Econ
THEIR Posen article CONCLUDES that the economy won’t change the global order – this is
their only internal link card on this issue
Posen ‘9 (deputy director and senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (Adam, “Economic
leadership beyond the crisis,”http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/foresight/documents/PN%20USA_FINAL_LR_1.pdf)
The preceding description would seem to confirm the rise of the Rest over the West. That would be premature. The
empirical record is that economic recovery from financial crises, while painful, is doable even by the poorest countries, and in advanced
countries rarely leads to significant political dislocation. Even largefiscal debt burdens can be reined in over a few years where political will
and institutions allow, and the US has historically fit in that category. A few years of slower growth will be costly, but also may put the US back on a sustainable
growth path in terms of savings versus consumption. Though the relative rise of the major emerging markets will be accelerated by the crisis,
that acceleration will be insufficient to rapidly close the gap with the USin size, let alone in technology and well-being. None of those
countries, except perhaps for China, can think in terms of rivaling the US in all the aspects of national power. These would include:
a large, dynamic and open economy; favorable demographic dynamics; monetary stability and a currency with a global role; an
ability to project hard power abroad; and an attractive economic model to export for wide emulation. This last point is key. In the area of
alternative economic models, one cannot beat something with nothing – communism fell not just because of its internal contradictions,
or the costly military build-up, but because capitalism presented a clearly superior alternative. The Chinese model is in part the American
capitalist(albeit not high church financial liberalisation) model, and is in part mercantilism. There has been concern that some developing or small countries could
take the lesson from China that building up lots of hard currency reserves through undervaluation and export orientation is smart. That would erode globalisation, and
lead togreater conflict with and criticism of the US-led system. While in the abstract that is a concern, most emerging markets – and notably
Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea – are not pursuing that extreme line. The recent victory of the incumbent
Congress Party in India is one indication, and the statements about openness of Brazilian President Lula is another. Mexico’s continued orientation
towards NAFTA while seeking other investment flows (outside petroleum sector, admittedly) to and from abroad is a particularly brave example. Germany’s and
Japan’s obvious crisis-prompted difficulties emerging from their very high export dependence, despite their being wealthy, serve as cautionary examples on the other
side. So unlike in the1970s, the last time that the US economic performance and leadership were seriously compromised,
we will not see leading developing economies like Brazil and India going down the import substitution or other self-destructive
and uncooperative paths.
Education
Global cooling is the overall trend
Taylor ‘9 Senior Fellow of The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News /James M,
March, Environment and Climate News, “Global Cooling Continues”, The Heartland Institute, Google/
Continuing a decade-long trend of declining global temperatures, the year 2008 was significantly colder
than 2007, and global temperatures for the year were below the average over the past 30 years. The
global temperature data, reported by NASA
satellite-based temperature measurements, refuted predictions 2008 would be one of the warmest on record. Data show 2008 ranked 14th coldest
of the 30 years measured by NASA satellite instruments since they were first launched in 1979. It was the coldest year since 2000. (See accompanying
figure.) Satellite Precision NASA satellites uniformly monitor the Earth’s lower atmosphere, which greenhouse gas theory predicts will show the first and most
significant effects of human-caused global warming. The satellite-based measurements are uncorrupted by urban heat islands and localized
land-use changes that often taint records from surface temperature stations, giving false indications of warming .
The uncorrupted satellite-based
temperature measurements refute surface temperature station data finding 2008 to be one of the top 10 warmest years on
record. “How can an ‘average year’ in one database appear to be a [top 10] warmest year in another?” asked meteorologist Joe D’Aleo on his International Climate
and Environmental Change Assessment Project Web site. “Well, the global databases of [surface station reports] are all contaminated by
urbanization, major station dropout, missing data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment, and black-box and manmade adjustments designed to maximize [reported] warming,” explained D’Aleo. Warming Trend Overstated “The substantial and continuing La Niña
cooled the Earth quite a bit in 2008, to the point that it was slightly below the 30-year average [1979-2008] but slightly above the 20-year average [19791998],” said John Christy, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
(UAH). “From research we have published, and more to come soon, we find that land surface air temperatures misrepresent the
actual temperature changes in the deep atmosphere—where the greenhouse effect is anticipated to have its easiest impact to measure. Surface
thermometers are affected by many influences, especially surface development, so the bulk atmospheric measurements from satellites offer a
straightforward indicator of how much heat is or is not accumulating in the air, for whatever reason,” Christy explained. “Recent published
evidence also supports the long-term trends of UAH as being fairly precise, so the observed rate of warming is noticeably
less than that projected by the IPCC ‘Best Estimate’ model simulations which, we hypothesize, are too sensitive to CO2 increases,” Christy
added.
CO2 Increases inevitable
Lovelock ‘9, Consultant of NASA, former president of the Marine Biological Association, and Honorary Visiting Fellow
of Green Templeton College, Oxford (James, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy it While You Can, 7475)
It is surprising that politicians could have been so unwise as to agree on policies many decades ahead. Perhaps there were voics
from scientists who warned of the absurdity of such planning, but if so they do not seem to have head. Even if we cut emissions by 60 percent to 12 gigatons a year, it
wouldn't be enough. I have mentioned several times before that breathing is a potent source of carbon dioxide, but did you know that the exhalations of
breath and other gaseous emissions by the nearly 7 billion people on Earth, their pets, and their livestock are responsible for 23 percent of all
greenhouse gas emissions? If you add on the fossil fuel burnt in total activity of growing, gathering, selling, and serving food, all of this adds up to
about half of all carbon dioxide emissions. Think of farm machinery, the transport of food from the farms, and the transport
of fertilizer, pesticides, and the fuel used in their manufacture; the road building and maintenance; super-market operation and the packaging
industry; to say nothing of the energy used in cooking, refrigerating, and serving food. As if this were not enough, think of how
farmland fails to serve Gaia as the forests it replaced did. If, just by living with our pets and livestock, we are responsible for nearly half the
emissions of carbon dioxide, I do not see how the 60 percent reduction can be achieved without a great loss of life. Like it or not, we
are the problem--and as a part of the Earth system, not as something separate from and above it. When world leaders ask us to follow them to the inviting
green pastures ahead, they should first check that it really is grass on solid ground and not moss covering a quagmire. The only near certain conclusion we can draw
from the changing climate and people's response to it is that there is little time left in which to act. Therefore my plea is that adaptation is made at least
equal in importance to policy-driven attempts to reduce emissions. We cannot continue to assume that because there is no
way gently to reduce our numbers it is sufficient merely to improve our carbon footprints. Too many also think only of the profit to be
made from carbon trading. it is not the carbon footprint alone that harms the Earth; the people's footprint is larger and more deadly.
Aff causes faster warming –large emission reductions remove sulfate aerosols which cool the Earth
Lovelock ‘9, Consultant of NASA, former president of the Marine Biological Association, and Honorary Visiting Fellow
of Green Templeton College, Oxford (James, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy it While You Can, 5556
In 2004, two IPCC contributors, Peter Cox and Meinrat Andreae, raised the question: What
happens to global warming if this pollution haze
suddenly disappears? Their paper in Nature warned that if the haze disappeared, global heating would intensify, and dangerous change
could be the consequence. In 2008, a group led by Peter Scott, from the Hadley Centre (part of the Meterological Office), examined this phenomenon in a
careful and wall-drawn paper in the journal Tellus: "global dimming," they revealed, is complex, even as a purely geophysical problem. According to their
calculations the sudden removal of haze could lead to either a modest or a severe increase of heating. I know begin to see why my wise friend Robert
Charlson is so loath to commit himself on pollution aerosols and climate change. Even so, there was little doubt among any of these distinguished climate scientists that
the present pollution haze reduces global heating, or that its sudden removal could have serious consequences. I suspect that we worry less about global heating than
about a global economic crash, and forget that we could make both events happen together if we implemented an immediate, global 60 percent
reduction of emissions. This would cause a rapid fall in fossil fuel consumption, and most of the particles that make the
atmospheric aerosol would within weeks fall from the air. This would greatly simplify prediction and we could at last be fairly sure that global
temperature would rise; the removal of the pollution aerosol would leave the gaseous greenhouse unobstructed and free at last
to devastate what was left of the comfortable interglacial Earth. Yes, if we implemented in full the recommendations made at Bali within a year,
far from stabilizing the climate, it could grow hotter not cooler. This is why I said in The Revenge of Gaia, "We live in a fool's climate and are damned
whatever we do."
Humanity does not face extinction from disease
Malcolm Gladwell, The New Republic, July 17 and 24, 1995, excerpted in Epidemics: Opposing Viewpoints, 1999, p.
31-32
Every infectious agent that has ever plagued humanity has had to adapt a specific strategy but every strategy carries a
corresponding cost and this makes human counterattack possible. Malaria is vicious and deadly but it relies on
mosquitoes to spread from one human to the next, which means that draining swamps and putting up mosquito netting
can all hut halt endemic malaria. Smallpox is extraordinarily durable remaining infectious in the environment for years,
but its very durability its essential rigidity is what makes it one of the easiest microbes to create a vaccine against.
AIDS is almost invariably lethal because it attacks the body at its point of great vulnerability, that is, the immune
system, but the fact that it targets blood cells is what makes it so relatively uninfectious. Viruses are not superhuman. I
could go on, but the point is obvious. Any microbe capable of wiping us all out would have to be everything at once:
as contagious as flue, as durable as the cold, as lethal as Ebola, as stealthy as HIV and so doggedly resistant to
mutation that it would stay deadly over the course of a long epidemic. But viruses are not, well, superhuman. They
cannot do everything at once. It is one of the ironies of the analysis of alarmists such as Preston that they are all too
willing to point out the limitations of human beings, but they neglect to point out the limitations of microscopic life
forms.
No impact – anything virulent enough to be a threat would destroy its host too quickly
Joshua Lederberg, professor of genetics at Stanford University School of Medicine, 1999, Epidemic: The World of
Infectious Disease, p. 13
The toll of the fourteenth-century plague, the "Black Death," was closer to one third. If the bugs' potential to develop
adaptations that could kill us off were the whole story, we would not be here. However, with very rare exceptions, our
microbial adversaries have a shared interest in our survival. Almost any pathogen comes to a dead end when we die; it
first has to communicate itself to another host in order to survive. So historically, the really severe host- pathogen
interactions have resulted in a wipeout of both host and pathogen. We humans are still here because, so far, the
pathogens that have attacked us have willy-nilly had an interest in our survival. This is a very delicate balance, and it is
easily disturbed, often in the wake of large-scale ecological upsets.
CIR
View the uniqueness debate through the lens of political strategy- our evidence and arguments
have a number of nuanced distinctions that the aff’s evidence doesn’t assume
The new bill has injected new life into comprehensive reform
A. Johnson ‘9-30 (September 30, 2010 Kevin R. Johnson Dean Professor of Law and Chicana/o Studies, and MabieApallas Public Interest Law Chair Univ. of California, Davis, School of Law Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2010 Introduced in the U.S. Senate
On Wednesday, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S.B. 3932, The Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act of 2010. The bill takes a broad approach to solving the wide range of problems that plague our
broken immigration system. It offers proposals on border, interior, and worksite enforcement, on legalization, and on future flows of immigration. Now
the Senate and House both have a vehicle (Congressman Luis Gutierrez previously introduced a CIR bill in the House last
December) for generating a serious discussion on immigration reform in the coming weeks. These bills are a direct
response to the overwhelming public demand for solutions to our broken immigration system. Both political parties have
acknowledged that this broken system is no longer sustainable, and is disrupting America's businesses, families, and longterm economic recovery. "It is hard to turn ideas into legislation and legislation into good law, but Senators Menendez and
Leahy have injected new life into the immigration reform debate," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration
Policy Center. "At a time when every social issue we care about bumps up against immigration - healthcare, national security, and the economy - this bill is a step
in the right direction. However, attention now turns to the rest of the Senate and House - where there are serious comprehensive proposals which lawmakers can react to
and build upon - and the question remains; will they embrace this challenge or kick it down the road once again?" The Immigration Policy Center has prepared a
summary of the The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010.
B. New bill will get CIR passed- vote count and momentum
Dvorak ‘9-17 (Kimberly Dvorak San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner President Obama discusses amnesty with
top Democratic lawmakers September 17th, 2010 7:58 am PT
In an Oval Office meeting, President Obama
met with U.S. Senator Robert Menendez and U.S. Representatives Nydia Velazquez
and Luis Gutierrez. During the inner-circle pow-wow the President reiterated his commitment for reaching across the aisle
and bringing Republicans together and passing comprehensive immigration legislation. Obama said in a statement from the White
House that the “reform must provide lasting and dedicated resources for border security, while also requiring accountability from both individuals in the U.S. illegally
and unscrupulous employers who game the system for their own economic advantage.” The President also expressed his support for the DREAM Act that Democrat
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s has attached to a defense spending bill. During the meeting Obama said he looked forward to signing the DREAM Act into law.
During the President’s tenure in the Senate he cosponsored the DREAM Act as a stand alone piece of legislation. “The President noted that it is time to stop punishing
innocent young people for the actions of their parents, especially when those youth grew up in America and want to serve this country in the military or pursue a higher
education they have earned through academic excellence,” the statement read. Technically 35-year-old people are not considered children and the current language in
the DREAM Act would grant a form of amnesty to more than two million illegal aliens who meet the bill’s requirements. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
discussed with the president his ideas for a comprehensive immigration reform bill he plans to bring up in a few weeks.
“The President told Senator Menendez that he looks forward to reviewing the bill, noting that he strongly supported the
proposal that Senate Democrats outlined earlier this year. The President reiterated that the strength of that proposal was
that it was based on the bipartisan framework developed by Senators Schumer and Graham.” However, after a breakdown in
communications and bitter partisan tactics used during the health care debate and the failed stimulus package negotiations the Democrats in the upper and lower houses
may have lost any chance of a bipartisan immigration bill. It appears that with less than two months until the heated midterm elections, the president’s partisan politics
over the past month will come back to haunt him as Republicans have voiced their unison support for not passing comprehensive immigration reform. Meanwhile at the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gala dinner the president wanted those in attendance to understand; “I will not walk away from this fight. My commitment is
getting this done as soon as we can. We can't keep kicking this challenge down the road." The president also wanted Hispanics to remember something on November 2;
"Don't forget who is standing with you, and who is standing against you. Don't ever believe that this election coming up doesn't matter. ... Don't forget who your friends
are." Those are dramatic words coming from the president who stands to lose both houses in November. It is unclear if the Democrats in the House and Senate have the
votes necessary to withstand a filibuster. However after the Oval Office meeting Rep. Gutierrez says they have 218 votes to get the
job done "I think the White House, the Democrats, and the allies that support serious immigration reform are going on
offense and the President is our quarterback," Gutierrez said. "I have been pushing hard to get us all pointing in the same
direction on this issue and now with the White House standing with us and the Senate poised to act, I think we are seeing
that effort begin to bear fruit. There are at least 218 votes in the House to pass the DREAM Act. The House is ready to act. We call on the Senate to pass the
bill." Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who is in the fight for his political life said on Tuesday “that there would be a clean up or down vote on the DREAM Act in
the Senate as part of the Defense Department reauthorization bill in the coming week or two.” Another topic of discussion at the White House included the 400,000
deportations taking place this year and the Democratic lawmakers encouraged the president to concentrate on only serious violent criminals because they felt
deportations were tearing families apart. "This was a big day, a big week and the next couple of weeks will be a turning point for
immigration reform," Rep. Gutierrez said. "We know the clock is ticking, we know Republicans are being pressured to say 'no' to everything - including
sensible Democratic solutions that solve big national problems - but we also know the country wants and needs a secure, legal, and fair immigration system that protects
and serves the American people and strengthens the economy. Getting a vote on the DREAM Act is a step in that process that could help a lot of very talented young
people achieve their American Dream."
First, It will get passed in the lame duck
A. Obama is pushing immigration reform hard- it will get done in the lame duck because the
political calculations will change
Nicholas ’10 (Obama renews immigration push June 30, 2010|By Peter Nicholas, Tribune Washington Bureau
Reporting from Washington — It would be a revival worthy of Lazarus, but President Obama
is making a renewed push for an immigration
overhaul, possibly during a lame-duck session of Congress after the November election — when members would no longer face an imminent political
risk for supporting it. Obama met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room on Tuesday and discussed a strategy for passing a bill
that had seemed dead for the year. On Thursday morning, the president will put the issue before the American public. In a speech at American University, he plans to
make the case for providing a path to legal status for the estimated 11 million people who live in the U.S. illegally while strengthening border enforcement. White
House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily briefing Tuesday that "this continues to be a very important national issue" requiring Republican support. To date,
no Republican senators have agreed to back a comprehensive immigration bill. Nor has such a bill been introduced in the Senate. Obama "can't sign something that
doesn't exist," said one person who was at the White House meeting. As recently as May, Obama said he merely wanted to "begin work" on immigration this year —
not complete a bill. But this week he has approached the issue with renewed urgency. He spoke to immigration advocates at the White House on
Monday, setting aside time from coping with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and a shakeup in his military command in Afghanistan. Latino lawmakers who have
criticized the White House for neglecting immigration said they were pleased. Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who was part of the Hispanic Caucus meeting with
Obama, said in an interview: "He's going to speak to the nation on Thursday and tell the country why it's important to have comprehensive immigration reform. That's
something we've been demanding of this administration." But advocates have heard assurances before. Deepak Bhargava of the Washington-based Center for
Community Change was among those who met with the president Monday. In an interview afterward, Bhargava said Obama "was unambiguous about his commitment.
The question is whether the actions will match the words over the next few weeks." In their hourlong meeting Tuesday, lawmakers and the president debated a strategy
for passing a bill in the coming months — no small task given that members are increasingly focused on the upcoming election, and national polls show broad support
for Arizona's strict new immigration law. With conservatives energized, angry and likely to storm to the polls, Democrats fear they will lose even more seats in
Congress than a president's party typically does at the halfway point in his term. Voting on an immigration bill in a lame-duck session has some
advantages in proponents' eyes. Outgoing members of Congress would have little reason to fear backing a controversial
bill. And those who won might be more likely to support it, since they wouldn't have to face voters for another two years
— when Obama is up for reelection and likely to draw progressives to the polls. In addition, if Republicans make major gains in
November, an immigration overhaul could be impossible in 2011 or 2012. While running for president, Obama pledged to act on immigration in 2009. That deadline
came and went. But Obama won two-thirds of the Latino vote in 2008 and has no wish to alienate a growing constituency. Raising the issue anew allows
Obama to mollify his Latino supporters. But it also puts Republicans in a tough spot. Neither party can afford to write off
a Latino community whose influence is growing. Forcing a vote on immigration would give Republicans a difficult choice: They could vote against
the bill and risk antagonizing Latinos, or vote yes and invite the wrath of "tea party" activists and other conservatives opposed to what they view as amnesty for illegal
immigrants. In his private meetings this week, Obama has emphasized that Republicans are the main force blocking a bill. "He said over and over again the Republican
obstruction was the key to preventing this from getting done," said Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union,
who took part in a meeting with Obama on Monday. In another move likely to please Latino voters, Obama's immigration enforcement chief, John Morton, issued a
memo Tuesday ordering his agency to focus on deporting criminals and those who pose a national security threat, rather than on pursuing people such as "immediate
family members of U.S. citizens" and those caring for children.
B. Lame duck congress will pass immigration- his events proves
Kim ’10 (Lame-duck Congress could move immigration reform, warns GOP opponent By Barbra Kim - 07/07/10 04:44
PM ET
Voters should be wary of a lame-duck Congress that could push through an immigration bill this year, one stalwart opponent of comprehensive reform warned
Wednesday. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.), one of the GOP's staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, warned that President Barack Obama might seek
immigration reform after this fall's elections, and urged lawmakers running for reelection to pledge not to move such legislation during a lame-duck
Congress. "If you listen to the debate, since the president’s speech, and now you look at this action by his Justice Department,
what we can expect is that after the next elections, in between before the next Congress is sworn in, they will move and
try to do something dramatic in the area of illegal immigration," Rohrabacher said during an interview with a conservative radio syndicate. “We
have got to make sure that everyone running for office pledges that they will not be part of a lame-duck conspiracy … to pass laws that they [the Obama administration]
couldn’t get passed before the elections," he added. "That’s an insult to the American people and an insult to democracy." Lame-duck Congresses take place after the
elections when defeated, retiring lawmakers sit alongside their reelected colleagues for a few weeks during a session in which very little is usually accomplished. Many
lawmakers and the president himself have suggested that mustering the political will for reform could be difficult,
potentially allowing lawmakers who are no longer vulnerable to feel freer to cast a vote at the end of the year. But
Democrats in the White House and Congress have been far from dismissive of the prospects for using the session for
controversial measures later this year. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has similarly hinted that Democrats could move the Employee Free Choice Act (“cardcheck”) legislation during a lame-duck session, while White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday he "certainly believe[s] it's possible" that a lame-duck
Congress could be used to push through a controversial free trade agreement with South Korea.
A. Tea party divisions and recovering economy will ensure CIR passes by 2012
Lawrence ‘9-23 (Tea Party divided over immigration Published: 6:28 PM 09/23/2010 | Updated: 9:21 AM 09/27/2010
By Stewart Lawrence Bio | Archive Get Stewart Lawrence Feed Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/tea-partydivided-over-immigration/#ixzz10xBYbgqr Stewart J. Lawrence is a Washington, D.C.-based public policy analyst who
writes frequently on immigration and Latino affairs. He is also founder and managing director of Puentes & Associates,
Inc., a bilingual survey research and communications firm.
Divisions within the Tea Party over immigration parallel the divisions within the GOP between conservatives like Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on the one hand, and Republican moderates and business groups that favor
comprehensive immigration reform, including an expanded guest worker program. Right now, the Tea Party appears likely to serve as
an additional brake on any further efforts at compromise by the GOP with the Democrats on immigration reform, especially on the DREAM Act, or the
new comprehensive immigration reform bill that Senator Roberto Menendez (D-NJ) is promising to introduce in the next few weeks. But once Congress
returns to the issue in earnest, sometime in 2011 or perhaps 2012, we can expect these divisions to widen as Democrats
and Republicans alike turn their attention to the presidential race, amid an economy that may have recovered sufficiently
to ease pressure on joblessness, and renewed inter-party competition for the allegiance of Latino voters. At that point, the
current fault line within the Tea Party over immigration could test the movement’s unity, and force it to choose between competing
conservative ideals.
B. Demographics and Presidential elections ensure it will pass by 2012
Medina ‘9-20 (New SEIU Sec.-Treas. Eliseo Medina Sets Plans for Organizing, Immigration Reform Monday
September 20 9:49 am By David Moberg Eliseo Medina, the newly elected secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees
International Union. (Photo courtesy SEIU.org) The lives of working people will only improve through unions, the
veteran organizer says in this interview Eliseo Medina, a former leader of the United Farm Workers, a highly successful
organizer and executive vice-president for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and one of the labor
movement’s foremost advocate of immigrant workers’ rights and immigration reform, unanimously won support from his
fellow executive board members last Wednesday to become the new secretary-treasurer of SEIU. Medina will serve at
least until 2012, filling out the term of Ann Burger, who resigned in August after losing her bid to succeed retiring
president Andy Stern to SEIU’s new president Mary Kay Henry. In this edited interview, Medina talks with In These
Times about what he hopes to do on his new job, which includes special emphasis on greater transparency and
accountability in financial management, increasing the union’s organizing efforts, and winning immigration reform.
I think that we’re
going to fix this immigration system sooner or later–I hope sooner–but the only way we’re going to get this done is to continue
the demographics, I think it’s just a matter of time. In some very key states,
it’s going to pretty darn difficult for any candidate to be elected president in 2012 unless they have a story to tell to the
Latino community. It’s going be hard for the Republican party if they have a history of anti-immigrant activity and identity as
the party of Pete Wilson [former California governor who scapegoated immigrants]. They’ll be in difficult situation. If you look at 2012, Latinos
will be the margin of victory in Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Florida, California, Illinois, and New York. New York
and California are blue. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Nevada are not. The only way we get immigration reform is to keep growing those
numbers and make sure in 2012 that if Republicans keep going the way they are, they do what Pete Wilson did in the [antiimmigrant] Proposition 187 years. He won the first election, but in the long run, he lost a generation of Latinos, and that’s
how California became blue. If Republicans think that in 2010 bashing immigrants is way to win, they’re following
Wilson’s formula, and they’re going to find that in 2012 this will backfire very badly. What I’m hoping is that after the election,
sanity will prevail regardless of what party is in power because it’s in both of their interests to take the issue off the table.
The Republicans have no way they can defend [their position] and Democrats can’t win without accomplishing something,
having a record they can point to. Positioning Latinos as independent voters asking for action on immigration reform is the
best position we could be in. Political parties and candidates can not write off and alienate for the long term the fastest
growing constituency in the country. If you look at demographics, it’s inevitable. In 2012 we know there will be many
more Latino voters than there are today. In 2014 there will be more, even more in 2016. If Republicans say not only are we the party of no, but hell, no,
to add to the number of voters and active participants. Given
when it comes to immigration reform, they are sending an unmistakable message to Latinos.
C. Obama will be able to get immigration reform through in 2011- he will use Clinton’s political
triangulation strategy
Bendery ‘9-20 Obama Will Need New GOP Strategy for 2011 By Jennifer Bendery Roll Call Staff Sept. 20, 2010, 12
a.m.
Obama recently gave a preview of how he plans to shift his approach during a backyard town hall in Fairfax, Va. Looking
ahead to 2011, Obama said Republicans and Democrats will have “a great opportunity to work together” on issues such as
long-term debt. Additionally, he cited the prospect of both parties finding common ground on immigration reform and
energy reform. “I think there’s an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together and to say, ‘What are the
tough decisions we’ve got to make right now?’” Obama said at the September event. The president’s conciliatory tone is a
sharp contrast to the way he has framed Republicans this year, particularly in the weeks before the elections. He has
tagged them as obstructionists, accused them of putting politics before their country and singled out Boehner as the face
of the Bush-era policies that landed the economy in a ditch. Not that a GOP-controlled Congress has to be all bad news for
Obama. Democrats would no longer have to take all the blame for not being able to pass key legislation. And Obama
could even chalk up some successes by leaning on the triangulation strategy used by President Bill Clinton in the mid1990s. That is, Obama could position himself as a moderate and pit the extremes against the centrists in both parties.
Passing high skilled workers kills the comprehensive bill
Frates ‘8 (Tech vacancies languish on immigration snag By CHRIS FRATES | 1/21/08 6:13 PM EST
. This year, Hoffman
said Compete America is pushing lawmakers to reissue the roughly 300,000 highly-skilled-worker visas
and 140,000 green cards granted between 2001 and 2003 that were approved but never used. The coalition would like to increase from 20,000 the number of
highly-skilled-worker visas available to those with master’s and doctorate degrees from American universities. Coalition partners are also looking to
double the one-year window during which college students and recent graduates can stay in the country without a visa or
green card, Hoffman said. The strategy is to urge receptive lawmakers, such as Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Maria Cantwell
(D-Wash.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Reps. John B. Shadegg (R-Ariz.) and Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), to add the provisions to legislation moving toward
passage, Hoffman said. Asked why the coalition isn’t pushing for a separate immigration bill, Hoffman said with a laugh, “We saw what happened in the Senate” last
year. But the amendment strategy has also proved difficult. The coalition’s attempt to increase the number of highly-skilled-
worker visas failed in a bid to incorporate it in last year’s omnibus spending bill. Cornyn has been working with the
Compete America coalition to boost the number of visas, but he has not yet decided how best to push the issue this year,
spokesman Brian Walsh said, explaining: "From his perspective, this is harming our ability to innovate and remain competitive in the global economy." With economic
woes topping this year’s congressional agenda, tech companies hope their message of job creation will resonate. Putting highly skilled foreign workers in vacant jobs
creates more jobs and stimulates economic growth and tax revenue, Hoffman said. Still, tech companies acknowledge that achieving even
incremental change will be difficult, particularly in this election year. “This is ripe for the presidential campaign, and we think that Congress
and the next president have to act decisively to ensure that the U.S. remains globally competitive, and getting the H-1B [highly-skilled-worker] visa and green card
problems fixed is a big part of that,” said Microsoft spokeswoman Ginny Terzano. Complicating matters further is the fact that increasing the
number of highly-skilled-worker visas is the political linchpin holding together hope of future comprehensive immigration
reform. “Everybody has one thing that they keep in the package to move it forward in the debate, and with immigration, that’s H-1B visas,” said a tech lobbyist who
didn’t want to be identified. “Stripping it away does not allow for the comprehensive immigration reform that people want.” So
it’s unlikely either Democrats or Republicans will deal away the debate’s one unifying issue, the lobbyist said.
All your link turns are really just links- every lobby who supports the plan will abandon
comprehensive reform because they already got what they want
Kapur ’10 (SAHIL KAPUR WASHINGTON MICROSCOPE Jun. 5 2010 - 6:57 pm Immigration reform advocates go
piecemeal
Alexander Bolton notes the two narrow issues immigration advocates are pushing for : One such popular proposal is the Dream Act, legislation
sponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) that would put illegal immigrants who came to the country at a young age on the path to legal
permanent residence. The second proposal is the Ag Jobs bill. It would allow illegal farm workers and agricultural guest workers to obtain temporary immigration status
with the possibility of becoming permanent residents. The substantive trouble with this is that immigration, like energy or health care, is
a complex issue comprising many moving pieces that must be dealt with simultaneously, or else the approach could
backfire or create as many problems as it solves. The political problem is that successfully pushing some of the more
popular components of immigration reform could easily undermine support for a comprehensive overhaul (“we’ve already
gotten what we want,” those constituencies will say).
Passing popular immigration reform undermines bargaining chips crucial to comprehensive
reform
Bender ’10 (FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 2010 Bipartisan Dreams of Immigration Reform, POSTED BY STEVEN BENDER
AT 5:20 PM
Yesterday I attended an all-day meeting as a commissioner with the Oregon Commission on Hispanic Affairs, a legislative-created organization seeking equality for
Oregon Latino/as. Our guests included a teleconference with a Washington D.C. political strategist who discussed the dismal prospects for comprehensive
immigration reform in the coming months unless the Gulf oil leak subsides. She stressed
the need for bipartisan support for any reform to move
forward. I remarked that if I had a t-shirt it would read “We had bipartisan support for comprehensive reform with the Kennedy/McCain coalition and all we got was
a lousy Secure Fence Act.” I then queried whether Latino/as instead should pursue piecemeal reform. In other words, chase the DREAM Act
and the AgJobs Act to at least give some relief to undocumented farm workers and college students, or those who dream of college. The strategist’s response
was pragmatic and persuasive—having garnered bipartisan support in the past these alluring pieces might successfully
pass, leaving the vegetable on the plate of the more challenging question of the status of millions of undocumented
immigrants. As the argument goes, the only incentive to get what Latino/a families deserve and want is to hold hostage the
issues more appealing to the conservative base—helping farmers save their crops with a ready supply of cheap labor, and
helping keep the most educated young immigrants in our country.
High skilled worker bills crush comprehensive reform
Khan ’10 ('Shooting Itself in the Foot': Is U.S. Turning Away Entrepreneurs? Some Say New Immigration Policy is
Needed Specifically for Skilled Foreign Workers By HUMA KHAN WASHINGTON, April 21, 2010
The bipartisan framework for immigration reform drafted by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., proposes that certain immigrants who are
receiving degrees in fields like math, science, engineering and technology receive a green card immediately upon their graduation, instead of having to get an H1B visa
through an employer. A comprehensive immigration bill drafted by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., expands green cards for skilled
immigrants and seeks to cut the backlog that goes into processing these visas. In February, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard
Lugar, R-Ind., introduced the Start Up Visa Act of 2010. The bill would allow immigrant entrepreneurs to receive a two-year visa if he or she can
show that a qualified U.S. investor is willing to dedicate a minimum of $250,000 to their start-up venture. If, after two years, the immigrant entrepreneur can show that
the venture has attracted $1 million in additional capital investment or achieved $1 million in revenue and generated at least five full-time jobs, the entrepreneur would
get legal permanent residency. "There are those little things that can expand the pipeline without revisiting the giant debate over immigrant reform," Stangler said. "The
Start Up Visa Act is a hugely responsible act." But across the board, there is little optimism about whether such an act or piecemeal measures
can pass. "Congress has its plate pretty full and I don't know if they have the stomach for another big debate," Stangler said.
Immigration reform proponents such as Gutierrez argue that a comprehensive overhaul is the way to go because all the
different components are related, and that immigration shouldn't just be about high skilled workers. That, some say, could
be the death of reform for high skilled immigrants altogether. " I'm pessimistic that anything will happen. Our leaders used all their bullets on
health care and this is a very contentious issue," Wadhwa said. "Both political sides agree on the need for skilled immigrants and they
create jobs and they are good for the economy. "The trouble is that some lawmakers are worried if they just allow debate
of skilled immigrants, this will pass and everyone will declare success and forget about illegal immigrants," Wadhwa said.
"I see it being more contentious than the health care debate. How many battles can one government fight?"
Piecemeal reform for high skilled workers torpedoes comprehensive reform
Sewell ’10 (Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2010 By Abby Sewell, Medill News Service | Medill News Service
Advocates in the broader immigration-overhaul coalition said support from the technology industry would be key to
winning the wide political backing that was necessary to give a comprehensive bill a shot at passing. "I think it is
important, and in part that is because tech is one of the key business sectors that will be necessary to bring the Republican
votes we will need, in the Senate, especially," said Jeanne Butterfield, a senior adviser for the National Immigration Forum, a group that advocates
policies that are more welcoming toward immigrants. Technology companies make up a substantial portion of the voices that are
lobbying for federal immigration revisions. Of the 288 federal lobbyist filings that had reported lobbying on immigration
issues in the first quarter of the year as of Monday, an analysis shows that about 17 percent came from companies and
organizations that represent the technology and engineering sectors. Others represented fields such as medicine and
education, which also are interested in skilled immigrants. The people who are lobbying on behalf of the tech sector said
that although their issues with the immigration system were specific, they had no plans to peel off from the broader
overhaul coalition to pursue a more tailored bill. Muller said the word from Capitol Hill had been that immigration was
too contentious an issue to tackle piecemeal.
Even small measures trigger the link
Kapur ’10 (Blocked Arizona immigration law may reduce chances of real reform | Sahil Kapur guardian.co.uk
Thursday, July 29th, 2010
The seemingly irresolvable issue of how to deal with existing illegal immigration further complicates reform prospects.
Republicans appear immutably opposed to any kind of legalisation program, while omitting such a program is a nonstarter
for too many Democrats. Another obstacle for reformers is that Republicans have succeeded in making sure border
security dominates the debate, while Democrats have done a poor job conveying that the immigration system’s problems run much deeper, and that fixing
them requires a wholesome approach. Democrats also seldom emphasised the broad public support for offering undocumented workers a path to citizenship. According
to a new CNN poll, 81% support such a programme; 19% are opposed. The stalemate encompasses even less controversial, piecemeal
provisions such as the Dream Act, which would grant legal permanent residency to children who entered the country illegally with their parents, on the condition
that they go to college or join the military. Some Democrats also worry that passing popular provisions on their own would sap the
energy for comprehensive reform.
American Immigration Council ‘9-30 (The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010: A Summary
Published On: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 | Download File © Copyright 2010 • American Immigration Council • All Rights
Reserved | Contact Us
This following summary highlights key provisions of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 introduced by
Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Leahy (D-VT): Title I │Title II │Title III │Title IV │Title V│Title VI Title I. Border Enforcement ▲ Effective
Date Triggers - The full legalization provisions may not take place until the DHS Secretary certifies the following: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
has 6,410 agents investigating criminal law, 185 worksite enforcement auditors, and a fraud task force. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has 21,000 border
patrol agents hired and trained, and 7 unmanned aircraft systems deployed. ICE has a nationwide community-based alternatives to detention program in place. E-verify
is fully operational and mandatory for all employers The Department of Justice (DOJ) has 300 Assistant U.S. Attorneys who prosecute criminal violations at the border
and 275 Immigration Judges in place with staff. Border Security - This section provides for: 250 CBP officers at new ports of entry along the Southwest border, 2,500
CBP officers to serve at ports along the Northern border, 2,500 CBP officers to serve at points of entry along the Southern border, and $55 million to help retain
experienced CBP officers. $300 million towards infrastructure improvements along the ports of entry on the Northern and Southern borders, along with construction of
additional ports of entry. The hiring of 1,000 new ICE immigration law violation investigators each fiscal year. 50 new immigration litigation attorneys and 20 new
immigration judges each year. Improved training for DHS officers including identifying fraudulent documents, prevention of engaging in racial profiling or violating
civil rights, and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations. Increased cooperation with Mexico regarding border security and reduction in violence and criminal
activity, as well as informing Mexican citizens and nationals of U.S. immigration laws. Increased resources to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives to fight the smuggling and trafficking of firearms, and appropriates $15 million to expand the Project Gunrunner initiative in each state. Reimbursement of
state and county prosecutors along the borders for federally initiated and referred drug cases. A border relief grant program to fund law enforcement agencies within
100 miles of the border to combat drug-related criminal activity. A new U.S.-Mexico Border Enforcement Commission to study enforcement strategies along the
Southern Border and strengthen relations between communities and the government, and make recommendations to the President and Congress. The commission is
authorized to hold hearings, subpoena testimony, and make recommendations to DHS. Clarification that federal laws preempt any state or local law that discriminates
on the basis of immigration status, and clarifies that 287(g) does not authorize states to engage in any immigration enforcement activities. Border Community Liaison
Offices at every border patrol sector, which will consult with border communities on strategies and policies, as well as agent conduct and performance. Title II: Interior
Enforcement ▲ Prevention of Unauthorized Entries and Removal Strengthens the security of the Visa Waiver Program and Entry and Exit Requirements (includes the
“Strengthening the Visa Waiver Program to Secure America Act.”). Within 18 months, requires the DHS Secretary to use U.S. Visit technology to deploy a system
capable of recording the departure of nonimmigrants. Increases the civil penalties for illegal entry. Increases the fines and criminal penalties for reentry of previously
removed aliens. Modifies conditions of voluntary departure, as well as increases fines and penalties for non-compliance. Authorizes the Attorney general to reimburse
states for costs incurred for the imprisonment of any illegal aliens convicted of felonies in that state (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program). Increases penalties for
producing, using, or trafficking in fake or stolen passports, and producing, using, or trafficking in fake or stolen immigration documents. Prohibits non-citizens from
buying firearms and engaging in interstate commerce related to firearms. Clarifies the definition of “aggravated felony” in immigration law, requiring it to be a felony
described in the definition for which the individual served one year of imprisonment or more. Detention Reform Provides protections for children involved in
immigration enforcement actions, including requiring DHS to contact the local child welfare agency, and requiring DHS to provide social workers to screen
apprehended individuals to determine if they are parents, legal guardians, or primary caregivers, and provide phone calls within 8 hours to arrange for child care.
Families with children will not be separated or taken into custody except when required by law or in exceptional circumstances. In these circumstances, they will live in
family units in a non-penal facility, and their custody status will be reviewed every 30 days. Individuals who are parents or legal guardians of children have the right to
daily phone calls and regular visits to their children, to participate in family court proceedings affecting custody of their children, and to have their children join them in
country of origin if they are being removed. Establishes a program for secure alternatives to detention. Ensures that all detained individuals are treated humanely:
Requires that each detainee receive prompt and adequate medical care, a comprehensive intake screening, and any necessary medications. Heightens requirements for
administering psychotropic medication, transfer of detainees, and solitary confinement. Requires that by 2012 all detention facilities be located within 50 miles of a city
where free or low costs legal services are available. Permits the Attorney General to appoint counsel to represent aliens in removal proceedings. Establishes the position
of ICE Ombudsman, who will inspect detention facilities to determine compliance with relevant policies, procedures, and laws, and report these findings to the DHS
Secretary and ICE Assistant Secretary. Provides that refugees, their spouse, and their children who are admitted under INA 207(c) will be lawful permanent residents as
of the date of their admittance. Eliminates the one-year time limit for filing an asylum claim. Title III: Worksite Enforcement ▲ Mandatory National Employment
Verification System Creates a mandatory employment verification system to be administered by DHS and to be mandatory for all employers within 5 years. All federal
government employers must register within 60 days after the date of enactment; any employer or industry designated to be “critical infrastructure” must participate in
the system within 1 year; employers with more than 1000 employees shall participate within 2 years; employers with more than 500 employees within 3 years, and
employers with more than 100 employees, within 4 years. Additionally, if an employer is found to have violated immigration law, it shall be required to register for the
system. Employers may also register on a voluntary basis. Outlines the requirements for employers participating in the system, including required training to ensure
proper use and the protection of civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy and required notification to employees stating that the system cannot be used for discriminatory
or immigration enforcement purposes. Outlines the process for confirmation or nonconfirmation of employment authorization. A confirmation or nonconfirmation must
be issued within 15 days. Employees must receive notice of the nonconfirmation within 3 business days. Employees are prohibited from employing an individual who
received a nonconfirmation following the expiration of the administrative appeal or if a further action notice was not contested. Creates an administrative and judicial
review process. If the nonconfirmation was caused by the employer’s negligence or misconduct, the employee can seek damages, back pay, reinstatement, and other
remedies in a civil action against the employer. Provides for annual studies, audits, and reports by the U.S. Comptroller General and the DHS Office for Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties. Provides that DHS must establish procedures for compliance with system rules by employers and establishes penalties for employers who do not
comply with the rules. Preemption: Clarifies existing law that the employment of unauthorized workers is the responsibility of the federal government and leaves no
room for additional state or local legislation. Provides that workers cannot be denied backpay or any other monetary remedy for unlawful employment practices by an
employer or for workplace injuries because they are unauthorized or because the employer failed to comply with employment verification procedures. Requires that
within 2 years, only fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, and wear-resistant Social Security cards will be issued. Within one year, the DHS must issue only machine
readable, tamper-resistant employment authorization documents that use biometric identifiers. Amends INA Section 274B, which prohibits employment discrimination
based citizenship status or national origin. The misuse of the employment verification system (such as terminating an employee while confirmation is pending or failing
to provide timely required notice to employees) is added to the list of unfair immigration-related employment practices. Violations are to be litigated by Office of
Special Counsel in the DOJ Civil Rights Division. Authorizes the creation of a voluntary Enhanced Verification System which would allow individuals to self-verify
their work eligibility, to review their records in the employment verification system, to update information in the system, to submit biometric information, and to block
the use of their Social Security numbers in the system. Title IV: Reforming America’s Legal Immigration System ▲ New Worker Program and the Creation of a
Standing Commission Establishes a Standing Commission on Immigration, Labor Markets, and the National Interest. The commission is charged with establishing
employment-based immigration policies, recommending appropriate levels of new employment based visas, setting initial level of visas for the newly created temporary
worker program, and facilitating research and analysis on the broader impact of immigration on the economy, labor, security, and foreign policy The Commission will
be an independent, bipartisan agency which is required to make annual recommendations to Congress on employment based visa matters, but Congress must act for any
new levels to take effect. Creates the new H-2C nonimmigrant worker program to provide additional workforce capacity in employment sectors for which there is a
shortage of available American labor. The program permits employers to petition for workers only after meeting strict criteria for ensuring that American labor is
unavailable and paying additional fees (up to $1,500 per application) based on company size. Visa holders must meet criminal and other background checks, have an
offer of employment, and otherwise be admissible to the U.S. Dependents will be permitted to enter the U.S. The initial H-2C visa is valid for three years and may be
renewed for three more years. With some exceptions, an H-2C visa will be revoked if the visa holder has been unemployed for more than 60 days. After 4 years, an H2C non-immigrant may file an application for adjustment of status, provided that he has been continuously employed, establishes progress toward civics and English
proficiency, meets all criminal and other background checks and pays additional fines and fees. Substantially expands labor protections for temporary workers,
increases labor enforcement authority of federal government, requires employers to provide personal safety equipment at no cost to workers, and requires Immigration
and Customs Enforcement officers to cooperate with ongoing labor violation investigations. Family and Employment Visa Reforms This section
reduces existing backlogs by recapturing unused family and employment based visas and permitting roll-over of unused
visas in the future, exempts certain categories of applicants from visa caps, including persons who have earned an
advanced degree in the sciences from a U.S. university, physicians working in shortage areas, and persons admitted under
extraordinary ability visas. Promotes family unity by revising current unlawful presence bars and providing broader discretion to government to waive bar in
cases of hardship. Reduces backlog waiting time by reclassifying spouses and children of lawful permanent residents as immediate relatives and eliminates the
employment-based caps. Provides for work authorization during gaps caused by transition from nonimmigrant to immigrant status based on backlogs. Reduces
percentage of income necessary to sponsor an applicant. Addresses long-standing technical barriers to family reunification for the children of Filipino World War II
veterans, provides clarifications to widow and orphan protections and provisions allowing for adjustment of status for the children of persons admitted as fiancés, and
revises immigration rules to treat step children equally for purposes of immigration.
The aff only changes visa requirements, not admissibility requirements- this turns and takes out
aff solvency- comprehensive reform is key
Johnson ‘9 (A Visa and Immigration Policy for the Brain-Circulation Era Adjusting To What Happened in the World
While We Were Making Other Plans By Victor C. Johnson, Senior Advisor for Public Policy Victor C. Johnson is senior
advisor for public policy at NAFSA. The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Rachel H. Banks, Heather M.
Stewart, and Ursula Oaks. December 2009
America can no longer assume that it is the preferred destination for people who seek to improve their lives outside their
home country. Talented students and skilled workers have multiple options around the world for study and creative work,
and they are attracted to the places that offer them the best opportunities. Our challenge is to participate in the global community in a way
that lifts up Americans to compete in a global workforce while also being open, accessible, and attractive to the world’s best talent and future leaders. Visa and
immigration policy together determine who can knock on America’s front door for admission and whether that door
provides access to a country that welcomes those who step across its threshold. The Department of State issues visas under policy
guidance which, since 2003, has been the province of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A visa is only a document that permits an
individual to apply at a port of entry for admission to the United States. DHS determines who may enter and how long
they may legally remain. The determination of admissibility, the provision of immigration services to those legally
admitted, and the enforcement of immigration law are respectively the responsibility of three different DHS agencies , none
of which existed in their current form before DHS was created. To put this institutional puzzle together in the service of coherent policy is
an enormous challenge, and it has not yet been met. In this document, we seek to combine visa and immigration policy recommendations into a
comprehensive set of guidelines appropriate for today’s world. Since 9/11, various barriers, some of them unreasonable or unnecessarily
cumbersome, have impeded access to timely visas for international students, scholars, and exchange visitors. Now, eight years
later, it is possible to declare partial victory in the effort to rectify this situation. Although exchange visitor (J) visas recovered fairly quickly, issuance of student (F)
visas crashed after 9/11 and did not recover to the 2001 level until 2007 (see graph at right). As of 2008, student visa issuance appeared to be back on a robust growth
curve, but then declined in 2009, probably in part because of the global economic downturn. It is thus important to acknowledge that visa processing does not now
appear to be a serious impediment for U.S.-bound international students and exchange visitors. Credit for this success is owed to many unfairly maligned bureaucrats in
the U.S. government, especially the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, and many outside the government who pushed, prodded, consulted, and
supported—among whom we count ourselves. However, this does not mean that the problems the United States has experienced attracting international students are
over—far from it—because the visaissuance process is only one among many factors that affect U.S. competitiveness for international students. The reality is that the
decline in our competitiveness is a function of the transformation of the international student market over the past decade and the absence of a U.S. policy for
addressing this reality. Since 1999, international student mobility worldwide has increased at more than twice the rate of
international student enrollment in U.S. higher education institutions—57 percent versus 27 percent, according to data from the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Institute of International Education. This gap illustrates that over the past ten years, international students
increasingly are choosing to pursue higher Source: State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Issuance Statistics,
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html; FY=Fiscal Year (October 1 –September 30) A Visa and Immigration Policy for the BrainCirculation Era 7
education abroad in places other than the United States. This is not entirely by accident, as numerous competitor countries have emerged during this time to seize a
larger slice of the growing global marketplace of students. There are the traditional competitor countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, who adopted and
implemented aggressive national strategies to attract more international students to their colleges and universities and have seen their enrollments increase since 1999
by 77 percent and 183 percent, respectively. More recently, newer competitors, such as the European Higher Education Area, Canada, Singapore, and New Zealand,
have emerged with national campaigns of their own to boost international enrollments. Even traditional “sending” countries are entering the competition by taking
significant steps to improve their own higher education systems in order to attract more students from abroad; in the past year, China, South Korea, and Japan have each
announced international student recruitment targets – China: 500,000 by 2020; Japan: 300,000 by 2020; South Korea: 100,000 by 2010. This trend is likely to continue,
especially as other countries increasingly offer more courses taught in English. Yet the United States remains on the sidelines of this competition,
and as a result, we are not benefiting nearly as much as we should from the growth in international student mobility. Now
is not the time for complacency. It is time to turn our attention to the unfinished visa-processing agenda. In a market
grown exponentially more competitive, it would be folly to fail to address the remaining problems that place unnecessary
obstacles in the way of those we want to attract, negatively impact their incentives to visit the United States, and inhibit
scientific collaboration and innovation—all without any positive impact on U.S. safety or security. The State Department
must be given the tools to manage the visa caseload and the risks that are inherent in visa adjudication. The actions
recommended below will permit a more focused visa policy, less hassle for low-risk visa applicants, and the more
strategic deployment of consular resources, and will enhance security. After 9/11, the secretary of state issued temporary guidance to all
consular posts essentially prohibiting waiver of personal appearance (interviews) for most visa applicants in order to give the department time to craft an appropriate
policy for the new risk environment. Congress unwisely wrote this temporary guidance into law in 2004, thus compelling many would-be visitors to the United States to
travel long distances and incur significant expense for interviews that available technology and risk-assessment techniques really make unnecessary. Requiring
overworked consular officers to waste time on brief, pro-forma interviews with low-risk visitors does little to enhance our security. Some foreign governments have
retaliated by requirin
the secretary of state the
authority to grant U.S. consulates discretion to waive personal appearance as appropriate based on risk analysis, subject to The United States remains on the sidelines of
this competition, and as a result, we are not benefiting nearly as much as we should from the growth in international student mobility. A Visa and Immigration Policy
for the BrainCirculation Era 8 State-DHS guidance, and according to plans submitted by each consulate for State Department approval. Expediting Reviews for
LowRisk Travelers With such discretion, the Department of State could ease another key bottleneck in the visa process: Too many resources are expended
on the repetitive processing of the same people, which alienates our friends and distracts consular attention from those
who might wish us ill. Today, renowned scientists who travel to the United States frequently to engage in scientific activities are treated the same as strangers
who are firsttime applicants every time they require a new visa. Students and scholars have suffered prolonged separation from their
families and have seen their research or their degree programs collapse because they were unable to return to the United
States in a timely manner from a routine visit abroad
visitors with a prior history of visa approval who have already cleared a background check; and students and scholars in valid status who are pursuing programs in the
United States, leave the country temporarily, and require a new visa to return to the same program. Reforming the Security Clearance Process for Scientists The security
clearance process for scientists must be rationalized. Procedures have long been in place to prevent the proliferation of advanced, sensitive technologies, relevant to the
design and production of weapons of mass destruction, by controlling access to such technologies by foreign scientists from countries of concern. These
procedures entail the referral of certain visa applications to Washington for inter-agency clearance through a process
currently known as “Visas Mantis.” Since 9/11, the annual number of visas submitted for Mantis clearances has increased an astonishing 2,328 percent,
from 24 in 2001 to 55,888 in 2008. Even allowing for the likelihood that Mantis procedures were too lax prior to 9/11, it is impossible to imagine that proliferationsensitive cases have grown by that order of magnitude. Virtually all Mantis cases that proceed to completion are approved—a sure sign that many of the reviews are
unnecessary. But the process periodically breaks down under the weight of the caseload, leaving applicants stranded for months awaiting clearance. To solve this
s on which cases need to be submitted for
Mantis rev
to the duration of the program
for which the clearance is sought, thus avoiding repetitive processing of the same case. Since 9/11, the annual number of visas submitted for Mantis clearances
increased an astonishing 2,328 percent, from 24 in 2001 to 55,888 in 2008. A Visa and Immigration Policy for the BrainCircula
biennial reviews of the list of controlled technologies (the Technology Alert List, or T A L), with the participation of experts in the scientific community and the private
should appropriate necessary funds for the
staffing of interagency reviews, and State should establish effective time guidelines to expedite the reviews. Effective time guidelines for Mantis clearances do now
appear to be in place as a result of new procedures announced on June 1, 2009. This is an important advance, which we support and applaud. However, we remain
concerned about the long-term viability of any regime for vetting scientists so long as the caseload keeps outpacing resources, and in the absence of an effective system
for TAL reviews. An Immigration Agenda for a Competitive America Fixing visa processing alone will not create the conditions necessary for the United States to
regain and maintain its competitive edge for international students, educators, and researchers. This will require immigration reform. NAFSA supports the
administration and those in Congress who seek to enact comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible that
addresses the following needs.
2NC Impact- Food Security
Comprehensive reform is key to food security
ACIR ‘7 (December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
Dear Member of Congress: The Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) is deeply concerned with pending immigration enforcement
legislation known as the ‘Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007' or ‘SAVE Act’ (H.R.4088 and S.2368). While these bills seek to address
the worthy goal of stricter immigration law enforcement, they fail to take a comprehensive approach to solving the immigration problem. History
shows that a one dimensional approach to the nation’s immigration problem is doomed to fail. Enforcement alone, without
providing a viable means to obtain a legal workforce to sustain economic growth is a formula for disaster. Agriculture best
illustrates this point. Agricultural industries that need considerable labor in order to function include the fruit and
vegetable, dairy and livestock, nursery, greenhouse, and Christmas tree sectors. Localized labor shortages have resulted in
actual crop loss in various parts of the country. More broadly, producers are making decisions to scale back production, limit
expansion, and leave many critical tasks unfulfilled. Continued labor shortages could force more producers to shift
production out of the U.S., thus stressing already taxed food and import safety systems. Farm lenders are becoming increasingly
concerned about the stability of affected industries. This problem is aggravated by the nearly universal acknowledgement that the current H-2A agricultural guest
worker program does not work. Based on government statistics and other evidence, roughly 80 percent of the farm labor force in the United States is foreign born, and a
significant majority of that labor force is believed to be improperly authorized. The bills’ imposition of mandatory electronic employment eligibility verification will
screen out the farm labor force without providing access to legal workers. Careful study of farm labor force demographics and trends indicates that there is not a
replacement domestic workforce available to fill these jobs. This feature alone will result in chaos unless combined with labor-stabilizing reforms. Continued
failure by Congress to act to address this situation in a comprehensive fashion is placing in jeopardy U.S. food security
and global competitiveness. Furthermore, congressional inaction threatens the livelihoods of millions of Americans whose
jobs exist because laborintensive agricultural production is occurring in America. If production is forced to move, most of the upstream
and downstream jobs will disappear as well. The Coalition cannot defend of the broken status quo. We support well-managed borders and a rational legal system. We
have worked for years to develop popular bipartisan legislation that would stabilize the existing experienced farm workforce and provide an orderly transition to wider
reliance on a legal agricultural worker program that provides a fair balance of employer and employee rights and protections. We respectfully urge you to oppose
S.2368, H.R.4088, or any other bills that would impose employment-based immigration enforcement in isolation from equally important reforms that would provide for
a stable and legal farm labor force.
Food insecurity kills billions
Brown ‘5 (Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, February 7, 2005, People and the Planet, “Falling water
tables 'could hit food supply',” http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2424
Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security, but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security are
far more important issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 per cent of their income on food,
even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the next meal that is the overriding concern."
Food insecurity sparks World War 3
Calvin ’98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No. 1, p. 4764)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling.
Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take
over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at
home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart
entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to
accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third
World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east
as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra
warming from the North Atlantic.
2NC Impact- Latin American Stability
Comprehensive reform is key to Latin American stability
Gittelson ‘9 (Citation: 23 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 115 2009 THE CENTRISTS AGAINST THE
IDEOLOGUES: WHAT ARE THE FALSEHOODS THAT DIVIDE AMERICANS ON THE ISSUE OF
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM Robert Gittelson has been a garment manufacturer in the Los Angeles
area for over twenty-five years. His wife, Patricia Gittelson, is an immigration attorney with offices in Van Nuys and
Oxnard, California. Robert also works closely with Patricia on the administrative side of her immigration practice.
Throughout his career, Mr. Gittelson has developed practical, first-hand experience in dealing with the immigration issues
that are challenging our country today.
In the alternative, should we fail to pass CIR, and instead opt to deport or force attrition on these millions of economic refugees through an enforcement-only
approach to our current undocumented immigrant difficulties, what would be the net result ? Forgetting for now the devastating effect on our own
economy, and the worldwide reproach and loss of moral authority that we would frankly deserve should we act so
callously and thoughtlessly, there is another important political imperative to our passing CIR that affects our national security, and the security
and political stability of our neighbors in our hemisphere. That is the very real threat of communism and/or socialism. First of all, the primary
reason why millions of undocumented economic refugees migrated to the United States is because the economies of their
home countries were unable to support them. They escaped extreme poverty and oppression, and risked literally everything they had, including their
lives and their freedom, to come to this country to try to work hard and support themselves and their families. Deporting our illegal immigrant
population back to primarily Latin America would boost the communist and socialist movements in that part of our
hemisphere, and if the anti-immigrationists only understood that fact, they might rethink their "line in the sand" position on what they insist on calling 'amnesty.
Communism thrives where hope is lost. The economies of Latin American nations are struggling to barely reach a level of meager
subsistence for the population that has remained at home; Mexico, for example, has already lost 14% of their able-bodied workers to U.S.
migration.3" Without the billions of dollars in remissions from these nations' expatriates working in the United States that go
back to help support their remaining family members, the economies of many of these countries, most of whom are in fact
our allies, would certainly collapse, or at least deteriorate to dangerously unstable levels. The addition of millions of
unemployed and frustrated deported people who would go to the end of the theoretical unemployment lines of these
already devastated economies would surely cause massive unrest and anti-American sentiment. The issue of Comprehensive
Immigration Reform is not simply a domestic issue. In our modern global economy, everything that we do, as the leaders of that global
economy, affects the entire world, and most especially our region of the world. If we were to naively initiate actions that
would lead to the destabilization of the Mexican and many Central and South American governments, while at the same
time causing serious harm to our own economy (but I digress ... ), it would most assuredly lead to disastrous economic and
political consequences. By the way, I'm not simply theorizing here. In point of fact, over the past few years, eight countries in Latin America have elected leftist
leaders. Just last year, Guatemala swore in their first leftist president in more than fifty years, Alvaro Colom.3" He joins a growing list. Additional countries besides
Guatemala, Venezuela,32 and Nicaragua33 that have sworn in extreme left wing leaders in Latin America recently include Brazil,34 Argentina,3 5 Bolivia,36
Ecuador,37 and Uruguay.3s This phenomenon is not simply a coincidence; it is a trend. The political infrastructure of Mexico is under extreme pressure from the left.39
Do we really want a leftist movement on our southern border? If our political enemies such as the communists Chavez in Venezuela and
Ortega in Nicaragua are calling the shots in Latin America, what kind of cooperation can we expect in our battle to secure
our southern border?
Latin America instability causes extinction
Manwaring ‘5 (Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson College,
venezuela’s hugo chávez, bolivarian socialism, and asymmetric warfare, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf)
President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state
failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the
global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability,
criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They
can host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form
of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder,
kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further human
rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking
and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal
anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty,
destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed
propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez considers
these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American
socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate
actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop
its national territory and society. Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin
American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement,
poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that
its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of
subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of
such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing
and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection
with the creation of new people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and
leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and people’s
democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65
2NC Impact- Moral Obligation
Piecemeal reform violates our moral obligation to prevent rights violations against all
immigrants
Noorani ’10 (14 June, 2010 “We must continue increasing our pressure” for a Inmigration Reform in the US Economy
& Politics, International, Opinion & Interviews View Comments “Why We Must Continue Pushing for Comprehensive
Immigration Reform” By Ali Noorani / Via Change Photo: Korean Resource Center
Comunicas.- There are 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States today. And there are 279 Congressional votes
standing between those people and the American dream. The fight for those 279 votes that 11 million people need has been long and tough, but now, more than ever, is
the time for our courage and leadership. In April, Arizona enshrined racial profiling into law — and awakened millions to the current
civil rights crisis the immigrant community is facing in our country. Arizona changed the game and brought the urgency
of our fight to a fever pitch. Since then, at least 18 states have considered legislation similar to the Arizona law. The lack
of political courage from both the White House and members of Congress to tackle immigration reform has left a vacuum
that states like Arizona are rushing to fill with their own measures — and these measures mostly focus only on
enforcement with no thought given to families and workers. Immigration is no longer a policy debate; it is a political
battle with clear choices: Legalization or criminalization. Justice for all or racial profiling. Family unity or family
separation. We, as advocates, also have a clear choice. We can negotiate with ourselves and entice our opponents to the
table by proposing piecemeal options. But, an effort to push anything short of a comprehensive overhaul of our broken
system would both give our opponents a reprieve from working on a bi-partisan solution to one of our nation’s most
pressing problems and give our allies the choice of checking off the “immigration” box on their to-do list without having
fully addressed the issue. Anything less than full legalization of the 11 million undocumented immigrants is unacceptable,
and we should not demand anything less. We have a moral obligation to push for real reform that brings justice to all of
our communities. We won’t allow the inaction of Congress to force us into negotiating away our power. The courage of
those 11 million people is our power. If we back off from organizing the entire community, we will fail to create — much
less take advantage of — the opportunities that lie ahead. The American public has shown that they are in favor of
immigration reform with a pathway to legalization. Our communities have stood up and made their voices heard. Arizona
has ignited the 21st century fight for civil rights. Now is the time for our lawmakers to step up and stop putting politics above what is right and just.
We must continue increasing our pressure. There are no lack of options in front of the President and Congress to legalize the undocumented, keep families together and
reform our immigration system in the interests of our nation. There is only a lack conviction. And it’s up to us, as immigration rights advocates, to force them to do the
right thing, and bring real, comprehensive reform to all 11 million undocumented immigrants, leaving no one behind.
Moral obligation to reject rights violations- it's a decision rule
Petro ’74 (professor of law, Wake Forest University, Spring 1974 [Sylvester, TOLEDO LAW REVIEW, p. 480.]
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in
mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say
that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects.
That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan
Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming
to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and
resisted with undying spirit.
2NC Impact- Trade
Piecemeal reform causes protectionism- comprehensive reform is the only sustainable political
compromise
Bremmer ‘7 (Alternative Perspective America’s Protectionist Politics February 2007 IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT,
EURASIA GROUP HOW DEBATES OVER FOREIGN INVESTMENT, TRADE, AND IMMIGRATION ARE
CREATING NEW BARRIERS TO ENTRY, Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group
Like the debates over foreign investment and trade policy, the
politics of immigration reform is driven by bitter disagreement within the
United States over the proper balance between economic competitiveness, national security, and protections for American
workers. In fact, immigration reform has become a proxy for broader and evolving US protectionist sentiment. It is the
product of anxiety that illegal immigrants will deprive Americans of jobs and depress wages, as well as fears that
terrorists will infiltrate porous US borders. But the issue could provide the president and Democratic lawmakers with
ground for mutually profitable political compromise. Most congressional Democrats, like Bush, favour a comprehensive
approach on immigration reform which both tightens control of the border with Mexico and provides illegal immigrants
already inside the United States with a legal path toward eventual citizenship.
Warming Impact
Mexican relations are crucial to solve warming
Werz ’10 (By Michael Werz , Winny Chen | May 20, 2010 Michael Werz is a Senior Fellow and Winny Chen is a
Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress.
President Calderon mentioned climate change as a common challenge for a good reason—the problems associated with a
warming environment will bring the United States and Mexico even closer together. Cooperation in the realm of
renewable energy is important and needs to be dramatically enhanced. Mexico is an important player in international
climate negotiations and host of the next U.N. climate conference in Cancun later this year, and it is also a leader in
innovation and has ambitious plans for emissions reductions. EURUS, the largest wind farm in the entire continent that
will be built in Oaxaca State, is only one example. Mexico’s government also intends to play a major role in the field of
energy efficiency in emerging societies. The future of the creation of a national climate program in the United States that
includes a carbon pricing and trading mechanism is still uncertain. But three regional carbon limitation and trading
initiatives are underway in the United States, with the largest taking shape as the Western Climate Initiative. The six
Mexican states along the U.S. border are already official observers in the WCI, joining 11 states and Canadian provinces.
The federal governments in both the United States and Mexico should take aggressive steps to make it more feasible for
these Mexican states to become full partners in the WCI to achieve meaningful reductions in carbon pollution and move
toward greater U.S.-Mexican cooperation on a climate treaty in the future.