism and fairness are entirely wrong. The guest worker compromise is
unrealistic because it has nothing to do with economic reality on this continent. Nor is it especially fair:
At best it will grandfather in some portion of the existing undocumented workforce (and probably not a
very large portion). For anybody who dreams of coming to the United States for a better job, or to start
his or her own taqueria or a retail toque outlet, the various current Senate proposals will not increase,
and may even reduce, the legal opportunities to pursue the American dream.
Net-Benefit – Union Links
Guest worker laws split unions, assuring implementation failure
Tim Cavanaugh, April 16, 2006 columnist for Reason's print edition
Open the Borders: Forget guest workers—why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all?
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/16/open-the-borders
If there's one thing about NAFTA/WTO-style free trade that has always driven labor activists nuts, it's
that modern trade agreements allow "free flow of capital" but not "free flow of people." So you'd
expect organized labor to support any move that will give workers more flexibility and power, right?
Wrong. While American labor has come a long way since the 1980s (when the AFL-CIO supported the
most punitive "employer sanction" aspects of that era's immigration-reform efforts), the country's
major unions do not speak with one voice on this topic. And the complicated labor arguments over
immigration indicate more than just divergent motivations among unions. They hint at why even the
best "guest worker" legislation will be the kind of half-measure that principled supporters of open
immigration should treat with skepticism.
Guest Workers divide unions – creating zero sum backlash
Tim Cavanaugh, April 16, 2006 columnist for Reason's print edition
Open the Borders: Forget guest workers—why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all?
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/16/open-the-borders
"We remain deeply troubled by the expansion of guest worker programs—for workers not already in
this country—contemplated by the bill voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee," AFL-CIO President
John Sweeney announced recently. "Guest workers programs are a bad idea and harm all workers."
Whatever party politics Sweeney may have played in souring the Senate's efforts at a compromise
immigration reform bill, he was invoking classical zero-sum labor politics: Freer entry by new workers
from south of the border means more competition, and more downward wage pressure, for Sweeney's
constituents. Interestingly, however, his is not a unanimous labor position. The Service Employees
International Union took the opposite tack, backing the Judiciary Committee bill, and for reasons that
mirror Sweeney's reasons for opposing it. SEIU spokesperson Avril Smith says the organization's decision
was based on a number of factors, including an expansive guest worker program and the bill's guarantee
of 325,000 new work visas per year. "Any legislation we support will have to include visa programs," she
says. If you want to see the kind of philosophical differences that drove SEIU's spectacular divorce from
the AFL-CIO last year, this is a pretty good example. The major unions share the view that existing
undocumented workers—the 12 million or so reputed to be in the United States today—should be
regularized (and made easier to organize). The difference of opinion arises from the proverbial
campesino who is still in Mexico but may come north in the future. Is that person a potential ally or a
competitor for scarce wages? SEIU's answer depends partly on the organization's demographic, which is
high in immigrant laborers. (Some unions in the "Change to Win" coalition that joined SEIU in splitting
from from AFL-CIO have not taken a position on the current round of immigration reform.) But even
United Farm Workers of America, which has a largely though not wholly immigrant workforce (despite
popular images of the migrant worker as the icon of illegal immigration, only about one million of the
reputed 12 million undocumented workers in the United States work in agriculture), is careful to
separate its own guest worker efforts from plans that would open up new visa opportunities to people
who are not already in the country. UFW's "Ag Jobs" initiative, explains spokesman Marc Grossman, "is
not retroactive. You can't come into the country and then take advantage of it... But if they've been
brought into this country, we want to protect them." So where does that leave a Mexican citizen who
hopes to make it to the United States someday? "Out of luck," Grossman says.
Food Prices DA
1NC Food Prices DA
All trends indicate food prices are high and increasing—ag success reverses it
Wenzlau 4/11
(Sophie, Food and Agriculture Staff Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, “Global Food Prices
Continue to Rise” pg online at http://www.worldwatch.org/global-food-prices-continue-rise-0//sd)
Continuing a decade-long increase, global food prices rose 2.7 percent in 2012, reaching levels not seen since the
1960s and 1970s but still well below the price spike of 1974. Between 2000 and 2012, the World Bank global food price
index increased 104.5 percent, at an average annual rate of 6.5 percent. The price increases reverse a previous
trend when real prices of food commodities declined at an average annual rate of 0.6 percent from 1960 to 1999,
approaching historic lows. The sustained price decline can be attributed to farmers’ success in keeping crop
yields ahead of rising worldwide food demand. Although the global population grew by 3.8 billion or 122.9 percent between
1961 and 2010, net per capita food production increased by 49 percent over this period. Advances in crop breeding and an
expansion of agricultural land drove this rise in production, as farmers cultivated an additional 434
million hectares between 1961 and 2010. Food price volatility has increased dramatically since 2006.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the standard deviation—or measurement of variation from the
average—for food prices between 1990 and 1999 was 7.7 index points, but it increased to 22.4 index points in the 2000–12 period.
Although food price volatility has increased in the last decade, it is not a new phenomenon. According to World Bank
data, the standard deviation for food prices in 1960–99 was 11.9 index points higher than in 2000–12. Some price volatility is inherent
in agricultural commodities markets, as they are strongly influenced by weather shocks. But the recent upward trend
in food prices and volatility can be traced to additional factors including climate change, policies promoting the
use of biofuels, rising energy and fertilizer prices, poor harvests, national export restrictions, rising global
food demand, and low food stocks.
High food prices are inextricably tied to low supply
McKillop 11
(Andrew McKillop, former chief policy analyst @ European Commission, 8-4-2011, “The Food Crisis War
Endgame,” Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29666.html//sd)
Nothing gives better proof of a sure and certain, rapidly growing global food shortage than the simplest look
at how commodity markets have been responding to the US debt crisis, the coming devaluation of the US dollar, and the
merited exposure of Barack Obama as a loser. Stripping away the short covering, the dollar crisis, inflation fear and all the rest, we find that
food prices are resisting a lot better than oil prices, to the rising likelihood of recession in the western world,
and maybe also global economic recession. If food products were "pure commodities", like oil basically is, like
copper basically is, they should also tank on this recession outlook. But that isn't happening. Prices, to be sure,
are highly volatile but the fundamentals tell us why food prices are so resistant to recession fear. UN FAO food supply, demand and
price data proves that global demand is high, but supply isnt. The result: food prices are rising even as most
OECD countries, led by the US, the EU27 countries and Japan are either in recession, close to recession, or
experiencing constantly falling economic growth and rising unemployment.
US ag is the crux of global food prices—exporter of key crops
Coleman 12
(Isobel, Senior Fellow and Director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative; Director of
the Women and Foreign Policy Program, Council on Foreign relations, “U.S. Drought and Rising Global
Food Prices” August 2, http://www.cfr.org/food-security/us-drought-rising-global-foodprices/p28777//sd)
The ongoing drought in the Midwest has affected approximately 80 percent of the U.S. corn crop and more than
11 percent of the soybean crop, triggering a rise in global food prices (RFE/RL) that CFR's Isobel Coleman says may fuel political
instability in developing countries. The
United States produces approximately 35 percent of the world's corn and
soybean supply, commodities that are "crucial in the food chain, because they are used for feed stock
for animals," Coleman says. Growing demand for meat and protein from emergent middle classes internationally has made many countries
dependent on "relatively inexpensive food stocks" from the United States, she explains. "When you see a crop failure of the
magnitude you have seen this summer, it flows through the whole food chain," says Coleman, who recommends
reconsidering the U.S. ethanol mandate and building "more resilience into the global food system." Around the world you have rising middle
classes, a growing demand for meat and protein in the diet, and
countries around the world are becoming increasingly
dependent on relatively inexpensive food stocks from the United States . How is the U.S. drought affecting
commodity crops, food production, and prices? As recently as May, experts were predicting a record crop in the United States--and of course,
the Midwest is the bread basket for the rest of the world. Bu t
with severe drought in the Midwest, you've already seen a failure in the soybean and corn crop in the United States.
That increased world commodity prices, and it is going to trickle through the whole food chain . This is
what the United States does is so important, because
the hottest summer on record in the United States since 1895, and people are beginning to wonder whether this type of drought that we're
experiencing could become a new normal. The
United States is a pivotal player in world food production and has
the most sophisticated agricultural sector in terms of seeds, technology, irrigation, deep commodity
markets, and future markets. If the United States crop is so devastated by drought, what is going to happen to the rest of the world?
High food prices are spurring investment in Russian ag—any slip in prices collapses the
industry
Vasilyeva 8
(Nataliya, Russian agricultural leadership—round table presenter, AP, “Russian farming: from basket
case to breadbasket” pg online at http://themoscownews.com/business/20080919/55347483.html)
An American-made combine harvests barley doing the job of five Soviet tractors on this patch of the "Black
Earth" region - a glimpse into changes sweeping Russian agriculture that have raised hopes of
transforming a once backward industry into a breadbasket. Lured by soaring food prices, corporations both domestic and foreign - have been snapping up land in this fertile region the size of France, replacing
inefficient Soviet-style collective farming with modern farming techniques and economies of scale.
"Foreigners who come here get astonished at the gleaming black earth," said Viktor Karnushin, head of a local subsidiary of Sweden's Black Earth Farming corporation one of the biggest foreign players in Russian farming. Russian government officials recently announced plans to transform the
country into the world's leading grain exporter within five years. While there are skeptics, Natasha Zavozdina at investment bank
Renaissance Capital said the target is realistic. "With $70 billion (1.8 trillion RUB) investment within 5 or 7 years... the goal will be achieved," she said. " As long as production
is profitable, public and private investment will be flowing in." Meanwhile, the Kremlin plans to form a state
trading company to broker about half of the country's millions of tons of grain exports, expanding its control of who
buys Russia's cereals and how much they pay for them. That has led to concern abroad that Russia may use its grain as it uses its
control of the nation's enormous oil and natural gas wealth - as leverage for diplomatic and political
goals. There's lots of room for Russia to ramp up its farm production. Russia is the globe's largest country
geographically, and has almost one hectare out of every ten of the world's arable land. According to analyst estimates, the Soviets farmed 314 million acres of Russian land in
1985. But in 2007, Russian farmers cultivated only 190 million acres - a 40 percent drop. Much of Russia's land is marginal and millions of acres of
farmland are located far north in areas with short growing seasons. But the Black Earth region stretching across Southern Russia and neighboring Ukraine is some of the most fertile land in
Much of Russia's fertile land was abandoned after the Soviet collapse, as thousands flooded into
urban areas, and investors see an opportunity. The government launched an agricultural renovation
program in 2001 that restricted farm imports, reduced taxes, subsidized loans and provided farmers with cheap equipment leasing. Rising food prices have done
the rest. Production and investment have been on a steady rise in the past five years although many
farms are far from Western standards of efficiency. This year's wheat crop is widely forecast to be the highest since 1978. Ivan Nikolaev of
Renaissance Capital sees Russia as the world's biggest grain exporter, second only to the United States, in five years. " The government has created a very
favorable investment climate," Nikolaev said. Viktor Gulov, director general of Agrolipetsk, one of Black Earth Farming's subsidiaries, said Russian farming has great
growth potential, while "the West has already hit the ceiling in terms of harvest volume and arable land areas." Investors paid relatively little attention to
Europe.
Russian agriculture in the 1990s because of low food prices and the lure of quicker profits in other areas, including energy and metals. But that
has changed. Foreign investment in Russian agriculture and forestry nearly tripled between 2005 and 2007, from $158
million (4 billion RUB) to $468 million (12 billion RUB), according to the national statistics agency. Russian farming seems poised to boom even
without bringing many more fields into production. In Soviet times, Karnushin said, farmers were lucky to get 2.5 tons of wheat out of a hectare
(about 2.5 acres) of land. Using modern technology and farming methods, his company today expects to harvest at
least five tons of wheat out of the same plot, he said. There are obstacles to agricultural development here. One is a lack of roads and infrastructure to
transport goods to market, which may soon become a major drag on the sector's development. A recent slip in commodities prices can also leave
some of the investors disappointed . Declining prices will show the real commitment of the investors
who were hoping to reap sizable profits every year, said Andrei Sizov from the Moscow-based SovEcon consultancy.
Extinction
David 99 – Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University [Steven R., “Saving America from
the Coming Civil Wars,” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, LN]
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the
GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many
economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $
70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout
privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of
life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the
current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people
will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed
forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a
dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an
ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political
fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and
local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve
closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and
Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of
the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever
more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond
Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With
the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less
incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own
constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet
policies may motivate non- Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt
against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the
country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia
succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major
power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian
Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour
into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from
the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe
and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the
privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the
violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever
fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000
nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the
country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however,
Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a
wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the
greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this
threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. Lack of attention to the threat of civil wars by U.S.
policymakers and academics has meant a lack of response and policy options. This does not mean, however, that Washington can or should do
nothing at all. As a first measure, American policymakers should work with governments of threatened states to prevent domestic conflict from
erupting. Though the inadvertent side effects of internal conflicts cannot be deterred, the outbreak of civil war itself may be discouraged. Doing
so may require unambiguous and generous American support for a regime that finds itself under assault. Or it may require Washington to ease
out unsustainable leaders (the Philippines' Marcos or Indonesia's Suharto) once their time has clearly passed. Either way, the difficulties of
preventing internal war pale in comparison to the problems of coping with its effects. The United States should take action now to prepare
itself for civil war in key states. To respond to conflict in Mexico, Washington will need feasible evacuation plans for hundreds of thousands of
Americans in that country. Contingency plans for closing the Mexican-American border should be considered. And the possibility of a Mexican
civil war raises the issue of American intervention. How and where the United States would enter the fray would of course be determined by
circumstances, but it is not premature to give serious thought to the prospect. To guard against a conflict in Saudi Arabia, the United States
should lead the effort to reduce Western dependence on Saudi oil. This will require a mixed strategy, including the expansion of U.S. strategic
oil reserves (which could be done now, while Saudi oil is cheap and available), locating new suppliers (such as the Central Asian republics), and
reviving moribund efforts to find oil alternatives. None of this will be easy, especially in an era of dollar-a-gallon gasoline, but it makes more
sense than continuing to rely on an energy source so vulnerable to the ravages of civil war. For Russia, America must reduce the chances that
civil conflict there will unleash nuclear weapons against the United States. First, Washington must do more to
reduce the amount of nuclear weapons and fissionable material that could be lost, stolen, or used in the chaos of civil war. The Nunn-Lugar
program, under which the United States buys Russian nuclear material to use and store in America, is a good start, but it must be accelerated.
America should not worry about making a profit on the plutonium and enriched uranium it buys, but just get the goods out of Russia as fast as
possible. Second, arms control initiatives that may have been unpalatable during the Cold War should now be reconsidered, given the risk of
accidental or unauthorized launchings. American policymakers should contemplate agreements to reduce the total number of Russian (and
American) nuclear weapons, to deprive the Russians of the ability to quickly launch a nuclear strike (for example, by contracting to store
warheads away from missiles), and should intensify efforts to develop an effective defense against missile attacks.
Uniqueness
Food Prices High
Food prices on the rise—tight production
NYT 12
(“Global Food Prices on the Rise, U.N. Says” 10/4/12 pg online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/world/global-food-prices-on-the-rise-united-nationssays.html?_r=0//sd)
WASHINGTON — Global prices for meats, dairy products and cereals resumed rising last month, the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization reported Thursday, adding to concerns that developing countries may face food
shortages. The agency said that on average, prices rose 1.4 percent in September, after remaining steady in July
and August. Scorching heat and drought in the United States, Russia and Europe constricted agricultural
production and pushed up prices of corn and soybeans to record highs, the report said. The largest increases were for dairy
products, which rose 7 percent in September, their sharpest climb since January 2011. Higher feed costs were a major factor in the increase,
and also helped to drive meat prices up 2.1 percent, especially in the “grain intensive” pork and poultry industries, the report said. Cereal
prices rose 1 percent, and the food agency forecast a decline in global cereal production this year.
Prices will stay high—demand is outstripping supply
Cruz et al 11
(Moritz Cruz Researcher, National Autonomous University of Mexico (unam), Institute of Economic
Research, Armando Sánchez Researcher, National Autonomous University of Mexico (unam), Institute of
Economic Research and Edmund Aman Edmund Amann Senior Lecturer, University of Manchester,
School of Social Sciences. Cepal Review, “Mexico: food price increases and growth constraints” pg online
at http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/7/46377/RVI105Cruzetal.pdf//sd)
International commodity prices increased by around 195% in real terms during the 2001-2008 period. Food
prices, in particular, practically doubled during the period (IMF, 2010; see also ECLAC, 2008), reaching unprecedented levels. Given the
nature of the factors driving it, food price inflation cannot be viewed as a temporary phenomenon. On the demand
side, pressure on food prices is stemming from the sustained and rapid growth of key emerging economies
(mainly China and India) as well as from the generation of new sources of energy derived from basic food grains such as maize.
On the supply side, global climate change and lags in technological development are adversely affecting
efforts to increase production. In the near future therefore, the demand for food is expected to considerably
outstrip supply. This, in turn, has led to predictions of rising international food prices for at least the next
10 years (OECD/FAO, 2010). The era of cheap food, in other words, has come to an end (see The Economist, 2007, 2008,
2009).'
Food prices are increasing steadily despite climate concerns
Volpe 6/25
(United States Department of Agriculture, Richard Volpe, PhD in agricultural economics, “Food Price
Outlook” 2013 pg online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summaryfindings.aspx#.Ud8AX_nXpsk//sd)
Food Price Outlook, 2013 Despite the severe drought in the Midwest, retail food prices were mostly flat in 2012.
Prices rose for beef and veal, poultry, fruit, and other foods in 2012; however, prices fell for pork, eggs, vegetables, and
nonalcoholic beverages. For the remaining food categories, prices were unchanged for the most part. The drought has
affected prices for corn and soybeans as well as other field crops which should, in turn, drive up retail food prices. However, the
transmission of commodity price changes into retail prices typically takes several months to occur, and
most of the impact of the drought is expected to be realized in 2013. Based on current conditions, ERS's inflation forecast for both all
food and food-at-home (grocery store) prices in 2013 is for increases of 2.5 to 3.5 percent. This forecast means that
prices are likely to increase more than in 2012, but that overall inflation is expected to be near the historical
average for both indexes. Inflation is expected to remain strong, especially in the first half of 2013, for most animal-based
food products due to higher feed prices. For most food categories not directly affected by the 2012 drought, however, inflation is
expected to be at or even below normal levels.
Food prices increasing—UN Data indicates price inflation
McKillop 11
(Andrew McKillop, former chief policy analyst @ European Commission, 8-4-2011, “The Food Crisis War
Endgame,” Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29666.html//sd)
Crippling food price inflation, by 2008, had caused deadly riots in at least 40 countries. Today in 2011, food commodity
prices are as high, in some cases higher than they were in 2008 - and world population has risen by another
200 million since 2008, or two-thirds of the USA's total population today. Through June 2010-June 2011, the UN FAO's world
food price index rose by 39 percent. Food price inflation now affects every corner of the globe, to be sure
with the poorest countries most exposed and feeling the worst hunger pangs. All and every country experiencing the Arab Spring revolt, and its
trend to linked civil war, is we can note totally dependent on food imports for all basic foods. The world's three-largest wheat importes by rank
are Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia. Street protest might be nice, and is surely needed to overthrow dictators and tyrants - backed or tolerated
by the western democracies for decades - but food shortage is almost guaranteed to turn democracy protests into civil war, even faster and
more surely. Exactly
like oil prices, food commodity prices rise not only through physical shortage, but also
because of the naked decline of the US dollar used to pay for them, causing a flight to "real resources".
Factors like extreme weather damage, tsunami damage in Japan, and plant or livestock diseases and pathogen
outbreaks - often linked to chemical and genetic manipulation of crop plant and livestock species - can at any time radically cut
supplies and increase food prices in a few days hectic trading. The arm of food shortage and high prices, to be sure, can still be
wielded in blunt weapon FoodWar-1 style, on already down-and-out countries. The endless negotiations with North Korea are basically a
nuclear threat and food game, where Pyongyang holds a nuclear gun to the West's head in exchange for food. Pirate Somalia, when it was last a
country and not a fuzzy and starving no-mans-land of feudal chiefdoms, was food self-sufficient until the 1970s. It is a "failed state" because of
food shortage or food shortage helps keep it locked down as a failed state. Like we can guess, the Peace Dividend in either of these cases will be
almost zero, but deliberately intensifying the food crises in North Korea and Somalia yet again underlines the schizoid but vicious nature of our
ruling elites. More important, FoodWar-2 needs no political trigger-pull, the process is in global operation now, 24/7, and will only keep going.
The measuring rod of this is rising food prices. Food War 2 is worldwide and multiform, but has one single end result:
food prices will rise. Trapped in a web of regulations restricting food freedom in all ways, starting with what farmers are allowed to
produce, to protect the agribusiness cartel which controls the basic building blocks of food, from the molecular level up and through the entire
system, the potential for change is low. Raising
global food output through changing the methods and techniques utilised,
including a shift back to traditional farming, is practically impossible, even in the midterm. There is no
short-term way out, nor midterm way out. Food prices could "go on rising forever", but just like other fetish symbols and
needs of the consumer society - oil in particular - when we have a constantly rising price, the economic and social systems get flakier, faster.
This will go on a certain time, depending on wealth and spending capabilities in different countries,
depending how much inflation middle class voters can absorb with their McDonalds - but the process will not
go on forever.
Food prices are high now—recession in agribusiness
McKillop 11
(Andrew McKillop, former chief policy analyst @ European Commission, 8-4-2011, “The Food Crisis War
Endgame,” Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29666.html//sd)
Food shortage is driven by population growth: anybody who wants to deny that by calling it fascistminded can take a look at
how agribusiness operates, from Monsanto, Dow, Bayer and McDonalds to the Bill Gates Foundation. Their game is trashing the environment
for decades or centuries ahead and making profits right now - - while just about being able to feed 6.1 billion persons on Earth. The other 900
million suffer permanent food shortage. That is one-in-seven of world population. The number of underfed is growing by around 4% to 6% per
year - far ahead of the population growth rate, and the average rate of global economic growth. And one thing is sure: in
global
economic recession the underfed will grow even faster, unless food prices behave like "other
commodities" and tank in recession - which is no longer certain. This is the danger: recession will come. Oil
prices will drop, even gold edges down a little - maybe - but food prices stay high and dangerous. They can, could or
might even continue rising in global economic recession, drastically multiplying the social stress and damage
from recession. The cards and dice are stacked and rolling that way. We can be 100% certain that any abandonment
of pesticides-and-ferilizer, monocrop, irrigation-based "farming", that is agribusiness, will firstly result in a large net fall in
world total food supply. Any attempt at a rapid phase-out of agribusiness would move us up to say 1300 million persons who suffer
permanent day in and day out food shortage - and anybody saying we need to control population is still a fascist, right ?
Links
Links – Supply
Low domestic supply triggers high global food prices
NYT 12
(“Severe Drought Seen as Driving Cost of Food Up” 7/25, pg online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/business/food-prices-to-rise-in-wake-of-severedrought.html//sd)
Economists fear a far greater impact outside of the United States because America is a major exporter of a
broad variety of agricultural products. Lower production at home means less supply and higher prices
abroad. “We’re seeing the price of wheat, corn and beans go up,” said Marc Sadler, the head of the agricultural risk
management team at the World Bank, noting that in other regions of the world, like Eastern Europe, yields were
also falling. “Food wheat is about bread and cookies and instant noodles. But it’s about instant noodles in
Asia and Indonesia, as much as it is about what you’re going to buy in Walmart,” Mr. Sadler said. Countries that import
substantial amounts of animal feed made from corn and soybeans will feel the impact the most, said Maximo Torero, an
economist with the International Food Policy Research Institute, an international research group.
High food prices are inextricably tied to low supply
McKillop 11
(Andrew McKillop, former chief policy analyst @ European Commission, 8-4-2011, “The Food Crisis War
Endgame,” Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29666.html//sd)
Nothing gives better proof of a sure and certain, rapidly growing global food shortage than the simplest look
at how commodity markets have been responding to the US debt crisis, the coming devaluation of the US dollar, and the
merited exposure of Barack Obama as a loser. Stripping away the short covering, the dollar crisis, inflation fear and all the rest, we find that
food prices are resisting a lot better than oil prices, to the rising likelihood of recession in the western world,
and maybe also global economic recession. If food products were "pure commodities", like oil basically is, like
copper basically is, they should also tank on this recession outlook. But that isn't happening. Prices, to be sure,
are highly volatile but the fundamentals tell us why food prices are so resistant to recession fear. UN FAO food supply, demand and
price data proves that global demand is high, but supply isnt. The result: food prices are rising even as most
OECD countries, led by the US, the EU27 countries and Japan are either in recession, close to recession, or
experiencing constantly falling economic growth and rising unemployment.
Links – Labor Shortages
Labor shortages increase food prices
Washington Post 1/29
(“We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help.” 2013 pg online at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farmworkers-immigration-reform-may-not-help///sd)
For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers — mainly from
Mexico — to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States were
foreign-born . (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap
labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables.
But that labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, we’ve seen a spate of headlines like this from
CNBC: “California Farm Labor Shortage ‘Worst It’s Been, Ever’.” Typically, these stories blame drugrelated violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call
for new guest-worker programs.
Higher food prices absent increased guest workers--American farms grow unprofitable
Hinyub 12
(Chris, history and political science major from the Palm Beach Atlantic University, “Agriculture & Voters
Keen on Guest Worker Program” 5/10/12, pg online at http://ivn.us/2012/05/10/agriculture-voterskeen-on-guest-worker-program///sd)
Attempts to tackle comprehensive immigration reform at the state level has wounded agriculture and exposed an
unavoidable issue for farm-state lawmakers seeking election in 2012. Because U.S. citizens, by and large, will
not work in farm fields and because partisan gridlock over amnesty has kept comprehensive
immigration reform off Congress’ to-do list, agricultural stakeholders are pleading with lawmakers to reform the country’s
immigration policy to accommodate an ag-centric guest worker program. Last year, farm labor shortages gripped states that
had passed stringent immigration reforms. Since then the symptoms have spread, as entire regions are
feeling the pinch. Industry insiders have voiced concern that its only a matter of time before the promised
‘papers please’ crackdowns of individuals detained in Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia – coupled with e-verify mandates for
employers in those states – translate to higher food prices at the grocery store…but not before the failure of
many American farms. To avoid this scenario, a coalition of 100-plus farm organizations led by the California-based Western
Growers farm/trade group are floating an idea to invite foreign guest workers into the U.S. to harvest and
process crops without giving them a path to citizenship. Industry leaders hope the plan could operate parallel to the current
H2A program in which migrants enter the U.S. for 12 months to work in agriculture before they are supposed to return home. Under the new
proposal, immigrant workers could renew their work credentials for another year, but would not be allowed to bring their families into the
states. “I don’t think there
is an appetite for comprehensive immigration reform (nationally) so that’s why
we’re trying an ag-first proposal,” said Tom Nassif, Western Growers’ President and Chief Financial Officer during a conference call
with reporters late last March. A Tarrance Group-conducted poll (PDF), which surveyed a broad cross section of the American electorate in
January, found that 70
percent of voters back such a plan. The survey showed overwhelming support for a
streamlined ag-first guest worker program from all likely voter groups including Republicans, Tea Party
supporters, Democrats and Independents. During an Agriculture Department press conference last summer, American Farm
Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman called for “new, innovative approaches like programs where biometric
identifiers can be provided (to guest workers) … who want to, frankly, do the jobs that American
workers will not do.” Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reaffirmed Stallman’s claim that farmers are hard pressed to find
“legal” employees, urging Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform to prevent farm labor shortages. “While some American
citizens step up and take (farm) jobs, the truth is even when farmers make their best effort to recruit a domestic workforce, few citizens
express interest. In large part that’s because this is hard, tough work… “Simply put, our broken immigration system
offers little hope for producers trying to do the right thing and make a living. But again and again good faith efforts to fix this
broken system – from leaders of both parties – fall prey to the usual Washington political gains.” Most of
Washington’s political gains (at least on the right of the spectrum) have hinged on the treatment of immigration reform proposals
that include amnesty or “citizenship pathways” as anathemas. The revised guest worker plan pitched by
agricultural interests grew up from that volatile soil. It bans any such “pathway” outright. Nassif made it clear
that his group does not want to attach immigration reform language to the next Farm Bill, which has already been
jeopardized by budgetary partisanship in the earliest phases of its deliberation. Expect the agricultural industry to pitch its guest worker
program to Congress before fall elections. According to Stallman, between
$5 billion and $9 billion per year of production
is dependent on workers whose legal status has not been verified and who are assumed to be working illegally. He says
that California accounts for almost $3 billion and Florida for $1 billion of that total. “Most of that is in specialty crops like fruits
and vegetables. But the livestock sector, particularly dairy, is also affected,” Stallman said. In the debate over
comprehensive immigration reform its difficult to gain a broad enough perspective not to disqualify one, if not more valid points of view. This
owes to the complexity of a political issue which holds livelihoods and the integrity of family units in its balance. But the practical necessity of
maintaining a constant and safe food supply while keeping American farms competitive and profitable is an issue of pressing concern for all
voters. If
farm labor shortages continue through the summer, a refined ag-first guestworker program will likely
be a national election issue.
US Key Global Food Prices
US ag is the crux of global food prices—exporter of key crops
Coleman 12
(Isobel, Senior Fellow and Director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative; Director of
the Women and Foreign Policy Program, Council on Foreign relations, “U.S. Drought and Rising Global
Food Prices” August 2, http://www.cfr.org/food-security/us-drought-rising-global-foodprices/p28777//sd)
The ongoing drought in the Midwest has affected approximately 80 percent of the U.S. corn crop and more than
11 percent of the soybean crop, triggering a rise in global food prices (RFE/RL) that CFR's Isobel Coleman says may fuel political
instability in developing countries. The United States produces approximately 35 percent of the world's corn and
soybean supply, commodities that are "crucial in the food chain, because they are used for feed stock
for animals," Coleman says. Growing demand for meat and protein from emergent middle classes internationally has made many countries
dependent on "relatively inexpensive food stocks" from the United States, she explains. "When you see a crop failure of the
magnitude you have seen this summer, it flows through the whole food chain," says Coleman, who recommends
reconsidering the U.S. ethanol mandate and building "more resilience into the global food system." Around the world you have rising middle
classes, a growing demand for meat and protein in the diet, and
countries around the world are becoming increasingly
dependent on relatively inexpensive food stocks from the United States . How is the U.S. drought affecting
commodity crops, food production, and prices? As recently as May, experts were predicting a record crop in the United States--and of course,
the Midwest is the bread basket for the rest of the world. Bu t
with severe drought in the Midwest, you've already seen a failure in the soybean and corn crop in the United States.
That increased world commodity prices, and it is going to trickle through the whole food chain . This is
what the United States does is so important, because
the hottest summer on record in the United States since 1895, and people are beginning to wonder whether this type of drought that we're
experiencing could become a new normal. The
United States is a pivotal player in world food production and has
the most sophisticated agricultural sector in terms of seeds, technology, irrigation, deep commodity
markets, and future markets. If the United States crop is so devastated by drought, what is going to happen to the rest of the world?
Global food prices are tied to US production
Baragona 12
(Steve, “US Drought Could Trigger Higher Food Prices”, 7/9, pg online at
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-drought-could-trigger-higher-food-prices/1381476.html//sd)
World food prices are likely to rise in the coming months in the wake of record-breaking temperatures and
drought in the major maize and soybean producing regions of the United States, economists say. It would be the third spike in
food prices in the past five years. Previous hikes - during 2007 and 2008, and again in 2010 and 2011 - triggered riots and social
instability in dozens of countries around the world. Whether rising food prices will again trigger unrest is unclear,
especially since different crops are affected. Crops shrinking Despite early predictions of a record maize crop, estimates have plummeted after a
string of record-high temperature days and dry conditions stretching across the farm states of the U.S. Midwest. “We need rain, and it doesn’t
look like we’re going to get it,” says Iowa State University economist Dermot Hayes. A farm hand harvests potatoes a month early at King's Hill
Farm at Mineral Point, Wisconsin, July 30, 2012. The potato yield is about one fifth of the expected yield, but is the farm's only salvageable crop
after the other crops perished in the drought gr Disable Captions As
the world’s leading exporter of maize and a top
soybean exporter, what happens in the U.S. affects global prices, according to Hayes. Mexico and
Central America, where maize is a key staple, will be affected directly, but Hayes expects others to be affected
indirectly as well. “Bread prices in North Africa will go up, and chicken prices in China, pork prices in China, et cetera,” he says. “And
there are going to be some very unhappy people.” Bread will go up in North Africa because wheat prices follow maize prices. Meat prices to rise
Pork and chicken prices will go up, as well as beef, milk and eggs, because maize and soybeans are key ingredients in animal feed. Countries
that import substantial amounts of animal feed will feel the impacts the most, according to economist Maximo
Torero with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). “That’s China, India, and most of the Latin American
countries, which are growing a lot and are starting to consume a lot more meat," Torero says. "So it could affect them substantially.”
However, Torero expects the world’s poor to be hit less severely than in the previous two price spikes. “I don’t see the issue of meat and milk as
a huge problem for the poorest countries,” where consumption of animal products is much lower than in industrialized nations, he says. “A
different kind of maize” Cornell University economist Chris Barrett agrees. “The poor who consume maize in large quantities are
disproportionately in areas where they consume either a different kind of maize, or they’re in relatively remote regions where they are likewise
buffered from the global markets.” In much of sub-Saharan Africa, Barrett notes, consumers prefer white maize over the yellow varieties grown
in the United States. Also, the fact that the most-affected crops are primarily used as animal feed and not crops such as rice or wheat, which are
consumed directly, mitigates the impact on the poor, says IFPRI’s Maximo Torero. “If the case was rice, like what we had in 2007-2008, then the
situation would be different because those commodities are really imported in most of sub-Saharan Africa. And also in the case of wheat that
happened in 2010, it affected Northern Africa - Cairo and so on - because they are net importers.” Lower standard of living But while rising
prices may threaten food security for the poor, experts note they can create unrest among consumers whose standard of living had been rising.
Iowa State University’s Dermot Hayes says it could be an irritant in China, a country with a growing middle class but significant social inequality.
“It’s a tinderbox over there,” he says. “It’s not a real homogenous or pleasant society the way it’s structured right now. So there could be some
issues.” But Cornell University’s Chris Barrett says Beijing would keep a lid on prices for the sake of stability. “The Chinese government isn’t
going to be the least bit shy about buffering its own domestic markets,” he says. And with $3 trillion in foreign currency reserves, he adds, “they
have the wherewithal to do that.” But other countries without China’s fiscal wherewithal may feel the impacts more strongly. Demand
outstripping supply The
fundamental problem is that world production has not been keeping up with growing
demand for food corps, says IFPRI’s Maximo Torero. “There is a lot of talk about what to do and how to improve, but nothing is
happening and we have not been able to change the scenario.” Torero cautions the world will continue under the same
scenario until serious efforts are made to meet the growing demands.
Global food prices depend on the US—last year’s drought empirics
CNN Money 12
(“U.S. drought drives up food prices worldwide” 8/9 pg online at
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/food-prices-index/index.htm//sd)
The drought that's drying up the Heartland isn't just an American problem. It's causing food prices to surge
worldwide. And it could get worse. "This is not some gentle monthly wake-up call, it's the same global alarm that's been screaming at us
since 2008," said Colin Roche of Oxfam, noting that the drought could lead to food shortages for millions of people
worldwide. Food is a major U.S. export, so the drought affects prices around the globe. "World leaders must
snap out of their lazy complacency and realize the time of cheap food has long gone," Roche said. Related: Corn prices rally to
new record high In July, food prices jumped 6%, after three months of declines, according to the United Nations' monthly Food Price
Index released Thursday. The main drivers behind the increase? Grain prices. And more specifically, corn prices, which
have hit record highs in recent weeks. According to the U.N. report, global corn prices surged nearly 23% in July, exacerbated by
"the severe deterioration of maize crop prospects in the United States, following drought conditions and excessive
heat during critical stages of the crop development." "It's going to have a big impact [on consumers]," said Sam Zippin, an
analyst at financial information firm Sageworks. "Corn is in almost everything." Related: Get ready to pay more for your steak Food
prices have been creeping up throughout the United States, as hot temperatures across the Midwestern and Western parts
of the nation have dried out crops and driven up the price of corn and grain. The U.N. index of cereal prices soared 17% last
month, creeping closer to its all-time high set in April 2008. Paul McNamara, associate professor at the University of Illinois' College of
Agriculture, said grain prices could rise still further, as cattle ranchers look for a substitute to corn, the most expensive feed. Meat
prices actually declined modestly, according to the U.N. report, but that was partly due to ranchers culling their herds to curb prices they have
to pay for corn-based feed, McNamara said the increases
in corn prices and the weak harvest will also put pressure
on policymakers to change the current U.S. policy towards ethanol, which mandates that nearly 10% of the nation's
fuel supply comes from corn. Related: Food prices on the rise as drought worsens Aside from corn, some of the most dramatic increases in
food-flation were in the fats and oils because they use soybeans, which have also been hurt by the drought. And that
higher prices for margarine and peanut butter.
translates into
Impacts
High Food Prices Good – Russia
Russia is transitioning from oil to agriculture—diversification is key to economic
sustainability
Delaney 11
(Martin, “Russia: The Wild East” pg online at http://www.ipe.com/magazine/russia-the-wildeast_38558.php#.Ue4N3o3Xpsk)
However, many would argue they are wrong. "There are important reforms going on in Russia at the moment," explains Vladimir Kirillov,
chief executive of TKB BNP Paribas Investment Partners. "You are seeing a reform of the social security system, ongoing reform in
the pension system and a significant decrease in the burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises."
Beyond the reform programme the fundamentals remain sound - despite the ongoing fall-out from the global
economic crisis. According to Franklin Templeton Investments' latest Market Perspectives note, while the Russian economy contracted by 7.9% in
2009, it is forecast to grow by 4% in 2010 - and 4.3% in 2011. By the end of September 2010 Russian equities had more than doubled since they bottomed in January 2009. For October alone,
%. The Russian economy continues to stabilise, with unemployment falling
substantially since the beginning of the year and retail sales and disposable income have increasing. The oil
price remains relatively buoyant at just below $85 per barrel - well above the oft-cited $55-$60 range that Russia needs for its economy to break even. "This means that the Russian
government will be able to run lower budget deficits this year and next, which in turn should mitigate
inflationary pressure and prove supportive for the ruble as it will limit the rate of money supply growth," notes Michael Kart, managing partner at Marshall Spectrum, the
Moscow-based emerging markets equity manager specialising in Russia and CIS. Concerns remain about the impact of the recent drought
and wildfires, particularly on the agricultural sector, but the general trend of the markets and the economy
is upwards. As the western markets falter, those in the emerging markets will continue to be the "the engine
spurring the world's growth over the next years", explains Kart. "Russia as the world's main storehouse of raw
materials will provide the necessary fuel for that. If we take a look at the country within the BRIC context, we would notice that the country has by far
the Russian equity market reported a rise of 5.7
more natural resources, a more educated population, a higher proportion of the middle-class, a strong macroeconomic framework, a better track record - and it is cheaper." And this is the key:
on virtually any metric Russia offers potentially better opportunities than most other emerging markets. Kart remains convinced the country offers investors a multitude of opportunities.
"Contrary to popular belief, Russia, according to various studies performed by institutions such as World Bank and the IMF, compares well with its peers on metrics like ease of doing business,
market size, transparency, infrastructure, penetration, dividend yield, and return on equity," he insists. That is a bold statement to make, but one echoed by fund managers and investment
analysts based in Moscow. "The people who are able to identify and manage the risks should be able to benefit from the low multiples when the overall perception of Russia improves," says
Russia looks particularly interesting as it is one
of the cheapest major markets in the world, supported by broad-based GDP and EPS growth, sound macro
fundamentals and relatively high commodity prices," agrees Marcus Svedberg, chief economist at East Capital. "Russian WTO membership, which
Dimitri Kryukov, founder and CIO of Verno Investment Management, which runs the Verno Russia fund. "
seems more realistic than ever, would be a positive trigger that is not yet priced in by the market. A steady stream of IPOs absorbed liquidity and Russia has underperformed other emerging
one can find
opportunities to make money work harder than in other places as long as you are there on the ground.
"The finance and consumer-related sectors offer much higher returns on capital than you would find in
other markets in Europe - and that has never been more pronounced than now," he says. "These sectors in Russia will only
get bigger." The emergent middle class and an ancillary increase in consumer demand are fuelling an unparalleled period of
expansion. And, in spite of rumbling concerns about its relations with its neighbours, Russia's government remains relatively stable. Expected presidential elections in 2012 are likely to
markets in 2010 and is still 40% below its pre-crisis peak. We believe this is a good entry point." Matthias Siller, co-manager of the Baring Russia fund, says that
see a smooth handover of power - although doubts grow as to whether Putin will be able to reclaim the top job. "Russia's political risk is different [to that of other emerging markets]," explains
in Russia it is more focused at
the company and sector level. Clearly there is political involvement in certain sectors and companies, and
sometimes that does make investing in Russia quite opaque. You learn to live with it." Yet in spite of a general consensus that Russia offers one of the investment
opportunities of the decade, there remain good reasons why valuations are so low. Claude Tiramani, manager of Lutetia Capital's Emerging Opportunities fund, points
out that infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP has declined from 40% in the 1970s to just 20% today. The
dependence of the economy on the oil and gas sectors is also a worry (see further article in this section)
- although the government is making a concerted effort to diversify its tax revenues. Moves to establish a
broader economy have led to investments into agriculture and the development of the banking sector. Concerns around corporate
Hugo Bain, senior investment manager of the Pictet Russian Equities fund. "For example, in Turkey the political risk is top-down, but
governance and corruption are valid - exemplified by the Yukos affair. In its 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index, Transparency International, the anti-corruption group, ranked Russia at 2.1 on a
scale of 1-10 where 10 represents "very clean". The other BRIC nations, China, India and Brazil, all scored 3.5, 3.3 and 3.7 respectively. By way of comparison, the US and the UK scored 7.1 and
7.6 respectively. The owner of the UK's Independent and Evening Standard newspapers, Alexander Lebedev, whose Moscow investment bank was recently raided by secret service agents,
recently claimed Russians pay $300bn a year in bribes - almost a quarter of the country's GDP. He has categorically denied any wrongdoing himself. Ultimately, however, many of those based
in Moscow say they read about a country in the press that they simply do not recognise. "I don't want to sound like an apologist, but Russia does receive a biased press," argues David
Thornton, fund manager of the Matrix New Europe fund. "They have a complete blind spot in their reporting of Russia." Even investors into Yukos could still have made money - despite the
state's tax levy. "From the first signs of trouble in July 2003," explains Dimitri Kryukov at the Verno Russia fund, "Yukos still managed to post a high in April 2004 - nine months after the trouble
first emerged. Investors who had done their homework would still have been able to protect their capital." In essence, his comments represent a good first lesson for investors seeking
Russia may be
viewed as the wild east of the BRIC nations, but now is the time that the great fortunes of the future are
being made.
opportunities in Russia: with an understanding of the situation and insight into the risks posed by the BRIC nation, the country offers superlative investment returns.
Russia is transitioning to Ag based economy—low food prices hinder critical ag exports
and investment
Isvarmurti 12
(V., President of the Oxford University Debating Union and Indian Students Association, ““Russian
agriculture is the opportunity of the century!” pg online at
http://www.isvarmurti.com/2012/09/19/russian-agriculture-is-the-opportunity-of-the-century///sd)
US economy is still in the slowdown mode only! Obama faces an uphill task in facing the Republican challenge! Russian agriculture is
the opportunity of the century? To overcome the global food security threat? Yes, say many observers! See what Russian President Vladimir
Putting is doing! In the USA too there is still concern, even as Obama is facing an uphill task, it seems, on overcoming the Republican challenge to his candidature. Yes, the global
drought in many parts of the world, including in the USA and Europe has caused many worries about the global food
availability. The US drought had upset the traditional US agri export strategies. Its corn and soyabean output is
seriously hit. So too drought in some central European countries like Bosnia and Croatia and even in Vietnam have come as a rude shock. Asian countries, once the rice bowls of the
world are now in great uncertainty. India? Yes, it seems that we are committed to export wheat, sugar and even cotton. India is now seen as a leading exporter of rice and cotton and sugar.
Domestic agriculture and food issues are one aspect. There are the new
opportunities, in foreign countries, as much for diplomatic as for strategic reasons India exports rice in a big way to
countries like Iran. Then are the traditional rice markets for the Indian basmati rise exports. No big country or economy can now be an insulated
one as far as agriculture and food security is concerned. So, in this perspective comes the recent Russian President hosting the 22-member nation
But here too there are uncertainties.
Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit at the Russian eastern end port city of Vladivostok. That is in a way an education to the Indian experts as well as Indian voters to critically scrutinise
the campaign speeches of the two US Presidential candidates as to what they have got to say about their own economy. US economy is also slowing down. There is an unemployment rate of
8.3% in the USA at present. The election folklore in the US is that unless the unemployment rate is below 7.3% a candidate can’t hope to get elected there! So Obama is not at his most winning
phase yet. May be between today and the Election Day things might improve to his advantage. Also Mitt Romney’s hoped for blunders might come to the rescue of Obama. The American
voters, as never before, are deeply divided, American society is becoming racial as never before, there is the 70% of the 315 million white population and also the dominant male white might
vote for Romney and also the other minorities, specially the Hispanics, they are 16.3%, though the African American voters, though small at 12.6 % they might overwhelmingly, 90% vote for
Obama as they did in 2008. The point is American economy might recover not so fast but only more slowly, it seems. Unless the US economy recovers, there can’t be growth prospects for
There are also other dominant
world economies like China and Russia. Russian agriculture is the opportunity of the century! For its gas and
oil supplies and also for its predominant status as one of the world’s great grain supplier! Vladimir Putin at the recently concluded Asia
Pacific Tim countries, some 22 of them, which met at the Russian Far Eastern port of Vladivostok over which Russia has
spent now over 20 billion dollars to upgrade the city and port infrastructure. World’s longest two-mile long, cable stayed bridge
in the world etc! Putin, it is said, seems looking for energy to Japan in a big way and also to others in the region but
also he is chose at the summit food security as a top issue. Russia is now emerging as a large supplier of
grains to the developing world. There is a wider world wide concern about the rising food prices and also this is
Indian economy. That is the very critical truth. This truth no Indian expert or experts seem to be talking, or willing to admit so openly.
causing wider social unrest. Fod exports, says an expert, namely, Charles Robertson, global chief economist of Renaissance Capital, an investment bank that focuses on Russia. Though energy is
Russia’s largest sector, now Putin wants to redirect the supply of gas and oil to the eastern countries to overcome, it seems, criticism of its price-fixing and also for other reasons. In the Far
East Russia wants to build up its new bonds for various strategic and other reasons. Japan is the leading importer of Russian gas and oils, Also, China is now becoming friendly and the new
Russian
agriculture and food diplomacy could be matched at least in symbolic ways with our own agricultural
strengths, production of foods and also developing the new technologies and technological tools,
critically in deploying the IT tools in various fields of economic and social and education activities.
Russian agriculture is the opportunity of the century, says this expert. Russia might cultivate closer bond
and also closer political and strategic bond through its agriculture, food supplies and closer interaction
with its Far Eastern neighbours. Very likely. Global food security concerns are now top issues with the global powers as well as with the UN as well.
Agriculture and food trade are now becoming global big news more and more. This year the drought has
hit agri production in big economies like America, Russia and Australia, the three biggest wheat exporters
in the world. Simultaneous drought and also weather. Another is the biofuel policy of America which diverts sizeable maize (corn)
to biofuel and to that extent helps to raise food prices! A third of US maize is diverted to ethanol.
phase of international developments could be based on a new bonhomie of Russia-Chinese relations. Anyway, India has to become aware of the developments.
Russia is fertile for ag investment—but high prices are key
De Carbonnel 9
(Eric, journalist on SeekingAlpha and Market Skeptist, “*****Investing In Russian Agriculture*****” pg
online at http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/05/investing-in-russian-agriculture.html//sd)
Russian farm land seems like a very attractive investment. While gold is also a great investment right now, it is a short term
investment (something to hold over the next one or two years while the dollar's collapse plays out). In contrast, farm land is an income producing
asset, which makes it a great long term investment. Anyone interested in investing in Russian Agriculture can email me. Once I know what kind of
interest there is, I can research more about the investment options available and find the answer to any questions/concerns. The article below should give a general idea of the options for
investing in Russian agriculture. Business New Europe reports about high demand for Russian agricultural land. (emphasis mine) [my comment] High demand for Russian agricultural land
In spite of the current macroeconomic situation, we continue to see high demand for
agricultural land in black earth regions of the Russian Federation, with foreign investment funds some of the most active of our clients.
Purchases are made not for speculative aims, but for creating quality agriculture enterprises. These funds' interest is supported by
the fact that agricultural land pricing is traditionally denominated in rubles and the Russian currency's
devaluation has made it particularly attractive for purchases made in major foreign currencies. We have also noticed serious interest from a
number of Russian and international investment funds in buying agricultural land for the purpose of creating
investment instruments based on rental income. For this group of investors, having a stable tenant plays a major role. The tenant can participate in
funding and receive a dividend income. Of note is also the activity of Russian agriculture funds, which have already acquired and farm large agricultural land plots. Such companies
are unfreezing their investment programmes and are beginning to acquire more agricultural land. Their
investment is directed towards growing their portfolio. Thaw in the land market The Moscow Region's land market is the most attractive for buyers
and is clearly beginning to segment. Land plots for cottage construction are no longer popular and our forecast is that demand for these land plots won't increase
over 2009. However, land plots for commercial use (retail, logistics etc.) remain attractive and demand for this type of land
is gradually increasing. Potential buyers are also showing particular interest in land plots located up to 30 kilometres from the Moscow Ring Road. Land
Cushman & Wakefield April 29, 2009
plots further away have lost their appeal and we forecast that demand for these won't increase in 2009 [Important point! Agricultural land more than 30 kilometres is trading at firesale prices
Buyers are currently a clearly defined group of companies acquiring land plots for business
development purposes. Among these are retail chains, logistics operators and industrial companies. We also see interest from Russian producers of goods. High
levels of tax for imported goods and the ruble's devaluation have made imported goods too expensive
for Russians consumers, so now is a good time for Russian companies to develop their production facilities. Among companies interested in purchasing land plots are food
due to financial crisis.].
processing companies, furniture makers etc. We find it interesting that many land plot buyers are ready to take definitive steps to acquire land due to the current low prices. In January and
February, there was little activity on the land market. In March and April, however, buyers have been increasingly active in signing letters of intent and undertaking legal and technical due
diligence. We expect that many land plot deals will be finalized in July-August. We are currently working on 12 deals for the purchase of land plots. As far as regional markets go, we note that
cities with populations of between 500,000 and 1m have lost their attractiveness for many buyers. However, cities with populations of over 1m remain popular. The only exception to this is
the Central Federal District, where cities with populations of fewer than 1m continue to be attractive. Buyers of regional land plots are mostly retail chains. Prices have fallen by up to 40% in
comparison to pre-crisis levels and are currently almost $1m per hectare for cities with populations of over 1m and less than $600,000 per hectare for cities with populations of under 1m. My
reaction: The article highlights some ideas for investing in Russian agriculture. 1) Investors seeking to make a major investment might be interested in starting their own fund for the purpose of
creating a "quality agriculture enterprise". 2) Investors desiring a more stable/fixed source of income might be interested in funds buying agricultural land for the purpose of creating
Investors who wish to make a smaller investment might be interested in the
investment programs of existing Russian agriculture funds who are expanding their operations. 4) Additionally
there is tons of Russian grains being sold at firesale prices. For those interested in agricultural
commodities themselves, it might be interesting to buy and store this grain. As I distrust COMEX futures and other paper
products sold by insolvent financial institution in non-transparent markets, I consider direct investments into the physical markets as the
only viable way to purchase commodities.
investment instruments based on rental income. 3)
Russian economy is on a terminal decline—revitalizing ag reverses it
Weiss 6/13
(Clara, journalist for World Socialist Website, “Russian economy threatened by recession” 2013 pg
online at http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/13/russ-j13.html//sd)
There are increasing signs that the Russian economy is headed towards recession. The Kremlin has revised downwards
its forecasts for economic growth this year on several occasions and now claims the economy will grow
by just 2.4 percent. This represents the lowest level of growth since the crisis year of 2009. In February, Finance
Minister Andrei Belousov warned that Russia could slide into a recession this fall. The country’s trade surplus slumped earlier this year by 17 percent,
compared to the beginning of 2012. Overall profits at Russian companies and banks declined by 21.2 percent from January to
February of this year, the most pronounced decline since the financial crisis of 2009. Official statistics indicate
economic growth of just 1 percent for the first quarter of 2013, a rate that has declined for five consecutive quarters.
According to a report by the Moscow Higher School of Economics in April, total production in key economic sectors, including energy, industry and
agriculture, has declined by 4.5 percent since October 2012. The leading sectors of the economy, responsible for two thirds of gross domestic
product, were all in the red in the first three months of the year.
High prices cause investment in Russian ag and infrastructure
Shalagin 9
(nqa, “*****Investing In Russian Agriculture*****” pg online at
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/05/investing-in-russian-agriculture.html//sd)
Very good post, Russia does have a huge potential its yield is only a quarter of what farmers get in western
Europe, but land cost only 10% and quality of land is more superior than western European counterparts. If you use
western agricultural practices on Russian land you get higher yields at a fraction of the cost. As they say in Russia,
there is one "but". Russian infrastructure has deteriorated so badly that there is nothing left of it. Even if you have a bumper harvest there is no where to store
it. Soviet era storage facilities like ruins scattered across Russian landscape. Roads are non existent; railroads are stretched beyond their capacity shipping coal, metal and other commodities
Luckily food prices in Russia are rising and that give incentive for people to
enter agri business. Mainly they focus on supporting local markets, some are fortunate enough to have
access to export market. Without infrastructure which is a long term investment, agriculture is not
feasible. Private investment in infrastructure is very limited, Russian investors focus on opportunities that pay out in one year. Infrastructure
is in hands of regional governments they don’t have funds and bar foreign business from accessing those projects. Railroads are government owned
and don’t see potential in adding capacity for shipping grain and other agricultural products. So don’t place big bets on
agriculture unless you see improvements in infrastructure.
leaving farmers to literally fight for spare rail carts.
Inflated food prices are key to sustain Russian economy—banks collapse
Gosling and Barton 10
(Tim and John, contributors to Russia Beyond the Headlines, “The heat is on the Russian economy” pg
online at http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/08/30/the_heat_is_on_the_russian_economy04905.html//sd)
Rapidly rising food prices has caused most analysts to re-rate their inflation forecasts, increasing them by
as much as 3pc over and above the government’s official prediction for 2010 of a maximum of 7pc – lowest for years. The reversal of inflation rates will
come as a big blow as after nearly 20 years, June saw interest rates turn real – higher than inflation –
making the economy “normal” for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union. If rates stay real the
Central Bank of Russia gains sorely-missed efficient levers to control the economy. As the full effects of
the heatwave unfold in the autumn, the hopes that real interest rates will return this year are fading.
High Food Prices Good – Biotech
High food prices are key to the international Biotech industry
Prins 8
(Nomi, Economist and Senior fellow at Demos, “Who Benefits From High Food Prices?
Forget subprime. The next price bubble to watch is food speculation.” June 19th Pg online at
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/06/who-benefits-high-food-prices//sd)
There's another group, besides the standard speculator crew, literally reaping extreme profits from the
price squeezes—the crop equivalents of Exxon, multinational agricultural biotechnology corporations.
Monsanto, which recently told the 12th Annual Goldman Sachs Agricultural Biotech Forum that its
profits would double by 2012, is buzzing (PDF); the firm's stock price doubled during the past year. ADM,
the nation's second-largest ethanol producer, saw its annual revenues increase by 64 percent. Even
agriculture conglomerate Cargill's third-quarter profits rose 86 percent. Last week, a group of senators
led by Carl Levin (D-Mich.) introduced the Close the London Loophole Act, which would curtail a
situation that allows speculators to bypass all Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations by
trading on foreign exchanges. But without strong regulation of electronic exchanges and the derivatives
products that enable speculators to move huge proportions of the futures markets underlying
commodities, putting a bit of regulation into the London-based exchanges will not alleviate anything.
Unless that's addressed, this bubble is going to take more than homes with it. It's going to take lives.
High prices force investment in key biotech technologies
Moore 11
(nqa, “Agricultural Biotechnology Playing Bigger Role In Food Output” April 26th pg online at
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42572371//sd)
Industries of all stripes typically look to technology to improve safety and cost efficiency. With both
global food prices and concerns about food safety on the rise, technology is playing a more important role in the
economics of the world’s food supply. Tetra Images | Getty Images Agricultural biotechnology is gaining traction
worldwide as a method for improving crop yields. And thanks to new federal regulations dealing with
food safety, information technology is becoming an increasingly important part of the equation. Traits for Sustainability
Amid a rising global population, increasing the availability and sustainability of crops is a challenge for the
farming industry. “In 1960, on average one farmer fed 26 people per year. Now, a farmer feeds about 155 people per year,” says Jack Boyne,
aspokesman for Bayer's CropScience unit. “The fact that the farming industry has risen to this challenge gives us room for optimism. But we
know there will be 3 billion more people on this planet by 2050, and it’s no sure thing that that trend will continue.” That’s why
governments are embracing agricultural biotechnology, particularly insect-resistance traits and herbicide tolerance for
crops, to help farmers improve their crop yields while keeping costs low. “On average, about 35 percent of the global crop
production is reduced by diseases and pests,” says Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, executive vice president, food and agriculture, at the Biotechnology
Industry Organization. “Through the adoption of insect resistance, you reduce that damage caused to the crops. Through herbicide tolerance
being incorporated into the plant, farmers can kill weeds more easily and still have a healthy crop.” A new development involves incorporating
drought tolerance into plants, a crucial issue for many regions in the world where water is in short supply. Drought-tolerant corn
developed by Monsanto in collaboration with Germany’s BASF is awaiting approval from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Are you in favor of genetically-modified foods to help solve shortages? Yes No Unsure Vote to see results
“The analogy is that instead of the corn gulping water it takes sips of water, and it still produces at the same yield potential as corn that has the
normal amount of water that’s needed conventionally,” Lauritsen says. Along
with industry giants such as Monsanto, Bayer
CropScience, and Syngenta, some smaller companies are leading the way in new agricultural
biotechnology methods. Arcadia Biosciences has been working technology that helps plants use nitrogen more efficiently, enabling
farmers to use less nitrogen fertilizer — cutting costs and reducing the environmental impact — while generating the same yield. Lauritsen
notes that as of 2007, biotechnology has improved soybean yields by 30 percent per acre worldwide, while corn and
canola yields increased 7.6 percent and 8.5 percent per acre, respectively. From 1996 to 2008, biotech crops have produced $52 billion of farmlevel economic benefits, according to PG Economics, an agricultural industry consultant. Much
of the concern regarding the
world’s food supply involves developing nations. While biotechnology has largely been adopted by developed Western
countries, albeit with a fair amount of controversy, it is beginning to gain traction in the rest of the world. Lauritsen points
to golden rice as an example, which is being touted as a solution to some childhood health problems in developing regions. Beta carotene,
which the body converts into vitamin A, is created naturally in the stalks and leaves of the rice plant, but not in the grain. With so-called golden
rice, the beta carotene is expressed in the grain itself. It’s expected to be introduced in the Philippines in 2013. “There’s a
lot of
optimism that this will do a lot to help prevent blindness,” Lauritsen says. “It’s estimated that there are 6,000 deaths per day globally due to
vitamin A deficiency, so that is really looked upon as a real potential.” Building a Smarter Supply Chain While agricultural
biotechnology is an obvious means for attempting to improve the world’s food supply, information technology
is less so. But recent high-profile product recalls, along with new legislation, has put IT at the forefront.
High prices causes investment in biotech—that solves environmental degradation and
CO2 emissions
Food Insight 13
(International Food Information Council Foundation, “Fact Sheet: Benefits of Food Biotechnology” May
13, pg online at
http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Fact_Sheet_Benefits_of_Food_Biotechnology
//sd)
With an ever-growing global population and rising food prices, the task of feeding the world is going to
become more challenging and is just one reason to capitalize on the benefits of biotechnology. Food
biotechnology can help us meet this challenge. Use of biotech plants can produce more food on less land,
by reducing the amount of crops lost to disease and pests. It can reduce CO2 emissions from the farming process, the
amount of pesticides used to produce foods, and in the future, the amount of water needed to grow
crops. Researchers are also continually looking at ways they can enhance the nutritional value of foods. This fact
sheet will examine how biotechnology contributes these benefits and what they mean for the environment, the consumer and the farmer. What is Food
Biotechnology? Modern food biotechnology increases the speed and precision with which scientists can
improve food traits and production practices. For centuries prior to the development of this technology, farmers have spent generations
crossbreeding plants or animals to obtain the specific beneficial traits they were looking for and avoid the traits they did not want. The process not only took a lot of
time and effort, but the final outcome was far from guaranteed. Today,
food biotechnology utilizes the knowledge of plant
science and genetics to further this tradition. Through the use of modern biotechnology, scientists can
move genes for valuable traits from one plant to another. This process results in tangible environmental and economic benefits,
that are passed on to the farmer and the consumer1. Agricultural Biotechnology Benefits the Environment Protection of the environment is
one area where biotechnology is playing an important role. Scientists are using biotechnology to improve
the process by which food is being produced in order to make it more environmentally friendly. For instance,
certain biotech foods are designed to be resistant to pests and diseases. This allows farmers to use fewer
chemicals, such as pesticides and herbicides, while still maintaining a healthy, high-yielding crop. The reduction in
chemical usage is beneficial for water and wildlife, as well as for those consumers who may worry about ingesting chemicals when they
eat fruits and vegetables. Another major advantage to biotech crops is they require less tilling, or plowing, to
control weeds since many are modified to be inherently resistant to herbicides, which can be used more selectively.
The use of conservation tillage, where much or all of the crop residue is left in the field and tilling is reduced or eliminated,
helps to conserve water from rainfall and irrigation, increase water absorption, limits soil erosion and
compaction, and creates healthier soil. All of these benefits aid in maximizing crop yields and minimizing water usage2. Additionally, conservation
tillage releases less carbon dioxide, or CO2, into the environment compared to conventional tillage and helps to sustain
habitats beneficial for insects, birds, and other animals3. Finally, biotechnology can help to limit deforestation. This is due to the fact
biotech crops produce higher yield and therefore require less acreage to produce the same amount of
product. In addition, researchers are working on modified growing traits, such as drought resistance, to aid in
growing food in less arable areas.
High prices increase biotech—solves food security, poverty, and warming
Food Insight 13
(International Food Information Council Foundation, “Fact Sheet: Benefits of Food Biotechnology” May
13, pg online at
http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Fact_Sheet_Benefits_of_Food_Biotechnology
//sd)
Agricultural biotechnology has a positive impact on farmers’ well-being both in the United States and in
developing countries. Biotech crops enable farmers to benefit economically, and at the same time, allow
farmers to grow crops in a more sustainable manner. With rising food prices and a burgeoning global population,
increased crop yields provided through agricultural biotechnology provide important economic, social and environmental
benefits. A study released in 2005 by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy found that biotech plants improved to
resist herbicides and insects helped U.S. farmers reduce their annual production costs by $1.4 billion,
contributing to an increase in net profits of $2 billion5. Biotech crop varieties that are designed to thrive even when
grown under harsh conditions, such as severe heat or cold, flood or drought, and soils with high levels of salt or metals
enable farmers to experience a decreased rate of crop losses during situations, like a drought, which historically have taken huge financial tolls
on farmers. In developing nations, the World Bank estimates that over one-half of the labor force is employed in the agricultural sector6.
Higher crop yields can boost incomes for poor farmers and feed more people in these countries. Biotech
seeds enable farmers to increase their agricultural productivity and provide a higher quality crop, which, in
turn, translates into higher incomes. This cycle ultimately leads to a more consistent food supply which helps to
stimulate local economies. For example, biotech cotton that is resistant to the often-devastating bollworm insect raised yields
29 percent in India, and contributed to a 78 percent increase in income for many of the country's poorest
farmers7. The ability to grow more biotech crops on less acreage also aids farmers in being good stewards of the land. The reduction
in plowing made possible through biotechnology enables farmers to significantly reduce fuel use and
decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Studies show that biotech crops have saved farmers 441 million gallons of fuel through
reduced fuel operations – which in turn resulted in eliminating nearly 10.2 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions since 1996. This is
equivalent to removing four millions cars from the road in one year8.
Biotech Good – Bioterror
Biotech is dual-use--deters nuclear and biological warfare
Carafano and Gudgel 7
(James Jay, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security. Andrew, freelance writer. “
Many of biotechnology's benefits are dual-use, increasing the possibility that knowledge, skills, and equipment
could be adapted for use as biological weap-ons. As the global biotechnology industry expands, the U.S. government should
therefore increase its capacity to exploit biotech advances for national security. The challenge of
exploiting cutting-edge biotech-nology will be different from the way the Pentagon harnessed science
and technology for national security during the Cold War. Rather than driving the biotech-nology revolution, the federal government will need
to figure out how best to utilize and adapt the prod-ucts developed by a multibillion-dollar transnational industry that already has the money and capacity for research and development. To
keep up, the federal government must adopt legislative, policy, and organizational innovations. These should include promoting international liability protection for developing and deploying
new national security goods and services, promoting scientific travel and exchanges, and assigning a lead agency to coordinate biotechnology exploitation for national security. From There to
Here Biotechnology refers to any technological appli-cation that uses living organisms to make or modify products for explicit use, specifically through DNA recombination and tissue culture.
Gregor Mendel first described the role of genes through his research on "dominant and recessive factors" in the 1860s. By the 1940s, scientists were aware of DNA, and James Watson, Francis
Crick, and Rosalind Frank-lin modeled its structure in the 1950s. In 1970, the discovery of enzymes, which break apart and connect snippets of DNA, allowed for the creation of genetically
modified organisms. This bore fruit by the early 1980s, when scientists man-aged to genetically modify bacteria to produce human insulin, which is now the principal source of insulin for
Bioinformatics focused initially on
creating and storing biological and genetic information, most notably in the Human Genome Project.
Scientists are now combining this information into a compre-hensive picture, enabling researchers to
study how different diseases alter these activities. Combining advances in genomics and information technology has significantly enhanced the
diabetics.[1] Recently, major advances in information technol-ogies have led to the development of bioinformat-ics.[2]
industry's capability to bring new products to the marketplace. Many of the advancements in biotechnology are dual-use. The technology that may revolution-ize medical care by providing
faster-acting and more effective drugs could also be used to field more lethal biological weapons. Thus, federal agen-cies have a clear imperative not only to exploit the advantages of new
developments, but also to anticipate and prepare countermeasures for how potential adversaries might exploit these medical advances. Current Research
Much of the current
biotech research focuses on agent detection, vaccines, and treatment. Scientists are studying the immune systems of primitive
organ-isms, such as jawless fish, to garner greater under-standing of the human immune system and to develop new antibody therapies.[3] They are also studying how
diseases infect and affect human cells. For example, recent research indicates that the fam-ily of bacteria that includes bubonic plague blocks immune system
responses using a protein related to one naturally found in humans.[4] Scientists are also investigating ways to create vaccines that work against whole classes of disease-causing organisms
and to boost the human immune system in general.[5] Research is also underway to counter the rise of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Scientists are investi-gating the use of bacteriophages,
which are viruses that prey on bacteria, as a means to fight infectious disease. Ironically, research on bacteriophages began in the early 20th century but declined after the discovery of
antibiotics. In the summer of 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a bacteriophage preparation on meat as an anti-microbial agent against Lysteria bacteria.[6]
Better vaccines and treatments could provide permanent immunity to all "classic" biological agents or at
least reduce their lethality to a consid-erable degree. In October 2006, the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology announced the develop-ment of microscopic pumps that would allow rapid testing of blood and other fluids by pumping them into a "lab on a chip," which would detect biological
or chemical agents.[7] Argonne National Laboratory is also developing its own biochip detection technology.[8] This "lab on a chip" research points to the feasibility of rapid bio-logical agent
detection, allowing individuals to know whether they have been exposed within minutes rather than days. It may even be possible to develop implantable biosensor chips that would
Future advances in biotechnology will continue to
improve the protection of both the general public and military personnel from deadly biological agents.
The creation of broad-spectrum vaccines may give the public health community the ability to vaccinate the country's entire population
against both endemic diseases and biological weapons. A bioweapon inoculation may someday be as
com-mon as other childhood vaccinations. Besides disease detection and vaccines, biotech-nology has numerous other
potential applications. The military is exploring the use of biomimicry, which uses natural biological
systems or material as an inspiration for solving engineering problems. For example: In 2002, scientists discovered how geckos stick
continu-ously monitor for exposure to biological agents.[9] The Future of Biotechnology
themselves to smooth surfaces using van der Waal's forces-the weak natural attraction between atoms-and were then able to re-create the surface of a gecko's foot artificially.[10] The
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is researching devices that mimic geckos' use of van der Waals force to enable soldiers to climb buildings without ropes or ladders.[11] Scientists
Other projects include developing organic
solar cells and a new generation of sensors and optics derived from biological and silicon-based
systems.[12] The next great step in biotechnology is proteom-ics: the direct manipulation and construction of proteins. While DNA instructs cellular mechanisms in how to operate,
are also researching spider silk and abalone shell to create stronger, lighter armor for personnel and vehicles.
proteins do the actual work inside and outside of cells. Proteins are found in everything from papayas to snake venom. Because protein structure and composition is much more complex than
DNA, protein analysis is much more difficult and time-consuming. However, under-standing how proteins are constructed and how they behave promises to be as great an advance in
biological science as understanding DNA was in the 20th century. If advances in biotechnology continue, con-structing a completely artificial organism from the "ground up"-creating synthetic
The challenge
for the federal government is to figure out how to leverage cutting-edge biotechnol-ogy for national
security purposes. Before 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) was the primary arm of the federal government in funding biological defense and research related to national
security. The DOD research program focused primarily on the battlefield uses of biotechnology. The events of 9/11 and
DNA and proteins from raw materials and then combining them to form living cells-may be possible in the not too distant future. National Security and Biotechnology
the post-9/11 anthrax let-ters shifted the focus to the American people's vul-nerability to biological threats. In many respects, the DOD research was not directly applicable to other biodefense
hand,
immuniza-tions for a general population in the event of biolog-ical weapons attack would have to
consider the effects of vaccines on old and young people and on individuals with medical conditions who
might have weakened or compromised immune systems and react very differently to a vaccine
developed by the military. To apply research to broader national security concerns, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under the Department of Health and Human
national security needs. For exam-ple, DOD immunization programs assume that the individuals to be immunized will be generally healthy and young. On the other
Ser-vices (HHS) received the bulk of increased funding for developing biodefense measures.[13] In recent years, in addition to HHS and DOD, many other fed-eral agencies have initiated
much of the research in DOD,
HHS, and other federal entities involves detecting, protect-ing against, and mitigating biological attacks
and pandemics, it also involves other products related to national security, including human
performance enhancement (such as reducing the effects of stress and fatigue) and battlefield medical
treatment. There is a plethora of ongoing programs. The Pentagon has considerable experience and capacity for medical research and development
biotechnology research related to national security, including the recently established Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While
of products related to national security, but this is vir-tually a new mission for the NIH, which historically has focused on basic scientific research.[14] The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute
for Infectious Dis-eases has unique research facilities and expertise in biowarfare defense. On the other hand, the DOD's record with respect to developing and producing vaccines has
engendered significant controversy. The post-9/11 expansion of the government application of biotechnology to national security has not been matched by organizational innova-tions to
manage and integrate programs more effec-tively. DOD, DHS, and NIH research programs are not routinely coordinated, and NIH policies pro-hibit funding other federal institutions. Thus, NIH
programs cannot utilize DOD scientists who may have valuable knowledge and experience relevant to NIH national security research. In some cases, government-sponsored research duplicates
other programs, and opportunities for complementary research programs are missed.[15] Enlisting the Private Sector Harnessing the vast capabilities of the private sector has proven similarly
challenging. Compared to potential commercial buyers, the government is a modest-sized customer for biotech firms. There are also other issues. After 9/11, insurance skyrocketed for
technologies developed for homeland security. While the demand for new security technologies has swelled, companies must weigh the pressure to rush new products to the marketplace
against their liability risks. In 2002, Congress enacted the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act[16] to encourage companies to con-tinue researching and
developing biotechnologies vital to homeland security. The act protects compa-nies from litigation if their products fail during a ter-rorist attack or are harmfully employed by terrorists. The
DHS has shown some success in implementing the legislation and granting SAFETY Act protections to goods and services that are employed to prevent or respond to terrorist threats. However,
companies do not enjoy similar protec-tions from other countries when the technologies are deployed outside the United States or adopted by U.S. friends and allies. The government also has
the President announced the implementation
of Project Bioshield to accelerate research on and development, pur-chase, and availability of effective
medical counter-measures against biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear agents. The program provided $6
a mixed record in encouraging the private sector to develop new national security capabilities. In 2004,
bil-lion over the next 10 years to private companies for research and development of next-generation coun-termeasures against anthrax, smallpox, and other infectious agents and antidotes
against chemical and radiological threats. To date, the effort has yielded meager results.[17] The response to 9/11 has introduced another dif-ficulty in advancing biotechnology research in the
United States. After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the United States imposed a number of additional requirements on visa issuance and monitoring to thwart travel by
terrorists. These measures included more rigorous registration and monitoring of foreign graduate students, mandatory interviews of all overseas visa applicants, and requiring visa holders to
return to their countries of origin to renew their visas. These measures have had unintended conse-quences, including deterring top graduate students from coming to the United States,
making scientific exchanges more difficult, and even prompting com-panies and academic and scientific associations to move meetings, conferences, and research facilities outside of the
United States. As a result, the United States has become less competitive in many key sci-entific areas, including biotechnology.[18] Moving Forward The United States has no room for
complacency. Without better policies, programs, and manage-ment, it risks losing its competitive advantage in exploiting biotechnology for national security. Con-gress and the Administration
should act to set the right conditions for the government to adopt com-mercial biotechnology developments. Specifically, they should: Restructure national security biotechnology programs.
While increased funding has trans-formed it into the leading federal agency in bio-security research, the NIH is inexperienced and unproven in its ability to develop products. Like-wise, the DHS
has yet to demonstrate that it can produce cutting-edge biotechnology advances. Conversely, the DOD has significant experience and skills in developing biodefense countermeasures. To the
maximum extent possible, research pro-grams should be consolidated under a single agency. Where consolidation is not practical, a more effective management structure is needed to
leverage the advice and expertise in different agencies in support of NIH programs.[19] Encourage other countries to adopt SAFETY Act protections. While the SAFETY Act has been successfully
implemented in the United States, it does not protect companies from litiga-tion abroad. Consequently, companies that oper-ate outside of the United States have shied away from
contributing to biosecurity because of the potential risks. The Administration should develop a strategy to encourage other countries to adapt similar pro-tections. The U.S. strategy should
take a regional approach, beginning with the European Union and Japan. Reform visa issuance and management. U.S. national security and competitiveness rely heavily on people's ability to
travel to the United States, but the current visa system is unnecessarily depriving the United States of many of the world's best and brightest scientists, students, and entre-preneurs. Long wait
times for personal interviews are among the most frequently cited factors that make travel to the United States difficult. Congress should remove the requirement for per-sonal interviews of
virtually all non-immigration visa applicants and restore the Secretary of State's ability to waive personal interview requirements. The U.S. should begin using electronic visa appli-cations to
reduce applicants' travel expenses and should reduce processing times to 30 days or less. All of these reforms can be implemented in a manner that makes international travel both more
Dual-use biotechnologies developed in the pri-vate sector offer
powerful tools to protect Americans from biological threats and to increase the military's operational
capabilities. Congress and the Adminis-tration should not only be aware of this growing field, but also act to ensure that the private sector- which is making the largest investment in
basic research and product development-remains com-petitive. Specifically, the U.S. government should streamline the federal
government's capability to fund and adapt new technologies, work to expand litigation protection beyond the country's borders, and further
convenient and more secure.[20] Making the Nation Safer
reform U.S. visa issuance and monitor-ing programs.
A bioweapons attack threatens human survival
Carpenter and Bishop 2009 (P. A., P. C., July 10, Graduate Program in Studies of the Future, School
of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston, TX, USA, Graduate
Program in Futures Studies, College of Technology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. A review of
previous mass extinctions and historic catastrophic events, ScienceDirect)
The flu of 1890, 1918–1919 Spanish flu, 1957 Asian flu, 1968 Hong Kong flu, and 1977 Russian flu all led to mass deaths. Pandemics such as these remain major
threats to human health that could lead to extremely high death rates. The 1918 pandemic is believed to have killed 50 million people [27]. AIDS (HIV) has killed an
estimated 23 million people from 1978 to 2001 [15]. And
there have been numerous other incidents of diseases such as
cholera, dysentery, influenza, scurvy, smallpox, typhus, and plague that have caused the deaths of many
millions throughout history. Clearly, these biological diseases are much greater threats to human
survival than other natural or environmental disasters. Because bacterium and viral strains experience
antigenic shifts (which are small changes in the virus that happen continually over time, eventually producing new virus strains that might not be
recognized by the body’s immune system), another devastating pandemic could appear at any time. It should also be noted that
the threat from biological weapons is quite real. In fact, scientists from the former Soviet Union’s
bioweapons program claim to have developed an antibiotic-resistant strain of the plague [26].
Extinction
Trewavas 00 [Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology – University of Edinburgh, “GM Is the
Best Option We Have”, AgBioWorld, 6-5, http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotechart/best_option.html]
But these are foreign examples; global warming is the problem that requires the UK to develop GM technology. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand
years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate and be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been predicted to halt the Gulf
Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters. There are already worrying signs of salinity
changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We
would not have much warning. Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade.
Even if the climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the consequence. GM
technology can enable new
crops to be constructed in months and to be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM offers. The UK populace needs to
much more positive about GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D. a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of
200 million Hiroshima A bombs. The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun that for at least
two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops here and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere failed completely. The population
survived by hunting a rapidly vanishing population of edible animals. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But the
planet recovered. Such examples of benign nature's wisdom, in full flood as it were, dwarf and make miniscule the tiny modifications we make upon our
environment. There are apparently 100
such volcanoes round the world that could at any time unleash forces as great. And
even smaller volcanic explosions change our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply. Our hold on this
planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation . Only those
with agricultural technology sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival . Colliding asteroids are
another problem that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that technological advance may be the only buffer
between us and annihilation.
Biotech Good – Soil and Earthworms
Biotech creates no-till ag- that solves erosion and earthworms
Fawcett and Towry 02 [Researchers for the CTIC (Conservation Technology Information Center), a nonprofit organization dedicated to environmentally responsible and economically viable agricultural decision-making,
Reviewed by Dave Schertz, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington,
DC Wayne Reeves, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Soil Dynamics Lab, Auburn, AL
Carem Sandretto, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DCJerry Hatfield, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Tilth Lab, Ames, IA Terry Riley, Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington, DC“Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technologies Can
Improve the Environment By Reducing the Need to Plow”, pgs. 14,http://croplife.intraspin.com/Biotech/papers/35%20Fawcett.pdf\\Clans)
There is a strong association between
the use of herbicide-tolerant
biotech and
crops
recent
improvements in tillage
reduction. Four trends support this
conclusion: • Weed control is a major consideration when farmers are weighing whether to implement conservation tillage, and several surveys indicate that farmers have more confidence in weed control since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant biotech crops. In some surveys,
No-till
technology is available
farmers say herbicide-tolerant crops enabled them to increase the amount of residue they leave on their fields. INTRODUCTION•
since 1996,
and
nearly all the growth has occurred in crops where herbicidetolerance
, the tillage system that most relies on good herbicide performance,
has grown
more than other reduced tillage systems
– soybeans, cotton and canola. (Herbicide-tolerant corn has not been widely adopted due to pending regulatory approval in Europe,
Farmers who do not purchase herbicidetolerant seeds are not as likely to participate in conservation tillage
Historically, farmers have plowe
and tilled the soil in preparation
for herbicides
. If herbicides failed due to weather conditions, farmers could use
additional tillage as a rescue. With herbicide-tolerant crops, farmers allow weeds to emerge with their
crops
improvement in weed control
give
confidence
without relying on tillage
tillage provides economic benefits by saving time and reducing fuel and equipment costs
nor has no-till corn expanded as rapidly as other crops.) • Farmers who purchase herbicide-tolerant seeds use them disproportionately on their conservation tillage acres. •
. The main reason farmers till their soil is to control weeds, which compete with their crops for space,
nutrients and water and can interfere with harvesting equipment.
d under emerged weeds before planting
that prevent additional weeds from emerging
. Then they apply herbicide over the top of their crop, removing the weeds without harming the crop, which has been modified through biotechnology to withstand the herbicide. This
s increased
that weeds can be controlled economically
. It partially explains why no-till farming has been increasing significantly in crops where the technology is available. Many
analyses have shown that conservation
.
Despite these benefits, many farmers were reluctant to commit to a new system in which they saw potential risk of yield reduction due to competition from weeds. The trends since 1996, when herbicidetolerant crops were first introduced, provide a strong indication that improved weed
significant percentage of agriculture is left
Continued adoption of no-till practices will bring
control made possible with the new biotech crops has given growers the confidence to increase their use of conservation tillage, especially no-till. As a
untilled
additional environmental benefits
, more like the original prairies, the water and soil cycles also will begin to return to a more natural state.
, which include increasing the amount of topsoil that is saved each year, reducing runoff into streams and further cutting ba ck on fuel use and emissions. Improved weed control available
through herbicidetolerant crops will be an important factor in continued adoption of no-till. TILLAGE WAS ONCE NECESSARY Repeated tillage to prepare crop seedbeds and control weeds was an indispensable component of agriculture until the last half of the 20th century. However,
excessive tillage causes soil erosion, thus reducing the sustainability of agriculture
Repeated tillage also can reduce soil quality and productivity by destroying soil structure,
harming
earthworms
Tillage destroys
wildlife food sources and reduces surface crop residues that serve as wildlife cover.
. For example, 100 years after Iowa was settled, nearly half the
original topsoil had eroded.1
organic matter content and
beneficial invertebrates such as
reducing
. Sediment eroded from intensively tilled fields fouls aquatic systems, and runoff of water contributes to flooding.
Soil erosion causes extinction
Ikerd 99 (John E., Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics at University of Missouri “Foundational
Principles: Soils. Stewardship, and Sustainability,” Sep 22, 1999
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/NCSOILS.html]
soil is the foundation for all of life, including
humanity,
Things that are not directly rooted in the soil
still require
minerals
from earth They must have soil from somewhere
but soil is still at the root of all life.
A foundation is "the basis upon which something stands or is supported" (Webster). The basic premises of this discourse on "foundational principles" is that
that stewardship of soil is the foundation for agricultural sustainability, and that sustainability is the conceptual foundation for wise soil management. All living things require food of one kind or another to keep them alive. Life also requires air and water, but
nothing lives from air and water alone.
that come
-- that live in the sea, on rocks, or on trees, for example --
the
.
plants feed on the soil. All life may not seem to have roots in the soil,
. Living things other than plants get their food from plants, or from other living things that feed on plants, and
The Making of Soil First, I am not a soil scientist. I took a class in soils as an undergraduate and have learned a good bit
about soils from reading and listening to other people over the years. But, I make no claim to being an expert. So I will try to stick to the things that almost anyone might know or at least understand about soil. As I was doing some reading on the subject, I ran across a delightful little book
called, "The Great World’s Farm," written by an English author, Selina Gaye, somewhere around the turn of the century. The copyrights apparently had run out, since the book didn’t have a copyright date. Back then people didn’t know so much about everything, so they could get more of
what they knew about a lot more things in a little book. The book starts off explaining how soil is formed from rock, proceeds through growth and reproduction of plants and animals, and concludes with cycles of life and the balance of nature. But, it stresses that all life is rooted in the
soil. Initially molten lava covered all of the earth’s crust. So, all soil started out as rock. Most plants have to wait until rock is pulverized into small particles before they can feed on the minerals contained in the rock. Chemical reaction with oxygen and carbon dioxide, wearing away by
wind and water, expansion and contraction from heating and cooling, and rock slides and glaciers have all played important roles in transforming the earth’s crust from rock into soil. However, living things also help create soil for other living things. Lichens are a unique sort of plant that
can grow directly on rock. Their spores settle on rock and begin to grow. They extract their food by secreting acids, which dissolve the minerals contained in the rock. As lichens grow and die, minerals are left in their remains to provide food for other types of plants. Some plants which
feed on dead lichens put down roots, which penetrate crevices in rocks previously caused by mechanical weathering. Growth or roots can split and crumble rock further, exposing more surfaces to weathering and accelerating the process of soil making. Specific types of rock contain
limited varieties of minerals and will feed limited varieties of plants – even when pulverized into dust. Many plants require more complex combinations of minerals than are available from any single type of rock. So the soils made from various types of rocks had to be mixed with other
types before they would support the variety and complexity of plant life that we have come to associate with nature. Sand and dust can be carried from one place to another by wind and water, mixing with sand and dust from other rocks along the way. Glaciers have also bee n important
actors in mixing soil. Some of the richest soils in the world are fertile bottomlands along flooding streams and rivers, loess hills that were blown and dropped by the wind, and soil deposits left behind by retreating glaciers. Quoting from th e "Great World’s Farm," "No soil is really fertile,
whatever the mineral matter composing it, unless it also contains some amount of organic matter – matter derived from organized, living things, whether animal or vegetable. Organic matter alone is not enough to make a fertile soil; but with less than one-half percent of organic matter,
no soil can be cultivated to much purpose." After the mixed soil minerals are bound in place by plants, and successions of plants and animals added organic matter and tilth, the mixtures became what we generally refer to as soils. The first stages of soil formation are distinguished from
the latter stages by at least one important characteristic. The dissolving, grinding, and mixing required millions of years, whereas, soil binding and adding organic matter can be accomplished in a matter of decades. Thus,
soil is a "non-renewable" resource – it cannot be recreated
the mineral fraction of
or renewed within any realistic future timeframe. Whereas, the organic fraction is a renewable or regenerative resource that
Misuse can degrade
productivity of both fractions of soils within a
matter of years once the mineral fraction of soil is lost, its productivity is lost forever.
we must conserve and make wise use of the soils we have today
some quantity of soil will be lost at least lost to our
our only hope
sustaining soil productivity is to conserve
soil that remains.
can be recreated or renewed over decades, or at least over a few generations.
displace,
, or destroyed the
. And,
If there are to be productive soils in the future,
. The soil that washes down our rivers to the sea is no more renewable than are the fossil fuels that we are
mining from ancient deposit within the earth. In spite of our best efforts,
–
use. Thus,
for
as much soil as we can and to build up soil organic matter and enhance the productivity of the
Humanity is Still Rooted in Soil
In times not too long past, the connection between soil and human life was clear and ever present. Little more than a century ago, most people were farmers and those who were not lived close enough to a farm to know that the food that gave them life came from the soil. They knew
that when the soil was rich, the rains came, and the temperature was hospitable to plants and animals, food was bountiful and there was plenty to eat. They knew that when droughts came, plants dried out and died, and the soil was bare, there was little to eat. They knew when the
floods came, plants were covered with water and died, and the soil was bare; there was little to eat. They knew very well that their physical well being, if not their
the soil.
lives depended on the things that lived from
,
William Albrecht, a well known soil scientist at the University of Missouri during the middle of this century, hypothesized that people from different parts of the country had distinctive physical characteristics linked to the soils of the area where they grew up. He
attributed those physical distinctions to differences in nutrient values of the foods they eat, which in turn depended on the make-up of the soils on which their foodstuffs were grown. Albrecht’s hypothesis was never fully tested. As people began to move from one place to another
throughout their lives, and as more and more foodstuffs were shipped from one region of production to another for consumption, people no longer ate food from any one region or soil type. But it’s quite possible that when people lived most of their lives in one place, and ate mostly
food produced locally, their physical makeup was significantly linked to the make up of local soils. Today, we eat from many soils, from all around the world. Even today there is a common saying that "we are what we eat." If so, "we actually are the soil from which we eat."
connection between soil and life is no longer so direct
or so clear
, but it is still there
The
. Most urban dwellers also have lost all sense of personal connection to the
farm or the soil. During most of this century many people living in cities either had lived on a farm at one time or knew someone, usually a close relative, who still lived on a farm -- which gave them some tangible connection with the soil. At least they knew that "land" meant something
more than just a place to play or space to be filled with some form of "development." But these personal connections have been lost with the aging of urbanization. One of the most common laments among farmers today is that "people no longer know where their food comes from." For
any real understanding of the direct connection between soil and life has been lost
farmers don’t realize the dependence of their own farming operation on the health and natural
productivity of their soil
illusion of production without natural soil fertility appears real
as organic matter becomes depleted,
production problems appear and it becomes increasingly expensive to maintain productivity
will become apparent that it would have been far easier
in the long
run to have maintained the natural fertility of the soil But, by then much of the natural productivity will
be gone -- forever
All life requires food and there is simply
no other source of food except living things that depend directly or indirectly on the soil
must have soil to live is as
fundamental as the fact that we must have air to breath, water to drink, and food to eat. It’s just less
obvious.
most,
. It ‘s sad but true. What’s even sadder is that many
. They have been told by the experts that soil is little more than a medium for propping up the plants so they can be fed with commercial fertilizers and protected by commercial pesticides until they produce a bountiful
harvest. In the short run, this
. As long as the soil has a residue of minerals and organic matter from times past,
annual amendments of a few basic nutrients – nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash, being the most common – crop yields can be maintained. Over time, however,
. As additional "trace elements"
are depleted, soil management problems become more complex. Eventually, it
and less costly
.
. In the meantime, many farmers will have little sense of their ultimate dependence on the soil. Still, all of life depends u pon soil.
. This is a foundational principle of natural
science, of human health, and of social studies that should be taught at every level in every school in the world -- beginning in kindergarten and continuing through college. That we
Earthworms solve extinction
Tompkin and Bird 99 (Peter, and Christopher, Authors of The Secret Life of and “Secrets of the Soil”,
Microsoil, http://www.microsoil.com/earthworm.htm)
Many
do not understand
value earthworms have on our soils
the earthworm
foundation of all civilization.
agriculture oriented people still
or appreciate the tremendous enriching
André Voisin, author of the insightful Soil, Grass and Cancer, to point out that
that
. It took a French scientist and ecologist,
, and in particular the slippery lumbricid, most common in the United States and Europe, is not only essential to good agriculture but
is the very
In Better Grassland Sward, Voisin traces man’s civilizations in relation to the distribution of active earthworms, of which he lists some three thousand species. Among the most ancient of terrestrial animal
groups, several hundred million years old, they come in various colors and sizes: brown, purple, red, pink, blue, green and light tan, the smallest barely an inch long, the largest a ten-foot giant in Australia, though South African newspapers reported a boa-constrictor-sized monster twenty
feet long, a yard wide through the middle. The most common European and American earthworm, Lumbricus terrestris, grows barely longer than six inches. Ten thousand years ago, immediately after the last ice age,the lumbricid earthworms were to be found only in certain restricted
other areas of
the earth offered ideal climates and rich soils, but produced
no such civilizations The Egyptian
experience alone
is strong indication that a complex civilization cannot develop until the basic
agricultural needs
are met, and that requires the earthworm.
great fertility of the soil was due in large part the work of earthworms
areas of the planet, such as in the valleys of three great civilizations – the Indus, the Euphrates, and the Nile – where crops grew almost without cultivation in a soil of immensely fruitful richness. As Jerry Minnich points out in The Earthworm Book,
, with the exception of China,
.
, says Minnich,
of its people
Not that the point was entirely overlooked by the USDA. an agricultural report on investigations carried
out in the valley of the Nile in 1949, before the folly of the Aswan Dam, indicated that the
. It
was estimated that during the six months of active growing season each year the castings of earthworms on these soils amounted to a stunning 120 tons per acre, and in each handful of that soil are more microorganisms than there are humans on the pla net. Thirty years before the birth
of Darwin, as the American colonists were breaking away from the mother country, an English naturalist, Gilbert White, was writing:
Worms seem to be the great promoters of vegetation
,
perforating and loosening the soil, rendering it pervious to rains and the fibers of plants by drawing straws and stalks of l eaves and twigs into it; and, most of all, by throwing up such infinite numbers of lumps of earth called worm-casts, which being their excrement, is a fine manure for
The earth without worms would soon become cold, hard-bound, and void of fermentation, and
consequently sterile.
grain and grass. . . .
That the phenomenon was understood before the time of Christ is clear from Cleopatra’s decree that the earthworm be revered and protected by all her subjects as a sacred animal. Egyptians were forbidden to remove it from
the land, and farmers were not to trouble the worms for fear of stunting the renowned fertility of the Nilotic valley’s soil.
Biotech Good – Air Pollution
Biotech solves air pollution
Santra 07 [Professor, “New Frontiers of Environmental Biotechnological Application”, Published by
ENVIS Centre on Environmental Biotechnology (Supported by Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of
India) http://www.envis.kuenvbiotech.org/Biotech-book.pdf]
1.3 Biotechnology for pollution …and gives solid sulphur We are so much obsessed with and possessed of industrial growth that our ecosystem
has undergone many ramifications and diversions; its pristine glory and vigor, vitality and utility has been completely lost. Therefore, it is the bounding duty of us all to
be aware of what is happening around us and how this dither-down can be halted. In the initial stage of industrialization, more importance was attached to
stepping-up of production-regardless to the need to install pollution free technologies. While some form of
environmental pollution has always existed and will continue to exist, it is only in the last two decades or so that we have found the concern for environmental pollution becoming more and
The time clearly is now to have a look at our technological capabilities to protect our
environment (Agarwal, 1996). So far we have relied more upon physical and chemical methods of pollution control. Today, biotechnology is being
considered as an emerging technology in environmental protection. It involves the use of micro-organisms, the oldest inhabitants of the
earth, which are likely to prove as more suitable for pollution control due to their versatility and adaptability to changing environments. The application of
biotechnology in the field of air pollution abatement and water pollution abatement shall be discussed here in more details. 1.3.1 Biotechnology for
more pervasive.
Air Pollution Abatement Sulphur dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Volatile Organic Compounds and Particulates are the four major components of air pollution and are responsible for environmental
hazards. Sulphur dioxide and Nitrogen oxides gases are just two of the four main pollutants known to be important determinants of local air quality. Increase in environmental awareness has
resulted in more attention of people to air pollution. People sense pollution by offensive odour just before their receiving the damage. Waste gases with an offensive odour may be generated
Three types of biological waste gas
purification systems are in operation. These are: (i) Bioscrubbers, (ii) Biofilters, and (iii) Biotrickling filters. (i) Bioscrubber A
typical bioscrubber consists of an absorption column and one or more bioreactor (Figure 1). Biological oxidation tales place
during the production process or they may generate from open waste water treatment plants and garbage composting plants.
in these bioreactors. The reaction tank are aerated and supplied with a nutrient solution. The microbial mass mainly remains in the circulating liquor that passes through the absorption
column. Circulation rate is fast and not much of biofilm will develop in the absorption column. The biofilm is removed from time to time.
Air pollution causes extinction
Salvador, The American Chronicle, ’07 [Lourdes, citing Dr. John H. Relethford, professor of biological anthropology
at SUNY Oneonta, 4/14/2007, The American Chronicle, “Human Extinction,” http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/24238]
The most common pattern of macroevolutionary trends is extinction. In short “when a species is no longer
adapted to a changed environment, it may die. Extinction seems, in fact, to be the ultimate fate of all species” (Relethford,
2005). One has to wonder the fate of the human race as the world becomes more and more toxic and
people become more ill. Are 60% (Ray & Oakley, 2003) of Americans taking psychiatric medications because they are really mentally ill
or is it our society that is sick and we the victims of trying to adapt to a bad environment? How can we justify that 60% is a MAJORITY of the
How long can we deny the damage of modern pollution to the human
body before we take action? How long can we sustain reproductive damage before we can no longer
reproduce and have children to share our tales of an earlier generation with? Occasionally I have heard
statements such as “we will evolve to tolerate air pollution.” Such statements are absurdities. Natural selection only
operates on variations that are present. If no genetic variation occurs to aid in breathing polluted air, natural selection will not help us. Even
in cases where genetic variation is present, the environment may change too quickly for us to respond
to natural selection. All we have to do is examine the fossil record to see how inaccurate this misconception is—that 99% of all
past species are extinct shows us that natural selection obviously doesn't always work” (Relethford, 2005). If
natural selection does not work and we will not evolve to handle the ever increasing toxic burden then what hope is there for us as the
world becomes more and more toxic? How can we ensure our future survival as our bodies become
laden with mercury, lead, fire retardants, PCB’s, PBDE’s, Pesticides, Dioxins, pFA’s Phthalates, Bisphenols, and other chemicals
population that is labeled as mentally ill?
of modern day living while the powers that be deny any connection in the name of profits?
High Food Prices Good – US Economy
The Ag bubble is on the brink—high food prices and Wall Street are intractably tied—
lower prices now collapse the economy
Prins 8
(Nomi, Economist and Senior fellow at Demos, “Who Benefits From High Food Prices?
Forget subprime. The next price bubble to watch is food speculation.” June 19th Pg online at
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/06/who-benefits-high-food-prices//sd)
Last week, new consumer price data released by the US Labor Department confirmed what most shoppers
already suspected: Food prices, which took their biggest one-month leap in nearly two decades in April, rose even further in
May. Energy costs, too, went up last month. The big question, though, is why? Commodity analysts are quick to
pinpoint reasons: Midwest flooding affecting food, livestock feed overdrive provoked by the Chinese,
biofuel-related demand, and a weak dollar. These reasons all have some merit, but I'd argue it's speculation that's
skyrocketed prices higher faster, not supply vs. demand. At the financial leaders G8 summit that wrapped up over the
weekend, food and oil speculation were front and center.And G8 leaders aren't the only ones expressing concern over traders
profiting from the world's pain. Major hedge-fund stars like George Soros and Michael Masters are also screaming
moral foul on commodity speculation—a clear signal there's more fire than smoke on the horizon. As
Masters told a Senate committee last month, "Institutional investors have purchased over 2 billion bushels of corn
futures in the last five years. [They] have stockpiled enough corn futures to potentially fuel the entire United
States ethanol industry at full capacity for a year." Indeed, the current agricultural price bubble has produced record
highs in soybeans and wheat as well. Against this backdrop, a clueless Congress passed US farmer and foodstamp aid within the recent farm bill, without addressing the possibility that speculation could be to blame, or that
curtailing speculation could help alleviate the domestic and global food crisis. They should have looked toWall Street's lead. The latest grain and
oilseed trading report from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange cited first quarter of 2008 trading volume up 32 percent over the last quarter of
2007. That's extra money
coming in from speculators, not corn or wheat farmers hedging their crop prices
in case of bad weather. Additionally, the hot new favorite among traders is betting on packages of energy and agricultural futures.
Called CCO's (collateralized commodity obligations), they are like their subprime cousins, CDO's (collateralized debt obligations). Their
performance is linked to rising commodity prices; the higher the prices, the more profit to the CCO. There's another
group, besides
the standard speculator crew, literally reaping extreme profits from the price squeezes—the crop equivalents of
Exxon, multinational agricultural biotechnology corporations. Monsanto, which recently told the 12th Annual Goldman
Sachs Agricultural Biotech Forum that its profits would double by 2012, is buzzing (PDF); the firm's stock price doubled
during the past year. ADM, the nation's second-largest ethanol producer, saw its annual revenues increase
by 64 percent. Even agriculture conglomerate Cargill's third-quarter profits rose 86 percent. Last week, a
group of senators led by Carl Levin (D-Mich.) introduced the Close the London Loophole Act, which would curtail a situation that allows
speculators to bypass all Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations by trading on foreign exchanges. But without
strong
regulation of electronic exchanges and the derivatives products that enable speculators to move huge
proportions of the futures markets underlying commodities, putting a bit of regulation into the London-based
exchanges will not alleviate anything. Unless that's addressed, this bubble is going to take more than homes
with it. It's going to take lives.
Economic decline cause nuclear war.
Liutenant Colonel Bearden -2K (Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, 2000, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It, 2000,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Big- Medicine/message/642)
Bluntly, we foresee these factors - and others { } not covered - converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years.
As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing
nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that
desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have
increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving
North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a
desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the
mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies
have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are
then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that
the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the
studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed .
The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least
is almost never discussed. Without effective defense,
for many decades.
US ag is resilient and growing—status quo ensures high prices but the plan reverses
the trend
USDA 13
(“Agricultural Baseline Projections” pg online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farmeconomy/agricultural-baseline-projections.aspx#.Ue2Yjo3Xpsk//sd)
Economic and Financial Conditions Bode Well for U.S. Agriculture Long-Term Prospects for Agriculture
Reflect Growing Demand for Food, Fiber, and Fuel USDA Agricultural Projections to 2022, released in February 2013, provide
longrun projections for the farm sector for the next 10 years. These annual projections cover agricultural commodities, agricultural trade, and
aggregate indicators of the sector, such as farm income and food prices. Important assumptions for the projections include the following: Global economic growth reflects steady gains.
Increases in world population continue to slow. Growth in most developing countries remains above that in the rest of the world. Population gains in developing countries--along with higher
incomes, increased urbanization, and expansion of the middle class--are particularly important for growth in global food demand. Continued global expansion of biofuels further adds to world
Prices for major crops decrease in the early years of the
projections as global production responds to recent high prices. Total U.S. red meat and poultry
production is projected to fall in 2013 in response to lower producer returns and drought in the Southern Plains of the
United States over the past two years. Meat production then increases in response to improved returns and improved forage supplies.
World economic growth and demand for biofuels combine to support longer run increases in consumption, trade,
and prices for agricultural products. Following the near-term declines, prices for corn, wheat, oilseeds, and many other crops remain
historically high. After declines from record levels projected in 2013, the values of U.S. agricultural exports and farm cash
receipts rise through the rest of the decade. Production expenses also rise beyond 2015, but net farm
income remains historically high. Retail food price increases average less than the overall rate of inflation in 2014-22, largely
reflecting production increases in the livestock sector that limit meat price increases.
demand for agricultural products. Key results in the projections include the following:
High Food Prices Good – South Asia
Indian and Chinese markets are on the brink—only high food prices prevent political
and economic collapse
Kharas 8
(Homi, Chief Economist at World Bank, PhD in economics from Harvard, “The proposer's opening
remarks” July 29th, pg online at http://economist.com/debate/days/view/155//sd)
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has just completed a study including the three countries with the largest rural
populations in the world: India, China and Indonesia. Consider India, which has a long history of subsidising
agricultural input and output prices. According to the ADB, this has led to a system which is "unproductive,
financially unsustainable, and environmentally destructive; ... (it) also accentuates inequality among rural
Indian states." Higher world food prices might be just the push needed by India, along with many other countries,
to persuade it to reform its agricultural pricing system and provide new opportunities for its desperate
farmers. The ADB report also analyses China in some detail. It concludes that rural households in China should enjoy a
significant reduction in the incidence of poverty as a result of high food prices. Although some urban households
will be made worse off, these are the same households which have seen steady growth in wages in the last few years and have a middle-class
living standard. In fact, a short while ago many analysts claimed that the
greatest risk to China's development was the
growing gap between income levels in urban and rural areas. With today's food prices, that problem has
receded. The outcome in Indonesia appears to be more mixed. Urban low-income and landless labourers would become poorer, while small
and medium farmers would be better off. Indonesia has large numbers in both these groups, so many people would be affected. On average,
the ADB simulations suggest that there would be about the same number of winners and losers, so average national poverty would remain
unchanged. It is surely true that high food prices will cause hardship to many. The suffering of those in Cairo, Haiti and much of
Africa is real. The spectre of hunger is ugly. That cannot be denied and should not be forgotten. Nor should we leap to the conclusion that food
prices at today's levels are here to stay.
But for the majority of the world's poor, to be found among the 1.7 billion rural
residents of India, China and Indonesia, the dream of a "chicken in every pot" is becoming more attainable
because world food supply is rising again. That is the upside for humanity from today's high food prices.
That causes extinction.
Straits Times -2K (Straits Times, June, 25, 2000, No one gains in war over Taiwan] (PDNSS2115)
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO -THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China.
If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable.
Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the
possibilityof a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and
logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the
Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If
China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration
powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US
distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the M iddle
may not end there as opportunistic
E ast may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each
armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase: Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to
a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean
War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a
personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US
was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to
resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against
The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear
warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear
option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear
China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons.
weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow
Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures
from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as
should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of
civilization. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Annaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable,
a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that
it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
High Food Prices Good – Food Shortages
High prices solve food shortages—decreased consumption increases supply and Ag
investment
Kharas 8
(Homi, Chief Economist at World Bank, PhD in economics from Harvard, “The proposer's opening
remarks” July 29th, pg online at http://economist.com/debate/days/view/155//sd)
The media sensationalises the impact of high food prices with images of hunger and civil unrest in far-flung
places like Port-Au-Prince and Cairo. But these images miss the point. The world needs more food and less
poverty. In a market economy, higher prices provide the incentive to produce more. Ever since Malthus there have been
worries that exponential growth in global population will outstrip global food supplies. But Malthus was wrong. Only a small part of
today's demand for food is due to population growth, despite the fact that 90m people are being added to our planet every
year. The bigger impact is felt from the rapid income growth in our $60-trillion global economy. Much of this
growth today is in poor but populous countries, like China and India. As they become richer, they eat more food. A
"chicken in every pot" is a realistic dream for billions of the world's new middle class. To produce this chicken
demands an ever-increasing stream of feed-grains. The three drivers of demand for food—population growth, income growth and the shifting
pattern of consumption towards meat—suggest that food output might need to be doubled in the next 30 years. This is the demand story. For
many years, food supply has kept up with and surpassed demand. Modern agricultural technology, based on cheap fossil fuels, delivered
productivity gains. But for the last ten years, supply
growth has faltered, and with high energy costs it cannot be put
back on track. This was disguised for a time by running down mountains of grain stored in silos in the bread baskets of the world. But now
it is clear that limits to agricultural expansion at the low prices of 2000/01 are being reached. The reality is that less than one-half of the world's
land area is suitable for agriculture and in net terms, the irrigated land area is falling. Soil erosion, salinisation,
acidification and
nutrient depletion contribute to declining land quality. Biofuel crops are taking away arable land from
food. The world's grain silos are emptying. The good news is that higher food prices are exactly what is required to
restore balance in the market. With rising demand and constrained supply the iron law of economics
permits no other response. In a market economy, when demand exceeds supply, prices rise. Higher prices discourage
consumption, but they also encourage more investment and enhance production. Anyone who doubts the link
between food prices and agricultural investment should take a close look at the stock price of the world's largest producer of agricultural
equipment, John Deere. While most US shares have taken a beating, John
Deere's share price has doubled and has split two-forprices are encouraging farmers to invest heavily in new equipment. This
pattern is being repeated across the world, with investments in equipment, storage and land improvements.
More food is already being produced in response to higher prices: forecasts for cereals production in 2008 by the Food
one in the last two years. High food
and Agriculture Organisation show a significant increase. This should come as no surprise. When prices fell steeply between 1997 and 2002,
cereal production declined. Now that prices have risen back to the levels of the mid-1990s, cereal production has resumed its upward trend.
Productivity is on the rise. More profits for farmers does not mean a benefit to humanity. Some have argued that rising food prices hurt the
poorest of the poor. The World Bank suggested that today's higher food prices could push 100m more people into poverty. Unfortunately, the
World Bank's flash estimate, which was based on an extrapolation from a nine-country study, has not stood up to scrutiny.
The reality is that the impact of high food prices depends on each household's income and consumption
patterns. Beyond this, the impact also depends on what happens to labour, land and credit markets. As a further complication, domestic
agricultural prices in most countries do not mirror world prices but also reflect government tax and subsidy policies. All these factors have to be
taken into account to understand the impact of high food prices on household welfare.
High prices increase agricultural competiveness—checks global food supply
Gardner 10
(Brian, EU and international agriculture policy expert, author of ‘European Agriculture: Policies,
Production and Trade’. “THE BENEFITS OF HIGH FOOD PRICES” 10/13 pg online at
http://briangardner.blogactiv.eu/2010/10/13/the-benefits-of-high-food-prices///sd)
With world food commodity prices rising again on the prospect of poor harvests in some of the major grain
producing areas of the world, it is inevitable that the price of food in the shops will rise. What is also inevitable is that if
and when
supplies improve and bulk commodity prices fall again retail prices will not fall. Charting the
retail markets
are becoming less and less competitive. As Europe’s food shops become ever more concentrated in fewer
hands so the retail industry finds it easier not to pass on raw material price reductions to the consumer. At the same time, this
increasingly monolithic structure allows any increase in commodity prices, however small, to be used to jack up
relationship between producer prices and consumer prices over the last couple of decades illustrates one stark fact: food
prices at the supermarket counter. This, despite the fact that cost of food raw material ingredients such as wheat, vegetable oils or milk powder
rarely exceed 5 per cent of the total cost of the finished product. Neither
farmer nor shopper get the benefit of this
activity. This phenomenon has been closely monitored by all of the leading authorities: the European Commission, the UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation and the OECD. It has been particularly noticeable in the wake of the 2006-08 food price crisis. For example, FAO
figures show that in the Eurozone countries of the EU
retail food prices declined only by 0.2 per cent in the year to May 2009,
US consumer food prices were 2.7 per cent higher than in May 2008. In the UK, food prices were 5.4 per cent higher year-onyear in May 2009 – this despite substantial reductions in all the major food commodity prices between mid 2008 and 2009. ”Consumer
food prices remained high because of the ‘ratchet effect’ of prices in the food market”, the Organisation
reveals. Prices adjust upwards more easily than downwards. Lack of competitiveness in the food retail and
wholesale sectors makes it possible, the FAO argues, for wholesalers and retailers not to pass on price
reductions to the consumer. What makes matters worse for the effective functioning of the food marketing chain is that
the same market power that harms consumers is also increasingly being used against food producers.
Analyses of food market trends by the same international authorities show quite clearly that the share of the total return from the food market
gained by food producers is continuously declining. Significantly, only specialist producers delivering to local markets are able to maintain a
reasonable share of consumer spending.
High Food Prices Good – Stability/Poverty
And, High food prices create food security and reduce poverty—net-importers invest
in ag
FAO 11
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The State of Food Insecurity in the World
How does international price volatility affect domestic economies and food security?” pg online at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2330e/i2330e.pdf//sd)
In the short term, the benefits of high prices go primarily to farmers with a large marketed surplus, and
these farmers are not the poorest of the poor. In addition, the poorest people usually buy more food than they sell. Thus, high food
prices tend to worsen poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. However, high prices represent an opportunity
to spur long-term investment in agriculture, which will contribute to sustainable food security in the
longer run. Let us look first at the impacts of high (or low) price levels. The level of food commodity prices has two distinct types of effect.
International market prices can affect macroeconomic variables at the national level, such as the balance of
payments, budget deficits and exchange rates, while domestic prices affect the poverty, energy intake and nutrition of individuals.
(The linkages between international and domestic prices are discussed in detail under ‘Lessons from the world food crisis of 2006–08’, pp. 21–
31.) Macroeconomic impacts The macroeconomic impacts of commodity prices are important because they affect the level of per capita
income, which ultimately is a key determinant of living standards for individuals and families. Generally speaking, high
international
prices for food commodities benefit countries that export those products, while low prices benefit
importing countries. Ignoring for the moment considerations of volatility, this is basically a zerosum game in the short-to-medium run:
exporters benefit at the expense of importers, and vice versa. In the longer term, however, higher prices could
cause some importing countries to invest in their agriculture and reduce imports, or even become exporters.
Such investment is crucial for the development of the agriculture sector and sustainable reductions in
poverty and food insecurity. the expense of importers, and vice versa.
High prices increase food supply and benefit farmers
FAO 11
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The State of Food Insecurity in the World
How does international price volatility affect domestic economies and food security?” pg online at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2330e/i2330e.pdf//sd)
In rural areas, higher food prices will tend to have smaller negative effects on net food buyers because
many households produce a substantial share of what they consume, and hence are only marginal food
buyers. On the other hand, farmers who are net food sellers are likely to benefit from higher prices,
which, other things being equal, will tend to increase their income. Since many farmers are poor, higher
prices could help to alleviate poverty and improve food security. However, it must also be kept in mind
that farmers with more surplus production to sell will benefit more from high prices than farmers who
have only a small surplus to sell. Further, in most (but not all) contexts, farmers with more land tend to
be better off than farmers with only a little land, so it may be that poorer farmers will not receive the
bulk of the benefits from higher food prices. Overall beneficial impacts of higher food prices on poverty
are more likely in countries with a relatively equal distribution of land.
High Food Prices Good – Ukraine
High food prices increases investment in Ukraine ag
AgJobs 13
(“The Ukraine a bread basket” March 1, pg online at http://www.agjobstoday.com/blog/?p=103//sd)
Branded as Europe’s ‘breadbasket’, Ukraine still possesses massive land reserves which can be used for
growing a variety of seeds, vegetables, grains, and fruits along with livestock. The rising food prices
across the world may be troubling for some countries, but for Ukraine, it has opened up a whole new
window of agricultural opportunities. Regardless of the ongoing global financial crisis, people looking for
farm jobs and agricultural jobs are finding it easier to start work in the Ukrainian agricultural sector. Plus,
due to the very same global economic crisis, people are willing to sell their land for cultivation at incredibly
low rates. In order to look for agricultural jobs and farm jobs in Ukraine, you must be aware of the chief
issues that surround its agricultural production. These include importing equipment, getting a hold of land
rights, financial assistance – which can be quite difficult considering these hard economic times, and other
various issues. In order to begin your farm jobs and agricultural jobs in Ukraine, you have to come across the question of profit, i.e.
whether or not purchasing farmland in this country will help you grow your farm business. Since the selling of farmland is temporarily
prohibited by the existing legislation, obtaining rights to an agricultural land may turn out to be a difficult task. However,
there are
many investors who have successfully evaded this legislation through the leasing of farmlands on either
a long, short, or medium term basis. The longest term for leasing lasts up to forty-nine years while the medium and short terms
are limited to 2-5 and 5-25 years respectively. Attaining land rights to begin your agricultural jobs and farms jobs in
Ukraine is rather quite simple and the official framework is pretty straightforward. Equipment forms an
important part of starting a successful agricultural business and these needs to be imported as Ukraine
lacks quality machinery or is quite expensive to be purchased on a frequent basis. People working agricultural
jobs and farm jobs in the country can import this equipment through several ways. These include leasing arrangements, purchase through
agreements of sale-purchase, and contributing to a company’s (completely foreign owned) share capital. According
to the
prohibitions imposed by the current legislation, agricultural land cannot be used as collateral,
eliminating the possibility of attaining the much desired financing. Although, the future harvest rights can act as liquid
security, increasing the financing possibility as stated in the Law on Pledges and Ukraine’s Civil Code. Also, agricultural producers
who are residing in Ukraine can reap the benefits of an exceptional VAT regime of payment, provided the
legal requirements are met. Lastly, because of Ukraine’s massive reserves of high-quality soil, it is without doubt,
an agricultural haven for producers all around the world. People who decide to begin their farm jobs and
agricultural jobs in Ukraine will be able to gain the upper hand before any of the competitive markets
direct their attention towards this fertile black soil and gain momentum. Thus, starting your agricultural business is
a once in a lifetime opportunity when it comes to Ukraine.
Answers To
AT: Price Volatility
High prices are stable—international trade check volatility
Dorosh 8
(Paul A, Division Director of the Development Strategy and Governance Division IFPRI, “Food Price
Stabilisation and Food Security: International Experience” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, April
2008, v. 44, iss. 1, pp. 93-114, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=126834c9-361c-4ef6-94f54d7ee8b9bbb5%40sessionmgr110&vid=3&hid=22&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#
db=eoh&AN=0981463//sd)
For price stabilisation through international trade to be a feasible option, international price levels must
not be excessively volatile.17 If the import parity price becomes very high, international trade may not be
profitable for private traders, or a domestic price increase up to import parity levels may be deemed
unacceptable to the government.18 With the expansion of international trade volumes and the number of countries participating
in the trade, however, international prices of grain are becoming increasingly stable over time, so this would
not appear to be a serious problem nowadays.19
AT: High Prices Bad – Ag
High food prices bolster US ag
Koba 13
(Mark, CNBC senior editor, Bloomberg, CNN, “Drought Still Plagues US: Food Prices 'Going Up'” 1/11 pg
online at http://www.cnbc.com/id/100372886//sd)
"Some prices have gone up on certain products like beef and commodities like corn, but I think we've
seen the brunt of it," said Mark Zupan, economist and dean Farm revenues hit an all time high last year due to
the drought and we have plenty of food stored up
of the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester. ",
so I
don't think we're in any major danger." Dire or not, what's needed is more snowfall and rain, said
Christopher Williams, a professor at Clark University's Graduate School of Geography. "Some states like Illinois, California and Wisconsin are
seeing more rain and snow fall then last year, but we are not in the clear yet," Williams said. "A
long term drought is in effect and
with conditions being the way they are now, certain parts of the country can expect to be in drought for
some time to come." "The key will be what happens in the next 3 to 6 months and if we get enough
moisture."
High food prices increase ag resiliency and make climate adaptation possible
Wenzlau 4/11
(Sophie, Food and Agriculture Staff Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, “Global Food Prices
Continue to Rise” pg online at http://www.worldwatch.org/global-food-prices-continue-rise-0//sd)
Large-scale imports of agricultural commodities in 2007–08 and 2011 were important factors in the
global food price spikes in those years. High Chinese imports of soybeans, for instance, contributed to the 2011 spike.
National export restrictions, including taxes and bans, also drove up food prices; policies enacted in 2007–08 in response to
the price spike generated panic in net-food importing countries and raised grain prices by as much as 30 percent, according to some estimates.
In the last few decades, periods
in which the cereals stock-to-use ratio (the level of carryover reserves of
cereals as a percentage of total annual use) was near its minimum have correlated with a high price of
calories from food commodities. When food stocks are high, shocks can be absorbed more easily than
when stocks are low or nonexistent. The world stock-to-use ratio for calories from wheat, maize, and rice
was lower in the last decade than in the two preceding decades, which may be a main reason for higher
global food prices. Rising energy and fertilizer prices drove up food prices as well, by adding to production,
processing, transportation, and storage costs. According to the World Bank commodity price index, the average price of energy during 2000–12
was 183.6 percent higher than the average price during 1990–99, while the average price of fertilizer increased 104.8 percent in the same
period. There is reason to believe that food
commodity prices will be both higher and more volatile in the decades
to come. As climate change increases the incidence of extreme weather events, production shocks will become more frequent. Food
prices will also likely be driven up by population growth, increasing global affluence, stronger linkages between
agriculture and energy markets, and natural resource constraints. According to the FAO, although high food prices tend to
aggravate poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition, they also represent an opportunity to catalyze long-term
investment in agriculture, which could boost resilience to climate change and augment global food
security.
AT: High Prices Bad – Economy
No impact to stability or growing economies— high prices add wealth through net
gains from producers
Ivanic and Martin 8
(Maros, PhD in agricultural economics from Purdue. Will, PhD in Agriculture and Rural Development.
“Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries” November pg online at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00347.x/full//sd)
Despite widespread concern about the impacts of high food prices on poor people and on social
stability, little hard information appears to be available on actual impacts on poor people. The overall
impact on poverty rates in poor countries depends on whether the gains to poor net producers
outweigh the adverse impacts on poor consumers. Whether higher food prices improve or worsen the
situation of particular households depends importantly on the products involved; the patterns of
household incomes and expenditures; and the policy responses of governments (World Bank, 2008).
Existing analyses tell us that the impacts of higher food prices on poverty are likely to be very diverse,
depending upon which commodity prices change, the structure of the economy (Hertel and Winters,
2006; Ravallion and Lokshin, 2005) and the distribution of net buyers and net sellers of food among lowincome households (Aksoy and Izik-Dikmelik, 2008). While most studies find that higher prices of staple
foods raise poverty in the short run (Barrett and Dorosh, 1996; Minot and Goletti, 2000; and Ravallion,
1990), it is certainly possible for increases in at least some food prices to transfer income to some
poorer households (Aksoy and Izik-Dikmelik, 2008). Only with careful examination of outcomes at the
household level is it possible to tell whether changes in the prices of specific staple foods will help or
hurt poor people.
AT: High Prices Bad – Food Shortage
Global trade solves food shortages and regional shocks
GMR 12
(Global monitoring report, “Food Prices, Nutrition, and the Millennium Development Goals” Using Trade
Policy to Overcome Food Insecurity. pg online at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1327948020811/84016931327957211156/8402494-1334239337250/Chapter-4.pdf//sd)
Trade is an excellent buffer for domestic fluctuations in food supply. There is no global food shortage: the
problem is regional or local—one of moving food, often across borders, from surplus production areas to
deficit ones—coupled with affordability. World output of a given food commodity is far less variable than output in
individual countries. Thus increased trade integration holds considerable potential to stabilize food prices,
boost returns to farmers, and reduce the prices faced by consumers. Trade liberalization protects
national food markets against domestic shocks by allowing more food to be imported in times of
shortage and exported in periods of plenty. However, historically—and despite a host of regional trade agreements—most
countries have chosen to take the opposite approach by restricting imports of food and discouraging exports in often-failed attempts to keep
domestic markets isolated from international shocks by ensuring self-sufficiency in food production.
High food prices stop global protectionism—makes export subsidies and tariffs costly
Johnson 7
(Simon, Economic Counsellor and Director of the IMF's Research Department. “The (Food) Price of
Success” December. Pg online at
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/12/straight.htm//sd)
There is another potential opportunity in this rapidly developing difficult situation. Farm subsidies of
various kinds in rich countries have long plagued the international trading system and currently make it
difficult to move forward with further trade liberalization. Rich countries are reluctant to improve access to their most
protected markets. With high food prices, subsidies are less compelling and—depending on how they are structured—
may not even pay out when prices are above a certain level. Industrial countries need to seize this
moment and eliminate subsidies in such a way that it is hard to reimpose them later. Even though the European Union is not
always regarded as a model of agricultural reform, it has taken an impressive step forward in terms of export subsidies for
milk. With milk at record-high prices this year, these subsidies have been suspended. Given the nature of
decision making over agricultural policy, reinstating such subsidies might be difficult. But industrial country tariffs on
ethanol should also come down. The rich world is constantly admonishing the poor to get serious about
adding value in the agricultural sector. This is exactly what the rapid development of a global biofuels market could bring. But
this will not happen unless and until tariffs on the import of biofuels into rich countries are eliminated. There
is no panacea here, of course, but allowing freer trade in biofuels should generally help agricultural sectors
everywhere and bring benefits to poor, rural societies. Opportunities to expand land use will be greater if all countries have
a fair chance to produce biofuels.