AT: T-CAN’T LIFT CAP
1. Counterinterp-A substantial increase is more than doubling the cap. Only our evidence is
contextual
Rosenblum 6
Migration Policy Institute, Marc, an International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Visiting Scholar at the Migration Policy Institute. Dr.
Rosenblum is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of New Orleans, where he teaches courses on US-Latin American relations, Latin
American and Comparative Politics,The Politics of Economic Development, and Political Methodology.
(““Comprehensive” Legislation vs. Fundamental Reform: The Limits of Current Immigration Proposals, January 2006,
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/PolicyBrief13_Jan06_13.pdf)
1. Proposed Changes to the Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Visa System Many comprehensive reform
proponents believe that the legitimate
demand for visas outstrips the supply, or that a higher level of visa issuance would support the goals of family reunification and
economic growth without damaging the US economy or society. Several proposals would therefore seek to expand the supply of LPR
visas by raising the overall level of LPR visa issuance, changing how LPR visas are allocated, and easing public charge restrictions against low-income immigrants. Increase
proposals would substantially increase numerical limits on LPR visa issuance: • The Secure
America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330, introduced by Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy and by Representatives Jim Kolbe,
Jeff Flake, and Luis Gutierrez) would more than double both family and employmentbased limits; • Senator Arlen Specter’s November 9
Chairman’s Mark incorporates the McCainKennedy formula for changes to LPR numerical limits; and • The Save America Comprehensive Immigration
lawful permanent resident admissions Three
Act of 2005 (H.R. 2092, introduced by Sheila Jackson Lee) would increase family-based LPR migration by a factor of almost four, to 960,000 annual admissions.
AT: COMMISION CP
1. Executive means immigrants won’t come
Cox & Rodriguez 9
(M. Rodríguez is a Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. “The President
and Immigration Law” The Yale Law Journal 119:458 2009)
For example,
in situations in which the Executive would prefer to admit immigrants with lawful status, it is largely
powerless to do so. Their lawful admission would be inconsistent with the admissions criteria established by
Congress. One instance in which the Executive might prefer access to the lawful path is when potential immigrants are unable or unwilling to bear the risks associated with
unlawful entry. Whereas many low-skilled migrants with few other options bear these risks, high-skilled immigrants
often will not. Migration to the United States may be less valuable to the latter, because they have more migration
options, or because they have economic prospects at home sufficient to support a family and live a good life. What is
more, employers of high-skilled immigrants may be much less likely to take the risk of flouting the immigration laws than employers of lower skilled labor. For highskilled migrants, then, the delegation of ex post screening authority substitutes poorly for ex ante authority.
A) Fertilizers-ANI proves they make intensive use worse
Deppner 10
Dave, Executive Director at Future Trees Inc, Florida’s formost company for forestry (“Lessons in Sustainable Land Development, February 16, 2010,
http://www.agribusinessweek.com/lessons-in-sustainable-land-development/)
Besides these physical processes, we also see chemicals that damage soils; primarily in the form of insecticides and fertilizers. Chemical
fertilizers and insecticides
are unsustainable, temporary solutions that rarely improve the quality of the soil. Pesticides often kill many of the insects and
microbes in soils that are needed for natural processes. There are, in fact, many beneficial insects that eat many of the pest insects, but most insecticides kill everything
indiscriminately. Not only are they poisonous and often improperly used, but most pesticides that are banned from use and sale in the United States and Europe are available
throughout the developing world. Furthermore, insecticides get concentrated from smaller insects to the larger animals that eat them, ultimately poisoning the entire food chain.
Alternatives to pesticide use entail (1) giving crops the strength they need to resist infestation by adding nutrients and organic matter to the soil, and (2) using Integrated Pest
Management techniques that ward off and kill insects. Fertilizers also cause
long term damage, and are often inadequate in their
nutrient composition. Soil need rich organic matter in the form of humus, compost, manure, etc. Commercial
fertilizers, often in the form of NPK pellets, contain just nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus. These are three of
the major nutrients, but there are also plenty of other nutrients – such as manganese, iron, boron, zinc, and copper –
that chemical fertilizers tend not to contain. Furthermore, rains can immediately leach these chemical fertilizers down
through the soil, contaminating groundwater and forcing farmers to apply more fertilizer every year. I know insecticides
are bad, but how do fertilizers damage the soil? We often see communities using NPK fertilizer in forms such as 10-1-20, 14-1414, and 20-20-20. These numbers refer to the portions of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in the fertilizer.
Chemical fertilizers cause at least four major problems in soil and vegetation. Fertilizers kill beneficial organisms
that live in the soil. These include both small microorganisms and larger ones such as earthworms. Chemical
fertilizers are often acidic, which causes the pH of the soil to change, thereby harming organisms that are critical to
soil health. Chemical fertilizers create hardpans in the soil. Hardpans are hard layers that can form naturally or
unnaturally under the soil. While microorganisms and organic matter hold healthy soil together, the chemicals
actually break down the soil particles creating a cement-like state, which decreases the soil’s ability to trap and hold
water. Additionally, chemicals applied to crops can seep into surface and underground water supplies, thus contaminating them – a major concern in rural areas of the
developing world that lack treated drinking water. Fertilizers can damage plants’ health because a plant’s ability to defend itself
from bacteria and fungi is directly related to nutrient amounts in the soil. Large increases in either nitrogen or
phosphorus can kill certain beneficial microorganisms that live in the roots of plant, making them more susceptible to
injury and diseases. Sudden, large increases in nitrogen levels, combined with a lack of trace elements, have been
shown to cause diseases in plants. Plants can experience a deficiency in trace minerals, even if the trace minerals are
locally available in the soil. This is because overuse of chemical fertilizers inhibits the chemical and physical
reactions that transfer the trace elements into the plants through the root hairs. This is all very complicated, and is beyond the scope of
this article to explain, but it is a known fact that the roots of plants can get covered by so many charged particles, such as sodium
ions, that they can no longer absorb the other minerals they need. Green manures are sustainable alternatives to chemical fertilizers.
Agricultural crops which received green manure of Gliricidia sepium (kakawate) yielded 9.5 tons per hectare of corn in Oromia, Ethiopia. A similar yield was obtained from plots
which received green manure of ipil-ipil and Leucaena diversifalia, but a significantly ‘reduced yield was obtained from plots receiving recommended levels of chemical fertilizer.
This implies that the use of multipurpose fast growing agroforestry species as a green manure can boost grain production over levels obtained from chemical fertilizer.
Additionally, the multipurpose species provide the farmer with fruit, fuelwood, fodder and construction wood.
B) That risks all life on earth
Europa 10
Policy statement by the European union from Europa, portal site of the European Union (http://europa.eu). It provides up-to-date coverage of European Union
affairs and essential information on European integration. (“Soil Biodiversity: The Invisible Hero”, March 12, 2010,
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/271)
Soils are home to over one quarter of all living species, yet Europe has no binding legislation to protect this precious resource. We depend
on soil for food, fibres, construction materials, clean water, clean air, climate regulation, and antibiotics such as
penicillin and streptomycin are derived from the soil. Soil biodiversity is the driving force behind this productive
capacity, but that diversity faces numerous threats. A new report published by the European Commission suggests that mismanaging soil biodiversity
could worsen climate change, jeopardise agricultural production and compromise the quality of ground water . The
European Commission has been arguing for binding legislation in this area since 2006, but little progress has been made. The Soil Framework Directive is once more on the
agenda of the Environment Council to be held on 15 March. Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik said: “Soil
is the invisible biodiversity hero. We
rely on healthy soils for some of the most fundamental ecosystem services, and without them life on our planet
would grind to a halt. We share our soils, so I am convinced of the need for common legislation in this area. I am therefore calling on Environment ministers to put in
place a sound regulatory framework to protect this most precious resource, and ensure we use it wisely." A fundamental element Soil is a living resource that
provides numerous essential services, releasing nutrients in forms that can be used by plants and other organisms.
When this recycling function is impaired, agriculture, forestry and ultimately all life on Earth is threatened. The
micro-organisms contained in soil contribute to water purification and help remove pollution and pathogens. The
loss of this service would reduce the quality and quantity of ground and surface waters, increasing the risk of
erosion and landslides in mountain areas, and of flooding in lowland areas. Soil also contains the second largest
carbon pool on the planet. The loss of soil biodiversity reduces the ability of soils to regulate the composition of
the atmosphere, diminishing their role in counteracting global warming. Soil organisms constitute a major source of chemical and genetic
resources. Antibiotic resistance develops fast, so the demand for new pharmaceutical products is almost unending, and soil biodiversity can be an important source. At present,
only 1% of soil microorganism species are known. Current threats to soil biodiversity The diversity of soil organisms is under threat from inappropriate agricultural practices, overgrazing, vegetation clearing, forest fires and poor irrigation practices. Land conversion, from grassland or forest to cropped land, results in rapid loss of soil carbon, which
indirectly enhances global warming. Urbanisation and soil sealing are a further threat, with concreting effectively killing the life in the soil beneath. Existing policies related to soil
biodiversity Few countries have strong legislation to protect their soils, and at present no legislation or regulation specifically targeted at soil biodiversity exists at international,
EU, national or regional level. The Commission first presented a legislative proposal to protect European soils in 2006, with support from the European Parliament, but opposition
from six Member States means that the proposal is currently blocked in Council. The Spanish presidency will attempt to relaunch the proposal at the Environment Council on 15
March.
2. Links to politics
Simendinger 2
Staff Writer for the National Journal [Alexis, “Power of One,” the national Journal]
Bush's White House aides insist that the President knows how valuable his political capital is, and that he has to spend that capital wisely. To presidency scholars such as Richard
E. Neustadt, who wrote a seminal 1960 book on the subject, real presidential power
is the strength and standing to persuade, in order to bring
about government action. It is not just the authority to effect change by edict. "From the veto to appointments, from publicity to
budgeting, and so down a long list, the White House now controls the most encompassing array of vantage points in the American political system," Neustadt wrote. Bush's
first year suggests he understood how to bargain when the policies at issue were most important to him personally
tax cuts and school accountability, for instance. Before September 11, however, the President seemed to get into
the most trouble when he exercised power alone. The cumulative uproar over arsenic in water, his early regulatory
actions that had an anti-green tinge, and the energy policies that favored the oil and gas industries were sour notes for Bush with the public and
with many in Congress. The White House is still feeling the effects of those missteps as Bush heads into his second year.
3. H1-Bs solve trafficking
SNS 10
(HARRY TEAGUE HOSTS BRIEFING ON EMERGENCY BORDER SECURITY FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO, August, States News Service, lexis)
“Now that this critical funding has been signed into law, it is important that we reach out to local border officials
and law enforcement agencies to determine how these resources can be utilized in the most efficient and effective
way. No one knows better than the officers protecting our border communities what is needed to effectively curb
border violence and illegal drug trafficking,” said Harry Teague. “It’s critical to ensure that all questions are answered and concerns are addressed. I
greatly appreciate the feedback I received today and I pledge to continue this type of outreach as we move forward on this issue.” The funding surge will boost
border security efforts along the US-Mexico border by providing additional support to current border patrol
activities, including additional Border Patrol agents and other border enforcement officials, new forward
operating bases for the Border Patrol, and more law enforcement resources to fight drug smuggling and the
spillover of drug violence into the U.S., without adding to the deficit. To pay for these enhancements to border
security, the bill raises fees on H-1B visas that companies use to hire foreign skilled workers. The higher fees will be imposed
on companies that have more than 50 percent of their employees on H-1B visas.
B) Key to stop terrorism
Placido 10
(Placido - ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INTELLIGENCE DEA– ’10 Mike, "Transnational Drug Enterprises (Part II): Threats to Global Stability
And U.S. Policy Responses" http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct030310.pdf)
Perhaps the
most prescient example of the relationship between drug trafficking and national security can be found
just south of our border. A stable and secure Mexico is in the best interests of both the U.S. and Mexico, but the violent actions and corrupting influence of drug
trafficking organizations threatens that security. Since President Calderon took office in December 2006 and immediately set out to break the power and
impunity of these cartels, his government has deployed more than 45,000 military troops to assist police in combating cartel influence and related violence. Despite these heroic
efforts, there have still been approximately 17,900 drug-related murders in that country since President Calderon began his counter offensive against the cartels in 2007. More
troubling is the fact that many of these brutal murders were committed with the specific intent to intimidate the public and influence government to suspend action against the
cartels. Fortunately, the Calderon Administration has been resolute and steadfast in its commitment to break the power and influence of these criminals. The Calderon
Administration also has aggressively investigated allegations of corruption within the government, arresting hundreds of officials for taking bribes from the cartels. Even the
deputy attorney general responsible for prosecuting traffickers was allegedly protecting them, for a fee of $450,000 a month. The problems uncovered in Mexico during the past
few years reflect increasing threats to the rule of law and regional stability. The concept of “plato o plomo” (bribes in silver or lead bullets) is well documented in Mexican drug
trafficker culture and refers to the choice public and police officials must make when first confronted by this powerful criminal element. The confluence of brutal violence and
corruption makes it difficult to enforce drug laws and undermines public confidence in government. Left unchecked, the power and impunity of these criminal bands could grow
and become an even greater threat to the national security of Mexico. This is why our partnership with Mexico under the Merida Initiative and our shared responsibility to contend
with this threat is so vital. Parts
of Central America and West Africa are increasingly becoming havens where traffickers pursue
illicit activities largely undeterred by law enforcement or the local government. Drug traffickers use these regions
for the transshipment, storage, cultivation and manufacture of narcotics. Violent traffickers are relocating to take
advantage of these permissive environments and importing their own brand of justice. Unfortunately, areas with
limited or poor governance are also the breeding grounds for other types of criminal activity, to include terrorism. Eighteen of 44
designated international terrorist groups have been linked to some aspect of the international drug trade. In the 1990s, the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia ( FARC), a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO), began taxing all aspects of the cocaine trade within its geographic
control. Today, the FARC is funded primarily through drug trafficking. The FARC purchases or produces multi-ton quantities of cocaine and uses the
proceeds to purchase weapons and military equipment for use in their decades-long fight to topple the legitimate government. Similarly, insurgents in
Afghanistan and Africa fund their terrorist activities through the drug trade. The DEA estimates that over a period of years,
hundreds of millions of dollars in proceeds from drug trafficking flow directly to the Taliban. The Taliban taxes
opium poppy farmers, brokers, and laboratories that process opium into heroin, as well as traffickers passing
through Taliban- controlled areas. They also collect donations from drug traffickers and sell drugs themselves to
finance arms and munitions for their continued fight against U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan. In Africa,
international terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) rely on independent, transnational criminal specialists
closely linked to the drug trade for money laundering, document forgery, transportation, security, weapons, strategic
corruption, and other criminal activities. From the War on Terror to our southwest border, drug trafficking
threatens the security of Americans abroad and at home. U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting an insurgency
whose primary goal is to kill Americans that is substantially funded by the Afghan and regional drug trade. In our own
hemisphere, ever-increasing rates of violence threaten the security of our borders and those of our allies. The
consequences of drug trafficking have never been higher for the international community.
C) Extinction
Sid-Ahmed 4
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst, 2004[Al-Ahram Weekly, "Extinction!" 8/26, no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm]
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the
negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on
themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and
religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the
awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario
is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a
conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers.
When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
AT: OBAMA GOOD
No START
The Washington Times 10,
September 17, 2010. “New intel leads senators to oppose START ratification,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/16/new-intel-leads-senators-to-oppose-start-ratificat/
Two Senate Republicans expressed new concerns about a strategic arms pact with Russia that could imperil
formal ratification as the treaty was voted out of committee on Thursday. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee
voted by 14-4 to approve what is called New START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The Senate could hold a full
debate and a vote this year, although senators have said the vote could be delayed until next year. Sen. Christopher S.
Bond, Missouri Republican and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a classified letter
Wednesday evening to the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee laying out a
series of objections to the treaty. In a statement Thursday, Mr. Bond said, "In their rush to pass a treaty before Congress
can evaluate the intelligence community's assessment on its impact and the treaty's lack of verification necessary to
detect Russian-cheating, the administration is taking us down a dangerous path." Sen. James Risch, Idaho Republican
and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, tried to stop the vote on New START on Thursday by saying he
had received information from the intelligence community that should force senators to reconsider their votes.
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and committee chairman, said he took the matter seriously but urged the
senator not to discuss the matter in open session. The classified concerns of the two Republicans could imperil a
final vote, which has been pushed back until after the November midterm elections. Ratification of the treaty has
been a high priority for the Obama administration, which has said New START is a centerpiece of its reset with Russia.
President Obama, in a statement Thursday, praised the committee's passage of START. "It reduces the deployed nuclear
forces of both the United States and Russia, provides strong verification measures, and continues to improve relations
between our two nations the world's two largest nuclear weapon powers, and key partners in global security," he said.
"Indeed, ratification of this Treaty will reinforce our cooperation with Russia on a range of issues, including one of our
highest priorities preventing the spread of nuclear weapons."
START won’t pass
The Economist 10
The Economist September 27, 2010. “Arms treaty held hostage by politics,” http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100927/OPINION/100929563?Title=Armstreaty-held-hostage-by-politics
Compared with Obama’s rhetoric about seeking “"the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”" and
agonizing over how to stop a nuclear Iran, New START looks, well, a bit dull. Yet failure to ratify it would be a serious
setback. That, sadly, is a possibility. The treaty needs to win the support of two-thirds of the Senate, so at least eight
Republicans must vote for it. Given its support from the Foreign Relations Committee (on a 14-4 vote), a chorus of
generals and senior Republicans from previous administrations, you might expect it to pass easily. The only big names
to have spoken against it are John Bolton, an ultra-hawkish former U.N. ambassador, and Mitt Romney, a flip-flopping
presidential candidate now desperately courting the right. But the tea-partiers seem to have got it into their heads that the
treaty is a bad one, and Republicans are stalling. Time is running out before the midterm elections on Nov. 2. (The
“lame duck” session before the end of the year might well not vote on such an important matter, and the Republicans in
the next Senate will probably be even less inclined towards bipartisanship.) The case against New START is a mixture
of political opportunism, ignorance and perfectionism. Shamefully, some Republicans, disregarding the convention that
you should not play politics with nuclear missiles, just can’t face giving Obama a win before the midterms.
1. Biotech is perceived as boosting the economy and tech leadership-It has bipartisan support
Gen 7
Genetic engineering and biotechnology news, Biotech industry magazine
(“What the New Congress Spells for Biotech”, By Gail Dutton, January 1, 2007, http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/what-the-new-congress-spells-forbiotech/1979/)
Jane Rissler, Ph.D., senior scientist at the Union for Concerned Scientists, says there is opportunity in bioenergy. Her group advocates “a fresh look at the
regulatory framework,” although the biotech industry shouldn’t expect any favors from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Rissler’s mantra was “so
much can be done without biotech.” “The one thing that is critical for biotech to continue to advance is funding for basic research,” Hisey says, citing it
as the driver for product innovation. There may be some support for increased funding for the NIH, Joseph speculated. “Several
messages were clear in this last election,” Caldwell says. “Americans want the U.S. to maintain our lead in biotech.
Congress—Democrats and Republicans alike—recognize that we are an economy with a value-added workforce.
They are very cognizant of the need to stimulate new technology.” As part of that stimulus, the Democrats’ plan
to increase scholarships to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians and to create a
new visa category for doctoral and post-doctoral scholars to make it easier to attract foreign scholars.
2. No pol cap now
Becker 10
Becker, 9/28 – former professor at Northwestern and the University of Chicago, founder and head of SOTA Industries (Robert S, 9/28/10.
“Forever Routed by the Feral Fringe: Obama's Ruinous Outreach ", http://www.opednews.com/articles/Forever-Routed-by-the-Fera-by-RobertS-Becker-100928-735.html)
Even more
inept than Obama's economic wizards, no easy task, is this White House's crew of public relations losers.
They've only lost nearly every messaging battle against the relentless, outrageous Rightwing Noise Machine.
Whether scorning the fight against the wrong enemies, "Obama's" TARP, failed Stimulus, insufficiently noxious anti-terrorism, subversive Obamacare, or
defending unspeakable Bush tax rip-offs, deranged extremists have buried the president's bully pulpit in nonsense. Amazingly, the
fringe wins by banging the same idiot drums and telegraphing the same bareknuckle lies. As the reactionary GOP House leader, John Boehner, admitted
when talking up his Pledge, reflexively regurgitating Newt Gingrich's 16 years ago, "we are not going to be any different than we've been." Against this
100% predictable onslaught, Team Obama's PR ineptitude is staggering, ignoring the most obvious lesson from the Bush-
Cheney-Rove juggernaut: 24/7 media coverage bombards any difference between campaigning and "governance."
Divorced from policy, or reality, political outreach now leans on image, barefaced promotion, and the next, gerrymandered
election. Case in point: Obama signed his health insurance subsidy and, while majorities favored key parts, today only 40% like what happened. This week's
AP poll shows more than 2-1 want a STRONGER bill, not repeal, yet this WH punts and mutters. Likewise, 80% (and key Pentagon brass) don't want "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" yet it endures like our endless wars. Worst of all, incorrigibly spineless Democrats won't force Repugs to filibuster tax
relief for all but the top 2%. Weeks before a midterm fiasco, this jaw-hitting-the-floor betrayal signals the
Democrats cede both political capital and any moral high ground.
3. Multiple groups form coaltions for H1-Bs
Freeman & Hill 6
Prof of government at UT-Austin Ph.D. candidate in government - Comell
[Gary P. Freeman & David K. Hill, Disaggregating Immigration Policy: The Politics of Skilled Labor Recruitment in the U.S., Knowledge, Technology, & Policy,
Fall 2006, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 7-21.]
That immigration politics produces strange bedfellows is hardly a novel observation (Tichenor, 2002: 8-9; Krikorian, 2004). But, while
immigration politics routinely produces coalitions cutting
across partisan and ideological lines, each new manifestation of this
tendency involves new players and mixtures of interest, party and ideology. The battle over immigration reform in the 102 "d
through the 104 th Congresses (1991 to 1996) and the H1-B controversies which began in earnest in 1997 were closely
connected to the high-tech boom which marked the entrance of the technology sector into immigration policy
advocacy. This broadened considerably the range of business interests actively engaged in immigration policy
debates. At first a temporary operation launched by a few high-tech companies, the high-tech lobby is now institutionalized and
appears to have become a permanent feature of the immigration policy landscape. At the center of the new left-right coalition
were Frank Sharry and Rick Swartz. Sharry was the Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration lobby Swartz had founded in
1982 and on whose board he sat. By the mid-1990s, Swartz was an influential Washington lobbyist who headed his own firm and was also president of
Public Strategies, Inc. These old friends and their associates were able to mobilize high-tech industries that had previously
shown little interest in Washington, DC, let alone in lobbying Congress. Their chief organizational vehicle was a
newly created organization called American Business for Legal Immigration (ABLI). 5 This group was supported by
such firms as Microsoft, Intel, Sun Microsystems, Motorola and Texas Instruments (Gimpel and Edwards, 1999: 243-244).
Jennifer Eisen, formerly with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) moved over to spearhead this group. In 1996, the coalition was
instrumental in the successful effort to split the Smith/Simpson immigration reform bill that had sought to deal
with both legal and illegal immigration. This decision was critical to defeating the bill's most restrictive proposals with regard to legal
immigration (Heileman, 1996). High-tech interests were aided by the unusual influence that India and IndianAmericans
exercise in the Congress though the bi-partisan Congressional Caucus on India & Indian-Americans. In 2002 Indians
made up half of all H-1Bs and 90 percent of computer-related H-1Bs (Migration News, November 2002) and the India Caucus, founded in the House in
1993, was the largest in Congress. The Caucus was chaired in the 108th Congress by a New York Democrat and a South Carolina Republican. In March
2004, the Senate established its own India Caucus with cochairs Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and John Comyn (R-TX). Transnational influence
is not limited to the India Caucuses; the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM), an
Indian trade association, also lobbied Congress actively on the H-1B issue (Bagchi, 2004).
4. Indian lobby loves the plan
AFP 7
AFP 07 Agence France Presse [“Indian IT lobby wants more work visas for tech professionals”, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net)
India's tech industry on Wednesday demanded more liberal US visa rules for software and computer professionals
in response to calls by US lawmakers to limit their entry further. The annual US visa limit of 65,000 for overseas
professionals such as software engineers is harming trade in the information technology industry, India's National
Association of Software and Service Companies said in an e-mailed statement. The cap on the so-called H1B visas was reduced
from 195,000 two years ago, noted NASSCOM, as the industry lobby group is known. This year, foreign employers snapped up all the visas on the first day
of their issue. "Constraining the supply when demand is high gives rise to problems for both US companies as well
Indian IT companies," said NASSCOM. "NASSCOM feels that the cap should be large enough to allow market forces
to operate freely," it said.
B) Key to the agenda
Kamdar 7
fellow at the World Policy institute and the asia society [Mira, also author of “Planet India: How the Fastest-Growing Democracy is Transforming America and
the World, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801350.html]
With growing numbers, clout and self-confidence, the Indian American community is turning its admiration for
the Israel lobby and its respect for high-achieving Jewish Americans into a powerful new force of its own.
Following consciously in AIPAC's footsteps, the India lobby is getting results in Washington—and having a
profound impact on U.S. policy, with important consequences for the future of Asia and the world.
AT: BOXER DA
1. History proves American hegemony is unsustainable.
Layne 7
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M
University) 2007 “American Empire: A Debate” p 63
States are ever-vigilant when it comes to maintaining their security because they want to survive as independent
players in international politics. Up to a point, therefore, it is a good thing for a state to be powerful. But when a
state becomes too powerful, it frightens others; in self-defense, they seek to offset and contain those great
powers that aspire to primacy. And the ironclad lesson of history is clear: states that bid for hegemony
(primacy) invariably fail.As Henry A. Kissinger has said, "hegemonic empires almost automatically elicit
universal resistance, which is why all such claimants have sooner or later exhausted themselves."34Indeed,
the history of modern international politics is strewn with the geopolitical wreckage of states that bid
unsuccesfully for primacy: The Hapsburg Empire under Charles V, France under Louis XI V and
Napoleon, Victorian Britain, Germany under Hitler. By pursuing a strategy of primacy, the United States
today risks the same fate that has befallen other great powers that have striven to dominate the
international political system.
2. Threats are always exaggerated – multiple warrants
Layne, Associate Professor, 1997
(Christopher Layne, Visiting Associate Professor at Naval Postgraduate School, “From Preponderance to
Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy”, International Security, Vol. 22 Issue. 1 Summer 1997).
The security/interdependence nexus results in the exaggeration of threats to American strategic interests
because it requires the United States to defend its core interests by intervening in the peripheries. There are three
reasons for this. First, as Johnson points out, order-maintenance strategies are biased inherently toward threat
exaggeration. Threats to order generate an anxiety “that has at its center the fear of the unknown. It is not just
security, but the pattern of order upon which the sense of security depends that is threatened.” Second, because
the strategy of preponderance requires U.S. intervention in places that concededly have no intrinsic
strategic value, U.S. policymakers are compelled to overstate the dangers to American interests to
mobilize domestic support for their policies. Third, the tendency to exaggerate threats is tightly linked to
the strategy of preponderance’s concern with maintaining U.S. credibility.
NORTH KOREA MOD
A. American hegemony in Asia ensures involvement in possibly nuclear war with North Korea.
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University)
2006 “The Peace of Illusions” p 164-5
America's East Asian strategy is most immediately challenged by North Korea. Although Pyongyang claims it has
nuclear weapons, it is uncertain whether it actually does. If it does not presently have them, however, it certainly is
close to having some weapons in hand, and—unless something happens either diplomatically or militarily to interrupt its
weapons development program—its arsenal could grow considerably during the next few years. Moreover, Pyongyang
currently has ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads against targets in South Korea and
Japan, and it could havesome intercontinental missile capability in a decade or so. The North Korean regime's
unpredictability, its nuclear ambitions, and the military standoff along the 38th parallel between North Korean forces and
U.S. and South Korean troops make the peninsula a volatile place. Conflict is not inevitable, but neither is it
unimaginable. If diplomacy fails to bring about a North Korean agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons, the United
States may decide to strike preemptively in an attempt to destroy Pyongyang's nuclear facilities .0 It is impossible to
know whether this would spark an all-out war on the peninsula. On the other hand, fearing it might be the target
of such strikes or a U.S. campaign to bring about regime change, North Korea might lash out irrationally in
ways that confound the predictions of deterrence theory. Given that the American homeland currently is not vulnerable to
North Korean retaliation, the U.S.deterrent umbrella should dissuade Pyongyang from using nuclear weaponsto attack
civilian or military targets in South Korea or Japan. Whether North Korean actually would be deterred, though, is a huge
unknown. Three things are known, however. First, if North Korea has nuclear weapons, U.S. troops in South Korea,
and possibly in Japan, are hostages." Second, even a non-nuclear conflict on the peninsula would be costly to the
United States (notwithstanding the fact that the United States ultimately would prevail on the battlefield). Third, U.S.
troops in South Korea act as a tripwire, which ensures that, if war does occur, the United States automatically
will be involved.
B. War with North Korea goes nuclear.
Mack 2002 (Andrew Mack, Director of the Human Security Center at Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of
British Columbia, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0205A_Andrew.html)
Confronting this nightmare prospect the US has few palatable choices. Military action is no longer a serious option, not
least because Washington believes that the North may already have one or two nuclear weapons produced from plutonium
from its first nuclear weapons program. Pyongyang may not yet have been able to build small enough warheads to fit on
its SCUD missiles, but it could easily enough build a fixed nuclear device and emplace it in a tunnel underneath the DeMilitarised Zone that divides North from South. Conventional war on the Korean peninsula would be disastrous; war with
nuclear weapons is simply unthinkable.
Lash-out and nuclear extinction
Africa News 1999 (10-25, Lexis)
Lusaka - If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably reduce
earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the end of the savage three-year
Korean war in the early 1950s, military tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South
Korea has remained dangerously high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. A foreign visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is
always on maximum alert for any eventuality. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. She still regards the US as an occupation
force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the country. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its "running dog" South Korea. The DPRK is one of the most secretive
countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. Whether this is really so, it is extremely difficult to conclude. In the DPRK, a visitor is never
given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the constant danger of
an invasion from the north. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. She points out that the north has dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. She also accuses the north of violating South
Korean territorial waters. Early this year, a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission.
However, the intension of the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. The US
mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than anywhere else in the World, apart from America itself. Some of
the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the Korean Peninsula. It is true too that at the
moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both
sides. It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or build-up in the north through spy satellites. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. Although
The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range
missiles. Last year, for example, she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan, an action that greatly shook and
alarmed the US, Japan and South Korea. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. There have also been fears that she
was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. Naturally, the world is anxious that
military tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth. It is therefore significant that
the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea.
the DPRK regards herself as a developing country, she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might.
TAIWAN MOD
A. Security commitments in Asia will drag the U.S. into nuclear confrontations over Taiwan.
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University)
2006 “The Peace of Illusions” p 167-8
Since the cold war, the strategic context affecting extended deterrence has shifted against the United States in
other ways. For one thing, during the cold war the respective U.S. and Soviet spheres were demarcated clearly,
which reduced the chances for a superpower clash. Moreover, both super-powers exercised considerable control
over their major allies and thus were at minimal risk of being chain-ganged into a conflict—that is, getting
dragged into a war in which their own interests were not directly implicated because of the actions of an ally or client.27ln
contrast, today, instead of the cold war's clearly delineated spheres of influence, East Asia's likely flash-points are
contested gray areas, which increases the chances for conflict. In addition, because states increasingly have
greater latitude to pursue theirown foreign and security policy agendas than was the case during the coldwar, there
is a real risk of the United States being dragged into a war because of a protected state's irresponsible behavior.
A good illustration is the current Taipei regime's flirtation with declaring the island's independence
fromChina—a move that Beijing says would compel a forcible Chinese re-sponse—which poses a real danger that the
United States could be ensnared in a major war by the risk taking behavior of its Taiwanese client state.28 As China's
military power—conventional and nuclear—increases, the po-tential risks to the United States of coming to Taiwan's (or
Japan's) defensealso are increasing. The spring 1996 crisis between China and Taiwan is illusive. During the crisis—
which China provoked by conducting intimidatingmilitary exercises in an attempt to influence Taiwan's presidential
elections—a Chinese official said that unlike the Formosa Strait crises during the1950s, China now was a nuclear power,
and the U.S. nuclear deterrent there-fore could not prevent Beijing from using force against Taiwan, because
U.S.decision makers "care more about Los Angeles than they do about 'Taiwan."29This comment illustrates an
important point:: Taiwan matters more to China than it does to Washington (and one hopes Los Angeles matters more to
U.S.officials than does Taipei). In a showdown over Taiwan, the United Stateswould be engaged in extended
deterrence to prevent China from attacking. Beijing, however, would be engaged in direct deterrence to prevent
U.S. intervention in what it regards as an internal Chinese matter. Beijing's 1996 threat was, of course, hollow,
but now that China is on the verge of possessing a survivable nuclear retaliatory capability, it is becoming quite
real.
B. Nuclear war, crushed economy
Chalmers Johnson 2001 (President of Japan Policy Research Institute, The Nation, May 14)
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that
China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it
(twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still
incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of
the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the
United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide
Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be
defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However,
given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally,
forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
3.
AT: UNIONS
1. No impact-Democratic peace theory is wrong
Taner 2 – Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs; Research Associate
at Syracuse University’s global Affairs Institute; Editorial Assistant, International studies Review – 02 (Binnur Ozkececi-Taner, “The Myth of Democratic Peace
Theory: Theoretical and Empirical Shortcomings of The ‘Democratic Peace Theory’,” Turkish School of international Relations, Vol. 1.3, Fall 2002,
http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume1/number3/binnurozkececi.htm)
The discussion above suggests that the most important drawback of the "democratic peace" theory is the
essentialization of the political regime as the only factor contributing to international peace and war. The
'democratic peace' theory underemphasizes, and most often neglects, the importance of other domestic factors
such as political culture,(35) degree of development, socio-economic and military considerations,(36) the role of
interest-groups and other domestic constituencies,(37) strategic culture(38) among others in decision-making. In
other words, it is easily the case that the "democratic peace theory" lacks sensitivity to context and decisionmaking process. Although one should not dispute the fact that domestic political structure/regime type is an
important component of any analysis of war and peace, this should be seen as only one of domestic variables, not
necessarily the variable. Devoid of an analysis that gives respect to a number of other factors, superficial and sweeping
generalizations will leave many details in decision-making unaccounted for. Consequently, although "democratic peace" theory should not be discarded
entirely, current emphasis on the importance of "democracy" in eliminating bloody conflicts in the world should not blind scholars and policy circles alike to
the fact that "democratic peace" is theoretically and empirically overdetermined.
AND, Indian collapse goes global
Srinivasan 6
(T.N., Stanford University, Working Paper No. 286 China, India and the World Economy, July 2006,
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:4TaC67MOChYJ:scid.stanford.edu/pdf/SCID286.pdf)
The IMF (2005) recognizes that policy makers in India are actively seeking to strengthen India’s global linkages and to accelerate its integration with the
World economy. Success in these efforts would increase the role of India in the World economy. The report explicitly refers to one of the mechanisms,
India’s import demand, through which this would come about. To wit ,
A dynamic and open Indian economy would have an
important impact on the world economy. If India continues to embrace globalization and reform, Indian
imports could increasingly operate as a driver of global growth as it is one of a handful of economies
forecast to have a growing working-age population over the next 40 years. Some 75-110 million will
enter the labor force in the next decade, which should-provided these entrants are employed - fuel an
increase in savings and investment given the higher propensity for workers to save.
2. Bioinformatics key to U.S. pharma industry
Jones 2k
Senior Patent Attorney, Patent Department ZymoGenetics Inc.
(“The commercialization of bioinformatics”, 2000, http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/ejb/v3n2/4/bip/)
This impending
profit-gap is a particularly significant problem in view of the industry’s annual growth rates. Within the next
decade, the leading pharmaceutical companies may need to bring to market ten times as many compounds per
year as they currently manage just to maintain growth levels of 10 to 15%, a rate anticipated by investors. Another problematic trend
for the pharmaceutical industry is that a large number of blockbuster drugs will lose patent protection within the
next few years. According to one estimate, drugs with sales approaching US $25 billion in revenues will come
off-patent by the year 2002. Consider Merck & Co. (Whitehouse Station, NJ) as an example. Within the next two years, Merck will lose U.S. patent
protection for five major products, which brought the company US $4.38 billion in U.S. sales and royalties during
1999 alone. In light of these trends, the pharmaceutical industry is turning to bioinformatics-based approaches to
revitalize drug discovery programs. Biotechnology companies have tried a number of commercialization strategies to
meet this need. One approach is to sell data in the form of complete genes or gene fragments, which others can
use to identify potential drugs or drug targets. Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (Rockville, MD), the first company to commercialize
genomics, used this tactic. Incyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA) was another of the early biotechnology companies to engage in high-throughput computer-aided nucleotide
In the mid-1990s, pharmaceutical companies were primed for the new approaches of bioinformatics due to a lack of innovative new products in the traditional drug pipeline.
sequencing to identify new genes and their corresponding proteins with potential therapeutic applications. Incyte’s basic strategy was to predict biological function by comparing partial sequences with known
the increasing numbers of contributions to public sequence
databases indicate that time is running out for this early strategy of selling sequence information. Another
approach to commercializing bioinformatics is to enhance the value-added transformation of sequence data by
linking structural information about genes with observations about gene function. For example, CuraGen (New Haven, CT) and Gene Logic
(Gaithersburg, MD) market information on gene expression. Companies are also adding value to sequence data by creating high-value
intellectual property like validated drug targets. This strategy is illustrated by Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(Cambridge, MA), which struck a US $465 million deal to provide Bayer AG (Leverskusen, Germany) with 225
drug targets relevant to cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis, pain, liver fibrosis, hematology and viral infections.
sequences, and to offer companies a non-exclusive access to its genomic information. However,
B) That’s key to econ
DeVol et al 4
Ross DeVol, Rob Koepp, Kevin Klowden and Armen Bedroussian, Fellows at the Miliken Institute
(The Illinois Pharmaceutical Industry: Survey of Economic Impact and Importance”, February 2004,
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/publications.taf?function=detail&ID=297&cat=resrep)
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the largest, longest standing and most knowledge-intensive sectors in the U.S.
economy. It directly and indirectly supports millions of jobs and pays above average-level wages to
pharmaceutical industry workers. Its economic and scientific contributions propel many key states and regions. Yet, for many, what
comes to mind when the pharmaceutical industry is mentioned is the growing cost of prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical industry is a major component of the Illinois economy. In addition to providing
the industry is an important contributor to the
fiscal position of the state and its local governments, including the corporate taxes it generates, the personal income taxes that its
knowledge workers contribute, the sales taxes generated by purchases of its products and the taxes collected by the
industry’s ripple effects on employment and income in other sectors. Pharmaceuticals and related activities are
among the most research-intensive sectors in the economy, seeding its future discoveries by investing over $27.4
billion in research and development in the United States. The pharmaceutical industry accounted for almost 8
percent of total industrial research and development investment in the United States in 1999 and that probably approached
10 percent in 2003. The end result of consuming its products — better health — has an immeasurable value for
the national economy and the citizens of Illinois.
more than 22,6001 direct jobs to Illinois in 2002 (and this estimate appears to be conservative based upon industry sources),