T- Substantially
Our interpretation – Aff must create a new category of visa in one of the 4 areas. Substantially requires an increase
or expansion to bring something into existence – Aff is qualitative change.
Lowe, ‘3 (E.J. Lowe, Prof. of Philosophy at Durham Univ., UK, “Substantial Change and Spatiotemporal Coincidence,”
Ratio, XVI, 2, June, 2003)
Change comes in several species, which differ from one another in ontologically significant ways. Two familiar but quite
different species of change that
persisting objects can undergo are change of composition and qualitative change. The first sort of change occurs when a composite object
undergoes a change of its component parts. By a ‘component part’ of a persisting object I mean something which helps to compose that object and which is therefore
itself a persisting object, capable in principle of existing independently of the object which it helps to compose. The second sort of change – qualitative change
–
occurs when one and the same object has numerically different qualities at numerically different times. Of course, these two kinds of change are
not entirely independent of one another. Sometimes, a change of the one kind brings about a change of the other kind. For example, if a
composite object acquires new parts possessing qualities that are different from those of its old parts, the composite object itself may undergo a change of its qualities –
as when a house changes in colour because new bricks of a different colour are used to replace some of its old bricks . But a
composite object can also undergo qualitative change without undergoing any change of composition – for instance, when its component parts are simply rearranged,
with the result that the shape of the composite object as a whole changes. However, there is also a third species of change that persisting objects
can undergo, which is traditionally called substantial change. This is the kind of change which occurs when a persisting object either
begins or ceases to exist. It is, thus, not exactly a kind of change which happens in or to an object, in the way that qualitative and compositional changes are.
Rather, it is a change of objects – a change with respect to what objects there are in the world. This is aptly called ‘substantial change’,
simply because persisting objects – things such as houses, apples, and planks of wood – are traditionally called ‘individual substances’,
or ‘substantial individuals’.
Vote negative
Ground – increasing existing visas destroys uniqueness for negative DAs because they already exist – ensures aff
has a rigged game in determining the amount of the increase
Precision – Theoretic or philosophical definitions are more precise than reportative definitions – this is more
predictable and a prerequisite for effective communication
Hospers, '97 (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Southern California, An Introduction to
Philosophical Analysis, pp. 15-16)
2. Reportive definitions. But most definitions of words already in use arc reports of how a word is actually used. The word "father" is
used to refer to a male parent. That's what the word "father" means in English. And it's a true definition, in the sense that it's a true report of how
people in our language group use the word "father." Can a definition then he true or false? Yes, it is true if it correctly reports how a word
is used, and false if it does not. Isn't it true (one might ask) that a father is a male parent? Isn't that what a father is? And we can reply, "Yes, that is what the word
'father' is used to mean. We could have used the same word to mean something else, or another word to mean what we mean by this one. But throughout centuries of
history the noise 'father' came to mean what it does now, and it's true that's what it means." Some philosophers have believed, however. that
definitions can be true or false, not just as true or false reports of how language is used, but true or false in a much more
profound way. One principal task of philosophy, thought Plato (428-548 U.C.), is to discover true definitions. Plato devoted most
of his fa-mous dialogues to the attempt to find true definitions. In the Lachn he tried to find the definition of courage; in the
Meno he tried to discover the definition of piety; in the Republic he attempted to find the definition of justice.
CIR 1NC
New comprehensive immigration reform will pass after the elections
Wong ‘9-15 (Robert Menendez pushes immigration reform in tough climate, SCOTT WONG ,9/15/10 4:05 PM EDT,
Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42232.html
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) is promising to introduce a major immigration reform bill this month, even as the volatile
issue promises to be a nonstarter in this political season for Democrats who want to avoid even more controversial votes.
His announcement Wednesday, before about 200 pro-immigration activists at a church near Capitol Hill, came a day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
signaled he would try to pass a separate bill next week providing citizenship to young, undocumented immigrants if they attend college for two years or join the military.
Sources familiar with the Menendez bill said it would include border security provisions, employment verification, a temporary-worker program and a path to
citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants now living in the U.S. “A journey of a 1,000 miles begin with a single step,” said Menendez, the Senate’s lone Hispanic
member. “There can be no chance if there is no legislation. The reality is that legislation gives the process, the vehicle by which to garner support and to move
forward.” But Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, conceded that the election would make it difficult to get any real floor time for
an immigration debate this fall. Menendez and two vocal reform backers in the House — Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) – said they would
meet with President Barack Obama Thursday afternoon to request his support for the new legislation and the immigrant-student bill, known as the DREAM Act. White
House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday the president backed the act as a senator and that the Obama administration supports it now. “Certainly it’s our hope
that working with Congress we can see progress on that,” Gibbs said. “And none of that will replace what has to happen from a comprehensive level and a
comprehensive perspective to deal with the issues around immigration reform.” Reid said he would attach the DREAM Act as an amendment to the annual defense
spending bill, though that proposal has been met with fierce opposition from Republicans who accuse Democrats of trying to excite their Hispanic base before the Nov.
2 elections. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) blasted the legislation on the Senate floor on Wednesday, saying it provides amnesty for lawbreakers and an economic incentive
that encourages more illegal immigration. “The DREAM Act would grant amnesty to millions of immigrants who have entered the U.S. illegally,” he said. Menendez
said he’s yet to secure any support from Republicans for his legislation, something he needs to overcome the 60-vote threshold to advance the bill in a possible lameduck session. “The elections make for a difficult context to be able to get people to focus on this but it is my hope that we will
be able to amass support before the elections and we can seek to galvanize it after the elections,” Menendez said.
“Certainly what I will introduce in the Senate will have plenty of Republican ideas in it.” Menendez’s bill is similar to a proposal Sens.
Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) rolled out earlier this year in an op-ed in The Washington Post. Graham, however, has since taken a tougher
stand against illegal immigration, and vowed not to support the DREAM Act as an amendment. If the Senate fails to pass the amendment, the DREAM Act could be
included in the Menendez bill. "When the Democratic leadership says they're going to bring up the defense bill and put the Dream Act on it as an amendment, well that
is very offensive to me. Obviously their actions are all about politics,” Graham said in a statement. “Democrats are trying to check a box with Hispanic voters at the
expense of our men and women in uniform,” he added. “It's very unfortunate they are planning to use the defense bill in such a fashion." The Reid proposal was met
with derision from members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, which opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. “The DREAM Act is a nightmare
for the American people,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, a caucus member and the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “It is an assault on lawabiding, taxpaying American citizens and legal immigrants.” Gutierrez said the new Menendez legislation would be a companion bill to
the one he introduced in the House last year. That bill has more than 100 co-sponsors, all Democrats. “We need a bill
introduced, something people can get behind, something the president can say, ‘That’s what I want passed,’” Gutierrez
told reporters. “That’s how legislation gets done here.” Just blocks from the Capitol, faith and immigration leaders from as far as Arizona and
Hawaii packed the Lutheran Church of the Reformation, and cheered when Menendez vowed to press forward with a bill. But they warned that this
was only the first step. “A legislative show is not going to be acceptable,” Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, told POLITICO. “We
expect Democrats and Republicans to lead the nation forward in fixing the broken immigration system.” Deepak Bhargava,
executive director of the Center for Community Change, one of the event’s organizers, described a newfound momentum for backers of
comprehensive immigration reform. “Months ago, pundits in D.C. wrote us off and left us for dead,” he said. “Well, we
have a message for them: We are back.”
Piecemeal reform derails comprehensive reform and is horse-traded for massive enforcement
Coleman ’10 (What kind of immigration reform do “we” want: A Response to Renee Saucedo Rev Walter L Coleman
Familia Latina Unida Ministries April 5, 2010, Adalberto United Methodist Church
Legislative Strategies During this period,
Gutierrez, as chair of the Immigration Committee of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
initiated bi-partisan legislation to provide legalization for the now 12 million undocumented. This reflected the political realities that,
overwhelmingly, Congress was determined to legalize the undocumented only at the cost of moving to end the system of undocumented labor. The system of
undocumented labor, which has existed since the occupation and land theft from Mexico, was a brilliant strategy for survival undertaken by millions of ordinary
working people in response to the exploitation of Latin American economies by the United States. It resulted in the greatest expropriation of capital, through
remittances, in the history of this nation. It provided a survival strategy for millions of families on both sides of the border. The mass survival strategy did not challenge
the Monroe Doctrine and its neo-liberal successors; it merely worked for the survival of people within it. It therefore depended on the need for cheap labor in the United
States and the willingness of the government to overlook its existence. By 2001, the national political consensus was to end this system, primarily driven by the
republican fear that the red states were turning brown. This determination has been consolidated by the prolonged economic depression and massive unemployment
now existing in the United States. This consensus determination to end the system of undocumented labor is a political reality we must face. Gutierrez worked
with Kennedy and McCain to develop the legislation which passed in the U.S. Senate but was blocked by the Republican
controlled House. Again, this approach was dictated by the reality of the consensus determination to end the system of undocumented labor, a consensus which
grew stronger each day, even as the movement’s presentation of the reality of separated families and dream act students consolidated the Latino community in support
of legalization. Through this dynamic it became clear that any legalization would come at the price of measures to end the
system of undocumented: e-verification, employer sanctions, and increased resources for I.C.E., restrictions on access to
services and increased border security. Gutierrez did not come to his position in isolation. He correctly read the situation in Congress – the consensus to
end the system of undocumented labor and the collapse of the business-immigrant rights coalition that supported it. He developed the legislative approach that
culminated in McCain Kennedy in constant collaboration with the grassroots coalition that had begun in Chicago in 1997 and developed across the nation. Significantly,
many of the immigrant rights groups – both Latino led and the multi-national advocacy groups – were not generally in support of McCain Kennedy, failing to confront
the reality of the political consensus that had been formed. While some of the multi-national advocacy groups in D.C. supported McCain Kennedy, they really
were supporting the Democratic Party leadership alternative: the Dream Act and Ag Jobs. The Democratic Leadership, led by Dick Durbin,
cynically put forth these alternatives knowing full well that the price in enforcement for this limited legalization was the
same price we would have to pay for legalization of the 12 million. The political reality of the consensus to end the system
of undocumented labor is that to legalize one student and one agricultural worker we will pay the price of 100% enforcement but
without any protection for the millions – the majority – of undocumented workers and their families. For these millions of
unprotected families, the heart of most of the latino communities in the United States, this is not a matter of “policy” it is a matter of survival. When McCain Kennedy
failed in the House, Familia Latina Unida organized a march of over 50,000 in Chicago to put forth the demand, for the for a moratorium on raids, deportations and
separation of families until immigration reform was passed. We cited the moratorium called by President Reagan while his amnesty legislation was pending. It was not
only just – it was good politics. As long as enforcement only is in full effect, there is no reason for republicans and blue dogs and opportunist democrats to pass
legalization – they are getting everything they want. Sadly we have not been able to get this basic political reality across to Bush or Obama. While the demand for the
moratorium was not accepted by President Bush, Familia Latina Unida began the push to get the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to accept the demand as one of their
principle objectives. Through grassroots pressure and the leadership of Congressman Gutierrez the Caucus did finally make this their demand and communicated it both
to President Bush and President Obama. After the march for the moratorium, Elvira Arellano took Sanctuary to bring the issue of mixed status families before the nation.
The sanctuary action created a raging debate and put pressure on the religious community to define their position and the priority they put on this issue. The raw hatred
expressed over and over in the cable media towards Elvira and her son caused mainstream Americas to back away from the anti-family, anti-immigrant right. Familia
Latina Unida formed Familia Latina Unida Ministries and found its most progressive alliance with the Latino evangelical community. Free of the constraints of
maintaining Anglo congregations, the Latino evangelicals embraced the movement and became the leading advocates in the religious community. This in turn moved
the Catholics and Protestants to take a much stronger position. With the door on legalization closing and pressure for an increase in enforcement coming every day,
Gutierrez worked to develop a compromise with the Bush administration which resulted in the STRIVE Act. As long as these negotiations were going on the Bush
administration held off on increasing enforcement. It was if nthing else and excellent defensive strategy. As always Gutierrez and Familia Latina Unida were
responding to the realities and demand of the undocumented themselves. The resulting legislation in the U.S. Senate was killed quietly by the Democratic leadership,
led by Durbin in the Senate and Rahm Immanuel in the House. The Democrats successfully staved off a legalization that they did not want to “wear” in the upcoming
election but were able to blame its defeat on the Republicans. Bush’s subsequent increase in enforcement, including 287g, consolidated the Latino vote for the
democrats and resulted in the election of Obama and democratic majorities in the House and Senate. There were legitimate policy concerns with STRIVE and many
groups sincerely opposed it. Others – including the AFL-CIO, cynically did the bidding of the Democratic Party in their election strategy to win the Latino vote without
losing the racist vote. The compromise that Gutierrez attempted with the Bush Administration was not done from his office in Washington D.C. but in consultation with
the network of families facing deportation and increased enforcement across the country. The fact remains that the enforcement provisions of STRIVE were already on
the books and began to be put into effect by the Bush administration. What we lost was the legalization provisions. In other words we paid the price and got nothing for
it, leaving the people unprotected. Those who took great pride in their collusion with the democratic party leadership to defeat STRIVE must explain to the million
people who have been deported since its defeat their thinking, If STRIVE had passed, with the coalition between President Bush and the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus as its engine, then we would now have legalization for millions of people and be debating getting rid of the odious provisions that were in that compromise.
After the failure of the legislation in the Senate, Familia Latina Unida began a campaign for an interim legalization, short of a path to citizenship. This demand began to
win support, along with the demand for a moratorium, in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. In order to build grassroots support for these two demands, Elvira
Arellano left sanctuary and initiated a national tour. Although arrested and deported in California, Emma Lozano continued the tour with Saulito through 23 states and
formed the National Assembly of Latino leaders. Meeting twice in the fall in Washington D.C. with members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus the Assembly was able with the leadership of Luis Gutierrez to get the caucus to initiate a unified
resistance campaign in Congress: 1) demanding a moratorium 2) refusing to support piecemeal legislation such as the skilled
worker visas and 3) opposing anti-immigrant provisions and amendments in legislation and appropriation. The unity of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus became the principle defense of immigrant rights. Familia Latina Unida has also attempted to develop
another front in the struggle through its efforts in Mexico, attempting to inject pressure from the Mexican government for legalization into bi-lateral negotiations on
other issue. This began with a confrontation between Elvira Arellano and President Fox in Chicago, coupled with a mobilization outside the President’s meeting with
local Mexican leaders. The initiative continued when, led by Diputado Pepe Jaques, the Mexican lower and upper houses approved legislation in favor of Elvira
Arellano’s case and demanded of the Mexican President that he negotiate for legalization. The initiative continued with Elvira Arellano and Pepe Jaques in the
organization of an assembly of Mexican leaders from the U.S. in the DF. Finally a delegation of 40 diputados from Mexico and 7 Central American countries met in
D.C. with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Speaker Pelosi and other members of the democratic leadership. Continuing pressure from Mexico and the intensified
pressure on this issue from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras has been an important pressure point in this “negotiation”. The coalition in Mexico, which has already
passed significant decriminalization of migrants from Guatemala in Mexico, continues it pressure. The significant decline in remittances and the return of deported
workers and children to Mexico is a driving force for making legalization a factor in US negotiations with Mexico and Central America on a variety of other issues.
Obama The election of Barack Obama represented two shifts in the political consensus in the nation. First, the Latino vote shifted to the Democrats based on the
immigration issue. The key shift in this vote was in the pro-life anti gay marriage Latino vote which broke with its republican leadership over the immigration issue –
but turn out increase was across the board. Second, the anti-immigrant focus of the republican focus failed in the electorate, resulting in McCain’s primary victory and
the defeat of the most strident anti-immigrants in congress. It was clear that we had won the hearts and minds of the public for some form of legalization. We had also
won a campaign promise from Obama and the Democratic leadership for comprehensive immigration reform (not for legalization alone). It was also clear that this
legalization would come at the cost of measures to end the system of undocumented labor. As the economy plummeted, the consensus determination to end the system
of undocumented labor increased in strength and unity. Our principal problem was that Obama and Immanuel – and the democratic leadership in the house and the
senate, still did not want to move on immigration reform. While the Congressional Hispanic Caucus held firm, using their block on several occasions to send a strong
message to the White House and the Leadership, the popularity of the new president with progressives and the economic crisis he faced coming into office, made it
difficult to put mass pressure for legalization. Preparing for the first 100 days, Familia Latina Unida and Congressman convened the Ya Basta Coalition before the
August Democratic Convention to promote the demand for legalization in the first 100 days. Already moved to his campaign promise by the completion with Clinton,
Obama gave us what we are now used to – a one liner in his acceptance speech – “It is unacceptable in the United States of America to separate a mother from her
child.” Obama’s refusal to support Elvira Arellano had been a major Clinton campaign theme and Obama was careful to acknowledge it in his acceptance speech. It was
clear to Gutierrez and Familia Latina Unida that the Obama administration did not plan to introduce comprehensive immigration reform in the first 100 days – and
perhaps never intended to. From the Ya Basta coalition we formed the Familias Unidas Campaign, relying on the Latino evangelicals along with the Catholics and
Protestants, to bring the issue of family separation across 23 states between January and June. Formally adopted and participated in by all the members of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, this became the public vehicle to demand a meeting with Obama to set a schedule for comprehensive immigration reform. At the same
time, the grassroots coalition that had worked with Gutierrez since 1997 and the newly formed faith based groups began
working closely with the substantial national machinery that had been established by the immigrant rights groups to lobby
for comprehensive immigration reform. Gradually RIFA came to the realization that the Obama administration did not intend to move the legislation.
RIFA had constructed a substantial machinery to move the legislation but there was no legislation. RIFA began to work more closely with Congressman Gutierrez and
Familias Unidas network to move the White house and the Democratic Leadership. The combined pressure of the Caucus (withholding key
votes), the advocacy groups and the moral authority and appeal to the faith community of the Familias Unidas campaign
brought Obama to the table finally in late June with a promise to begin the legislative process by September. It did not happen. Gutierrez responded by
organizing the strongest coalition in the house to date as co sponsors of the Hispanic Caucus legislation. RIFA joined the Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and Labor
in support of the legislative initiative which enjoyed the co-sponsorship of the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Asian Caucus and the Progressive Caucus. The
endorsement of this legislation by the Latino Congreso in El Paso brought us to the most unified position we have had
since this struggle began. RIFA’s brilliant and well organized call for the march on Washington, coinciding with the
culmination of the legislative struggle over health insurance reform, gave Latino, immigrant rights groups and the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus their maximum leverage on Obama and the Democratic leadership to date. Obama came
to the table, as did Reid, Shumer and Pelosi. Sadly, RIFA, National Latino leadership and Labor leadership failed to stick to its guns in the negotiation.
(As with Kennedy’s meeting with the “Big Six” before the civil rights march, the grassroots groups which provoked the meeting were not invited). They accepted a
vague promise without a time table for the legislative initiative and got nothing in terms of the moratorium. In spite of this failure, they allowed Obama to send a video
to the 250,000 person rally and let him off the hook. As the movement conceded, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, under great pressure from Pelosi and the White
House, had nothing left to fall back on and gave its block of votes to health care without much more than the vague and broken promises we have had from Obama and
the Democratic Leadership since last June – promises they broke. On the positive side, promises were made and immigration moved higher up on the legislative agenda.
It is significant the Senator Graham, the Republican Senator courted to co-sponsor legislation in the Senate reversed his
position taken in the heat of the health care debate. His agreement to continue in the effort for a bipartisan immigratin
reform bill reflects a reality that many in the movement have missed. A significant sector of the Republican Party is
determined not to take the blame again for failing to fix the broken law and the resulting Republican lock-out from the
Latino vote. The Current situation: political forces and legislation The unity we have achieved behind the Gutierrez/Hispanic Caucus
Bill is impressive, powerful but fragile. Its power is in the ability to deny the democrats the Latino vote in November if
legislation is not passed or a moratorium not declared until legislation is passed. No legalization – no reelection. No Moratorium – no peace (civil disobedience). The
strength of unity in the Latino vote and activist opposition gives the Hispanic Caucus the unity and strength to use its
block of votes as leverage on the democratic leadership. RIFA’s pressure tactics on key Senators and the Accountability Campaign of the Congreso
Latino on members of Congress are expressions of that power. Victory is in within our grasp. What can prevent our victory? What can ensure it? The Problems First
there is a lack of understanding of our standard legislation (The Congressional Hispanic Caucus bill) and of the political realities we face. This is represented in our
companera Renee’s letter. Very simply, the enforcement provisions in the legislation are mostly already in place and are the price that must be paid for protection of the
undocumented. That is the reality as the consensus determination to end the system of undocumented labor grows stronger each day. Our principal ally in the struggle
against e-verification has been labor and it is clear that, facing the unemployment of their members, they will not hold out against e-verification for more than a few
more months, perhaps even weeks. The pressure for jobs in the African American community likewise is mounting and their support for the undocumented on the issue
of e=verification will be short lived. There is a consensus for legalization – but only at the cost of ending the system of undocumented labor. Renee asks why we
don’t start from a more progressive bargaining position. We have – beginning in 1998. This is where we are now in that
negotiation. We have recounted this brief history of the grassroots and legislative movement to demonstrate that this negotiation started with a maximum demand –
including the repeal of nafta – and has come to the present formulation through several years of struggle, negotiation and struggle. This is where we are in
history and there is no political space to stop the process now, go back and start over. In terms of the question of what kind of
legalization our standard bill offers we need to be very careful about the facts. The legalization first offered to the 12 millions will allow them to work, to get drivers
licenses and to travel back and forth to their home countries. That is in fact what the 12 million are asking for. It will lead in five years to the choice to become legal
permanent residents and then in another five years to the choice to apply for citizenship. Those with criminal backgrounds will have the ability to get in front of a judge
and present extenuating circumstance such as family ties and character – a right they do not now have. The dream act is not only included in our standard legislation but
expanded beyond the elite that go to college or those forced into the military. Agricultural workers have all the rights and privileges included in the Ag Jobs bill. Family
Reunification is protected as in no other bill that has been put forward. The “new worker” provisions basically put off the determination about new workers and gives us
time to address this issue as it should be addressed – in the context of bi-lateral negotiation over trade, financial relationships and aid. The 287g program is eliminated
entirely! The Caucus bill represents the agreement of the strongest progressive coalition we have ever had in Congress for
legalization. It recognizes, however, the reality that the United States has determined to end its involvement and
permission of the system of undocumented labor. It is not the beginning of a negotiation by one congressman; it is the
strongest unity we have been able to negotiate since 1997. The issue that faces us – the decision we must make – is what protections we can win
for 12 million people as the era of undocumented labor draws to a close. We are seeing every day the consequences of not winning these protections. There is nothing
wrong with an educational campaign which brings a consciousness of the exploitation of immigrant workers and the hypocrisy of criminalizing those who have been
driven from their countries and then exploited here by neo-liberal capitalism. That educational campaign should be ongoing. It should not be used to confuse and
demobilize our movement. There is no contradiction between that campaign and unity in the battle for survival we now face. Those groups which are working hard for a
legislative solution are, in some cases, retreating from the demand for a moratorium, feeling that it puts them too much in confrontation with Obama. And yet
confrontation with Obama is the only think that will allow us to move the legislation. It is inconceivable that advocates would still swallow the cool aide that the White
House has been passing out. Pressure on Obama for the moratorium, which is the first demand of the people, is what will force Obama to move and pass legislation. His
enforcement only policy, pending passage of legislation, is his greatest vulnerability. There is another danger: The bait dangled before the
movement by the Democratic Leadership, the bait of isolated legislation for the dream act and/or for Ag jobs is being swallowed by people
desperate to deliver some relief to some of the people. We must be clear that the price for limited legalization is the same as the price for legalization Para Todos. To
pay that price and leave 10 million people without any protection, to unleash the dogs of I.C.E. on them, is unacceptable – ask the ten million and the twenty five
million that are part of their social, economic and religious lives! It may well be that a patchwork of legislation may take the place of
comprehensive immigration reform – but that patchwork will include enforcement provisions probably even more
stringent than those now anticipated in CIR. That is the reality we must face. Therefore that “patchwork” of bills and executive actions to
be acceptable must, on the legalization side, include more than the dream act and ag jobs: it must include family unity provisions (an expanded and improved 245i) and
should include a “regularization” of undocumented workers: legalization short of the path to citizenship. The s offer by Durbin and Reid to proceed only on
the dream act is an attempt to derail our movement and weaken our negotiating position. We must not take the bait!
Whatever we negotiate – and that negotiation will be made by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, not by well meaning groups with no votes in Congress - we
must negotiate from maximum strength which means we must not negotiate away our position before we get to the table.
The idea of a “down payment” seems appealing and reasonable unless you look at the price you will pay every month:
400,000 to 500,000 deportations a year, e-verification and intensified repression for the majority of those who would
remain unprotected. Some believe that the strategy of passing a less progressive bill in the Senate, fixing it in the House and then passing it through
reconciliation won’t work. They don’t believe that Pelosi and Reid and Obama will carry through. Yet that is the strategy that is in play – there is no other game in town
this year. If it stalls, than other alternatives open up. We should prepare for these alternatives by pushing hard for the movement of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
in the House. But these alternatives will be only as strong as the movement we develop to pass the most progressive comprehensive immigration reform we can. Familia
Latina Unida/Sin Fronteras and Familia Latina Unida Ministries are encouraged by the (somewhat late) efforts of the Congreso Latino and its scorecard accountability
campaign. The Congreso represents the most important voice to influence and speak for the Latino vote, which is our only real leverage in this fight at the present time.
The next step in our movement must be the mobilization of May 1st. Latino leadership – in the community and in Congress - cannot speak for the Latino community in
terms of what they will do in November if we do not have a convincing mobilization on May 1st. Our demands should be clear: 1) an immediate moratorium beginning
on May 1st until legislation is passed to fix our broken laws and 2) movement in both the Senate AND the House of legislation by April 30th. We should be clear that
the response to a failure to meet these demands is not a reduction in what we are asking for but an escalation of our resistance and our withdrawal from the Democratic
Party. That is negotiating from strength. Finally, to Renee: We will not effectively redefine the struggle until we confront the relations between the U.S. and Latin
America. Strangely, we have an opening to reexamine trade relationships, created during the Presidential campaign, which we have not made use of. That should
change. The struggle for a citizenship of the Americas and for self-determination and reparations throughout Latin America will continue at a much faster pace if we are
successful in changing the political demography of the United States. Legalization will result over the next ten years in the greatest political demographic leap towards a
nation of a majority of people of color, with the largest sector having roots in Latin America, in the history of this nation. That demographic shift, coupled with the rise
and strength of the independence movements in Latin America, is the precondition for the day we are looking for and the redefinition of humanity we seek. On that day,
history will record who were actually the criminals and who were their opposition. We remain in mutual respect and common struggle,
Comprehensive reform solves US-Mexican relations- piecemeal reform would fail
Castaneda and Jacoby ‘9 (Immigration Pitfall Why 'Legalization Only' Won't Fly By Jorge G. Castaneda and
Tamar Jacoby Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Jorge G. Castaneda was foreign secretary of Mexico from 2000 to 2003 in the
government of Vicente Fox. He teaches international relations at New York University. Tamar Jacoby is president of
Washington-based ImmigrationWorks, a national federation of employers advocating immigration reform.
President Obama looks to be gearing up to make good on his campaign promise of comprehensive immigration reform. But unlike in 2006, when Democratic and
Republican reformers agreed on what was needed in an overhaul, this year there's a new fault line. It surfaced last month when Obama called lawmakers to the White
House to discuss immigration, and Sen. John McCain led pro-reform Republicans in pushing back against the president. Obama had said little about what he wants in a
bill -- in fact, he has been studiously vague. But McCain knew enough about what has (and has not) been said recently by immigration experts close to the White House
and those pushing Obama to take up reform that he felt it necessary to launch a preemptive strike. This year, in contrast to 2006, organized labor and many Latino
advocates are thinking about slicing up the reform package and moving forward with a piecemeal approach : a bill that legalizes
the unauthorized immigrants already in the United States -- call them the "stock" -- but makes no provision for those who will want to work north of the border in years
ahead, the future "flow." The reasoning is clear: With unemployment edging toward 10 percent, it's hard to argue that the United States needs foreign workers. And
organized labor, particularly the AFL-CIO, has seized on the opportunity to graft its larger agenda onto the immigration debate. But this view is shortsighted.
Just as it would have been a mistake in a Republican era to pass an expanded temporary worker program but leave out
legalization and a path to citizenship, so, too, would it be a mistake now to legalize immigrants who are here without
creating a way for future workers to enter the United States legally. To understand why, consider U.S. politics. With no pipeline for future
workers, McCain will not vote for the bill. Without him, there will be no other Senate Republicans. And without Senate Republicans, there won't be enough Democrats,
given the inevitable defections among Blue Dogs, New Democrats and other moderates. Then there is Mexican politics. This is not discussed much
on Capitol Hill, but the United States can't hope to implement an immigration overhaul without help from Mexico -- help
administering legalization and dissuading future illegal immigration. And no Mexican government can afford to cooperate
with Washington unless the reform includes a significant increase in temporary worker visas. This was true during the
administration of President Vicente Fox, and it's even truer today for the beleaguered President Felipe Calderón. But
ultimately, the problem with "legalization only" is bigger than politics in either country. The economic downturn may have cut the traffic from Mexico -- as much as 25
percent, by some estimates. Yet once the economy begins to recover, demographic and economic reality will kick in again on both sides of the border. When the
economy begins recovering, U.S. housing starts will climb, restaurants will fill up again, Americans will take the vacations they've been putting off and more.
Revitalized businesses will once again need foreign workers for jobs that increasingly educated Americans do not want. Meanwhile, in Mexico, for five to 10 more
years at least, the working-age population will continue to grow faster than the number of decent-paying jobs, and young workers will continue to want to go where
they can make a better living. It's supply and demand -- to the benefit of both countries. The United States can recognize this reality and harness it -- or pretend it
doesn't exist and live with the costs of denial. If these workers cannot enter the United States legally, they will find ways to enter
illegally, no matter how much border and work-site enforcement is in place, no matter how dangerous the trip or how high
the price. Hoping that people will stop coming is as illusory as thinking that those already in the United States will pack up and go home. The bottom line is
that the only way to stop illegal outflows from Mexico is to legalize them, adapting the law to reality, not the other way around.
Some have suggested a "third way": creating a commission to determine how many workers are needed in the United States. But it's hard to see how that would work.
Discredited as markets are today, they're still the best way to match supply with demand. Though markets must be regulated, they don't work very well when they're
micromanaged. Will a commission be able to determine how many Mexican workers are needed from month to month -- and then ensure that only that number enters
the country? Not very likely. Comprehensive immigration reform makes sense for the United States and for Mexico for economic and ethical reasons; it's good foreign
and domestic policy. What doesn't make sense is a seemingly expedient but ultimately unworkable piecemeal approach. Neither
legalization without future flows nor future flows without legalization will solve the problem. Only the two together can
get the job done.
Comprehensive reform is key to relations- that soles democracy
Castaneda ‘3 (Castañeda, Jorge G. Source: Foreign Affairs; May/Jun2003, Vol. 82 Issue 3, p67-81, 15p, 4 Black and
White Photographs
Dealing with Mexico is in many ways the most important regional task facing the Bush administration. The matter can be summed up simply:
President Vicente Fox's consolidation of Mexico's first democratic transfer of power must be-and be seen to be-a success. There
is nothing more important to the United States than a stable Mexico, and today a stable Mexico means a democratic one.
And the United States has a huge role in making Mexico's transition to democracy a success, or in contributing to its failure.
The success or failure of this experiment will be judged in Mexico ultimately in the light of the country's economic performance-which has not been impressive these
past two years. But Mexicans will also judge the state of their country's relations with the United States. They will look to see whether Presidents Fox and Bush deliver
on the ambitious bilateral agenda they sketched out at their historic February 2001 meeting at Fox's ranch in Guanajuato, Mexico. On issues of trade, drug enforcement,
the border, building a North American Economic Community, energy, and, most significant, immigration, the two countries set out a bold series of goals to meet by the
end of Bush's first term, if not sooner. Indeed, in the first eight months of their respective presidencies, Bush and Fox achieved a fundamental breakthrough on
immigration. By the time of the Guanajuato meeting, both sides had identified the core policies needed to tackle undocumented migration flows from Mexico to the
United States: an expanded temporary-worker program; increased transition of undocumented Mexicans already in the United States to legal status; a higher U.S. visa
quota for Mexicans; enhanced border security and stronger action against migrant traffickers; and more investment in those regions of Mexico that supplied the most
migrants. The speed with which both governments carried out these negotiations certainly captured the political imagination of both societies. Fox's resounding state
visit to Washington on the eve of the September 11 terrorist attacks further lifted the new initiatives and underscored both leaders' commitment to them. But the
symmetry ends there: Fox staked much more on this partnership than Bush did. And since the Mexican president has little to show for his gamble, he has paid a high
domestic political price for his willingness to bring about a sea change in Mexico's relations with the United States and the rest of the world. Indeed, this change has
been on the order of what President Carlos Salinas did with Mexico's economy or what President Ernesto Zedillo did with the nation's political system. Hence the
centrality of immigration in the bilateral relationship today: both Bush and Fox stated dramatic goals and raised
expectations enormously. The United States understandably was forced to put the issue on hold for a time. But what was initially portrayed as a brief interlude
will now probably stretch through Bush's entire first term. It will be almost impossible to point to success in the bilateral relationship
without a deal on immigration. And unless there is such a breakthrough, Fox's six-year term in office, nearly half over, may well be seen in Mexico as an
exercise in high expectations but disappointing results. To avoid a breakdown in relations, Bush must make a state visit to Mexico City this year. He should take with
him sufficient progress on key issues-immigration; trade concerns relating to sugar, tuna, trucking, and the North American Free Trade Agreement's agricultural chapter;
and funding for heightened security and the expedited passage of people and cargo at the border-to show that Mexico remains a top priority for his administration. Bush
must also show that he is willing to spend political capital to ensure the success of Fox's push for true Mexican democracy. Washington may have so far
missed an opportunity to present its relationship with Mexico City as a model for the rest of the hemisphere and, indeed,
for the rest of the developing world-an example of how a rich and powerful neighbor and a still relatively poor and weak one can get along and contribute
to each other's success. But the window of opportunity has not been shut. In the aftermath of the current conflict with Iraq, the
United States would benefit hugely by demonstrating that it can construct alliances beyond its traditional circle of friends.
Democracy solves extinction- pre-requisite for all impacts
Diamond ’95 (Larry, Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, December,
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm)
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist
aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that
have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly
endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of
democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war
with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not
ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one
another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more
reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are
more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their
environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach
agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are
the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
Housing CP
The United States Federal Government should exempt any individual who has purchased a house
in the United States and has an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering or
mathematics from numerical visa limits.
The counterplan competes- it is plan minus because it only gives visas to immigrants who
purchase a house.
The counterplan also tests the word “resolved” which means “to make a firm decision about”,
the word “should” which is “used to imply obligation or duty”
[American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com]
Conditioning new visas on buying a house is the only way to prevent economic collapse
Lefrak and Shilling ‘9 (MARCH 17, 2009 Immigrants Can Help Fix the Housing Bubble By RICHARD S.
LEFRAK and A. GARY SHILLING Mr. LeFrak is chairman and CEO of LeFrak Organization, a real estate builder and
developer. Mr. Shilling, an economic consultant and investment adviser, is president of A. Gary Shilling & Co.
The Obama administration should seriously consider granting resident status to foreigners who buy surplus houses in this
country. This makes more sense than the president's $275 billion housing bailout plan, which Americans greeted with a Bronx cheer. The federal bailout forces
taxpayers to subsidize overextended homeowners who bet on ever-rising house prices and used their abodes as ATMs, and it doesn't get to the basic problem -- the huge
inventory of excess houses. We estimate that 2.4 million houses over and above normal working inventories are left over from the 1996-2005 housing bubble. That's a
lot, considering the long-term average annual construction of 1.5 million single- and multi-family units. Excess inventory is the mortal enemy of house
prices, which have already fallen 27% since the peak in early 2006. We predict another 14% drop through the end of 2010
if nothing is done to eliminate the surplus. Doing nothing to eliminate the excess inventory might well push the recession
through 2010 and into a depression. Declining home values, for example, are eliminating the home equity that has funded
oversized consumer spending for years. As consumers retrench, production is cut, payrolls are slashed, and consumer
confidence, incomes and spending are savaged in a self-feeding downward economic spiral. But if the government buys surplus
houses and sells them at low market-clearing prices, other house prices will drop, destroying more home equity and driving many more mortgages under water.
Bulldozing excess houses would be an inefficient end for perfectly habitable structures. A better idea is to offer permanent residence status to
the
many foreigners who are clamoring to get into the U.S. -- if they buy houses of minimal values (not shacks). They wouldn't need to
live in those houses, but in order to remove the unit from the total housing market, they couldn't rent them. Their temporary resident status granted upon purchase would
The mere announcement of this program
might well stop the ongoing collapse in house prices, especially in cities such as Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix and San
Francisco, where prices are down 40% -- but where many foreigners like to live. Each year, 85,000 H-1B visas are granted for foreigners
become permanent after, perhaps, five years, if they still owned the houses and maintained clean records.
with advanced skills and education, and last year, 163,000 petitions were filed in the first five days after applications were accepted. The Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation estimates that as of Sept. 30, 2006, 500,040 residents of the U.S. and 59,915 individuals living abroad were waiting for employment-based visas. Many
would buy homes if their immigration conditions were settled. These people tend to be highly productive. In 2006, foreign
nationals residing in the U.S. were listed as inventors on 25.6% of the patent applications filed in the U.S., up from 7.6% in 1998. A Council of Graduate Schools
survey found that in the fall of 2007, 241,095 non-U.S. citizens were enrolled in graduate programs. Some 55% were in engineering and the biological and physical
sciences, compared with only 16% of U.S. citizens. In 2007, more people on temporary visas received doctorates in physical sciences and engineering than U.S. citizens.
There is a high correlation between education and incomes, and in today's uncertain economic climate, many wealthy foreigners desire U.S. resident status just as a
number in Hong Kong secured residences in Singapore and Canada before the British handover to China in 1997. They rapidly became over a quarter of Vancouver's
population, and brought in billions of dollars to buy houses and make other investments. We could benefit from such an influx. Merrill Lynch estimates that in 2007
there were 10.1 million individuals in the world, 7.1 million outside the U.S., with at least $1 million in financial assets that totaled $29 trillion. If new immigrants
bought the 2.4 million excess houses at today's $184,000 median price with funds from abroad, they would bring untold billions. The immigrants would also buy
consumer goods, pay taxes, and start many new businesses. The blueprint for a program to sell surplus housing to immigrants is already in place with the EB-5 visa
program. Each year, 10,000 EB-5 visas for this country are available for foreigners who each invest $1 million in a new enterprise ($500,000 in economically depressed
areas) that creates at least 10 full-time jobs. After two years, the entrepreneur and his family can become permanent residents. America's relatively open immigration
policy makes this country better off than many other developed lands whose governments also must fund the pensions and health care for growing numbers of retirees.
Yet there's still a huge need for more productive and skilled people, both current residents and immigrants, who will produce enough goods and services to provide for
their own needs and for those in retirement. Otherwise, entitlement spending eventually will touch off intergenerational warfare. Granting permanent resident
status to foreigners who buy houses in this country will curtail a primary driver of the deepening recession and financial
crises -- excess house inventories and the resulting collapse of prices. Since the people who will buy these houses will
tend to have money, education, skills and entrepreneurial talents, they will be substantial assets to America in both the
short and long runs.
Waivers 1NC
Text: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should grant advance parole with
all necessary extensions to
Solves 100% of case
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory
Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the field of immigration law. He represents corporations
and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization,
federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He
is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro
Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010,
http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
For instance, there
is nothing that would bar the USCIS from allowing the beneficiary of an approved employment based I-140 or
family based I-130 petition, and derivative family members, to obtain an employment authorization document (EAD) and parole. The
Executive, under INA § 212(d)(5), has the authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits. The crisis in
the priority dates where beneficiaries of petitions may need to wait for green cards in excess of 30 years may qualify for invoking § 212(d)(5) under “urgent
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits.” Similarly, the authors credit David Isaacson who pointed out that the Executive has the authority to grant EAD
under INA §274A(h)(3), which defines the term “unauthorized alien” as one who is not “(A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be
so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General” (emphasis added). Under sub paragraph (B), the USCIS may grant an EAD to people who are adversely impacted
by the tyranny of priority dates. Likewise, the beneficiary of an I-130 or I-140 petition who is outside the U.S. can also be paroled into the U.S.
before the priority date becomes current. The principal and the applicable derivatives would enjoy permission to work and
travel regardless of whether they remained in nonimmigrant visa status. Even those who are undocumented or out of
status, but are beneficiaries of approved I-130 and I-140 petitions, can be granted employment authorization and parole. The retroactive grant of
parole may also alleviate those who are subject to the three or ten year bars since INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) defines “unlawful presence” as someone who is here “without
being admitted or paroled.” Parole, therefore, eliminates the accrual of unlawful presence. While parole does not constitute an admission, one
Since parole is not
considered admission, it can be granted more readily to one who entered without inspection. On the other hand, it is possible for
the Executive to rescind the grant of admission under INA §212(d)(5), and instead, replace it with the grant parole. As an example,
an individual who was admitted in B-2 status and is the beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired can be
required to report to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). who can retroactively rescind the grant of admission in B-2 status
and instead be granted parole retroactively.
conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is already admitted on a nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed.
CP avoids politics and is key to presidential powers
Lawrence ‘10 (Stewart J, is a Washington, DC-based public policy analyst and 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,
September 2, Immigration: the case for executive orders, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/02/usimmigration-obama-executive)
Executive action is risky. But it's far less risky, politically, than convening a "lame-duck" session of congress, as some
Democrats like senate majority leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) now propose, to try to ram through the Dream Act or other
broader immigration measures, much as they did with healthcare reform. Most outgoing Democrats aren't going to play ball,
especially if they have to vote to expand enforcement. And even those who survive the mid-terms still have to face the voters in
2012. Supporting legalisation in a GOP-controlled congress could well cost them their seats. As president, Obama is uniquely
placed to step in and exercise Solomon-like leadership on behalf of Democrats and Republicans alike. Recent polls show
that a majority of voters – including a majority of GOP voters – support expanded enforcement coupled with some kind of
legalisation. At a time when the public discourse on immigration is degenerating into near-hysteria, and congress remains
paralysed, even-handed executive action can point the country forward. It sends a powerful signal to voters that the
president still has the courage to stick his neck out, even when a nervous and recalcitrant congress, including
members of his own party, won't. The entire country – Democrats, Republicans and independents alike – would stand
up and cheer.
Strong presidential powers are critical to the global economy and preventing global wars
South China Morning Post ‘2K
(12-11, Lexis)
A weak president with an unclear mandate is bad news for the rest of the world. For better or worse, the person who rules the United States
influences events far beyond the shores of his own country. Both the global economy and international politics will feel the effect of
political instability in the US. The first impact will be on American financial markets, which will have a ripple effect on
markets and growth across the world. A weakened US presidency will also be felt in global hotspots across the world. The
Middle East, the conflict between India and Pakistan, peace on the Korean peninsula, and even the way relations between
China and Taiwan play out, will be influenced by the authority the next US president brings to his job. There are those who would
welcome a weakening of US global influence. Many Palestinians, for example, feel they would benefit from a less interventionist American policy in the Middle East.
Even within the Western alliance, there are those who would probably see opportunities in a weakened US presidency. France, for example, might feel that a less
assertive US might force the European Union to be more outward looking. But the dangers of having a weak, insecure US presidency outweigh
any benefits that it might bring. US global economic and military power cannot be wished away. A president with a shaky
mandate will still command great power and influence, only he will be constrained by his domestic weakness and less certain
about how to use his authority. This brings with it the risks of miscalculation and the use of US power in a way that heightens
conflict. There are very few conflicts in the world today which can be solved without US influence. The rest of the world
needs the United States to use its power deftly and decisively.
Canada 1NC
Canada’s current level of immigration at 250,000 per year is key to maintaining population growth.
Courtney Mullins, attorney at Campbell Cohen Law Firm which specializes in immigration law, “Canada Immigration Key to Sustaining the Canadian Population,”
7/13/2010, http://lifestyletom.com/path/rao10925687322ros/roin59012245729
With a dwindling national birthrate and baby boomers nearing the end of their lifespans towards 2030, Canada will soon
be completely dependent on immigration to maintain population and economic growth. According to a Statistics Canada national
census, immigration is currently responsible for two thirds of Canada's 5.4% growth. This trend will continue and the Canadian economy and
Canadian employers will become even more reliant on newly arriving immigrants and foreign workers to staff their
organizations. Canada is currently admitting over 250,000 immigrants every year, mainly under the Federal Skilled
Worker category, which selects candidates based on education, training, and work experience.
Canada and the US compete for skilled workers – US caps and restrictions are key to maintaining high Canadian
levels.
Marketwire, “Foreign talent IT brain drain from U.S. to Canada flip-flopping,” 1/27/2010, http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Foreign-talent-IT-braindrain-from-US-to-Canada-flip-flopping-1108126.htm
Kovasys Inc. (www.kovasys.com), an IT recruitment agency in Canada, has
recently been witnessing a large influx of foreign IT specialists
working in US on H-1B visa relocating and settling in Canada. While the number of technical IT professionals from India, China and other
developing countries with large pools of technologically skilled workers who apply for H-1B temporary visas to work in the United States has dropped sharply in recent
years. One reason is the reduction in the available number of United States H-1B visas, which allow degreed professionals and specialty workers to work for a specific
employer. The maximum number of this type of visa has been reduced to 65,000 annually, and coupled with a more difficult
renewal process, has spurred many IT professionals in the global work force to look elsewhere for well-paying jobs.
Increasingly, they are looking to Canada. The recession experienced by the American economy in recent years is one factor in the reversal of fortunes
two countries' IT communities; whereas in the past, the Canadian dollar generally ran weaker to the American dollar, the exchange rate now is roughly even or even
better on the Canadian side. Many foreign workers say the ability to keep more of the money they earn, along with the high standard of living and free health care
Canada offers, is motivating them to move further north. This technological "brain drain" is a sharp contrast to the year 2000, when less
restrictive visa requirements and a 50-cent advantage on the U.S./Canadian exchange rate spurred many IT professionals
living in Canada to move to the U.S. for work. One H-1B worker said visa restrictions in the United States directly
impacted his decision to leave his Connecticut employer for a position in Canada with Morgan Stanley. "I wanted to be
in control of my career in terms of which employer I work for and how long I work for that employer instead of being tied down to one place," said Amit, a foreign
national and IT professional. "With American visa restrictions, you cannot change or find jobs easily and it adds an additional
layer of disadvantage in an already difficult job market." Although the job market in America is admittedly tough right now and it may be easier to
get access to a visa by moving to Canada, Amit described why it might also be tough to find a job on Canadian soil through standard job-search methods and sites. He
said in his experience, a typical Google search for IT positions in Canada doesn't bring as many return listings as a Google search for U.S. jobs because only a few job
portals in the United States represent almost all of the jobs available in the current market, but Canadian searches are more localized, making the right fit more difficult
and more time-consuming to find. "The candidate needs to be a lot more persistent and intensive," Amit said. "The Canada job market also has a tendency to put a
disproportionate premium on the 'local experience' factor, which shouldn't really be a primary consideration in this particular business environment because most
candidates are highly mobile across the globe." H-1B visa holders like Amit was able to make their job search easier through the use of a resource such as Kovasys Inc.
(www.kovasys.com), a Canada-based headhunting and recruitment agency that helps place IT and technological professionals, which helped him find a job in Canada.
Such recruitment companies should be helpful in combating the disadvantage of finding an actual placement, which seems to currently be the only downside for H-1B
workers looking for employment in Canada. In the meanwhile, Amit said he finds the Canadian people welcoming and the country foreigner-friendly, and is looking
forward to beginning his new job at the end of the month. While Amit's future is looking up, the outlook involving H-1B visas in the U.S. is not nearly as positive.
Although the American economy is slowly improving and should continue to show signs of recovery over the next few
years, the H-1B restrictions are not likely to be lifted or revised during that time. Until they are, foreign workers like
Amit will continue to leave the United States for Canada in search of better prospects.
Immigration is essential to Canada’s economy – resiliency isn’t possible without it.
Panorama, a Taking IT Global publication, “Immigration Policy as Population Policy,” 1/20/2004,
http://jamaica.tigweb.org/express/panorama/article.html?ContentID=2746
When it comes to metropolitan concentration, Bourne and Rose state that there
is a large capacity of immigrants entering the ‘gateway’ cities
of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. This is due to the fact there are many economic expectations and opportunities in these larger cities. There have
been increases in the construction and retailing industries, which is leading to a larger workforce. Population growth is linked to the decline in environmental conditions,
such as land, water, and urban air pollution. In Canada, immigration is key to population growth in the ‘gateway’ cities . According to
Bourne and Rose, immigration
is a main contributor to the Canadian labour force. “…close to 70 percent of labour force
growth may be attributed to immigrants.” As for personal incomes it is said that it takes 10-15 years after landing, to reach the national level. After that,
some immigrants reach over the national average. Skilled workers earnings exceed the overall population of tax-filers within two years
of landing in Canada. For example, Vancouver receives many immigrants that have funds that exceed the Canadian average. On the other hand, many classes of
immigrants have a longer wait to the Canadian average. We must also look at the difficulties that immigrants face, in regards to poverty groups. According to
Kazemipur and Halli “…immigrants are one of the groups most likely to be living in poverty in Canada (after Aboriginals and female-headed, single parent families.)”
There has been much business failure that has been the outcome of the business immigrants whom have tried to join the economy. Thus, we see that immigration
accounts for almost half of Canada’s population growth. This is becoming an important element of the political
economy and cultural life of Canada. Immigration plays a vital role in the sustainability of Canada’s economy. It
would be hard to imagine many years down the road without immigration, as it would stunt the growing economy. We, as
other nations such as the United States and the European nations have begun to recruit the highest skilled workers from overseas. Canada is likely to be a
country of pronounced immigration and emigration. With the effects of both migration patterns it will be interesting to see
the redistribution of Canada’s population. The most notable issues still remain unsettled. These include the articulation of immigrant communities and
their diverse backgrounds. The relations between immigration and issues of citizenship and national identity are a hot topic. The meaning of Canadian citizenship is
changing. Its unclear as to the way and the effect of this change will occur.
Canadian collapse causes Quebec secessionism.
Donald E. Nuechterlein, September 1999. Rockefeller Research Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. “CANADA DEBATES A VARIETY OF
DOMESTIC ISSUES,” http://donaldnuechterlein.com/1999/canada.html.
Current opinion polls in Quebec show that pro-independence forces are somewhat below the 50 percent margin that would
trigger formal negotiations with the rest of Canada on the terms of separation. The current premier, Lucien Bouchard, is a crafty nationalist
who will not put the question to another referendum unless he is convinced it will obtain a majority vote. My guess is that if Bouchard has doubts about reaching at least
50 percent in favor of independence, he will first call a provincial election and hope to increase the majority of his Parti Quebecois. That would give him more
confidence about winning a referendum. An
important factor influencing many Quebeckers will be their degree of satisfaction
with the Canadian economy. At present, prosperity reigns in most parts of the country and many Quebec voters may
worry that their province will suffer economically if it separates.
Queben secessionism causes US-Russian nuclear war.
New World Order Intelligence, May, 96’ http://www.survivalistskills.com/quebec.htm/
Lamont's forecasts, based upon all of this input? Canada
will disintegrate shortly after Quebec separates via a Unilateral Declaration of
Independence [Bouchard threatened to do this on April 28th, 1996]. Quebec will become a socialist, somewhat aberrant and unpredictable state which will
ultimately be refused entry to NAFTA by the US and Canada. The Canadian provinces will seize more and more power from a weakened
Federal government, become individual or regional "mini-states" themselves, and turn their eyes southward. BC and Alberta
will withdraw into "Cascadia", a union of those two provinces with California, Oregon, Washington State, Idaho and Alaska, forming a bloc with the ninth-largest
economy in the world. BC and Alberta will apply for admission into the US, and be accepted immediately. Manitoba will hook up with Minnesota around a Red River
union. Saskatchewan will join with Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming in the Rocky Mountain Corridor. Manitoba and Saskatchewan would be given associate status
with the US, depending - among other things - on how cooperative they are in facilitating the export of Canadian water to the United States. Ontario would sink into the
embrace of the US Great Lakes states. Canada's Atlantic Provinces would form an "association" with New England. The US federal government, Lamont
asserts, will
not be "happy" with this turn of events - it will complicate security and defense arrangements, multiply the
difficulties in observing and fulfilling a wide range of current bi-lateral agreements and treaties, etc. But it will be "persuaded" by
the addition of vast water resources, wood, immense mineral troves, multi-billion barrel oil and tar-sand reserves, etc, to America's economic base and strategic reserves.
The Russians, who have always regarded Canada as a less-belligerent "buffer" across the Arctic between the U.S. and
themselves become increasingly resentful of Canada's absorbtion into a Continental Union. The hardline
communist/nationalist faction having triumphed in Moscow, they begin armed "probing" flights across the Arctic divide
in an attempt to test out the effectiveness of the NORAD radar early-warning system after Quebec's separation and
Canada's slow collapse. Feeling even more threatened by the growing American colossus, the Russians become even more
aggressive and "trigger happy". The same treaties that reduced US/USSR missile forces permitted the Russians to increase
their terrain-hugging bomber-launched cruise-missile stockpiles, and they take full advantage of this. Canada, the "international
diplomatic buffer", has ceased to exist.
Solvency 1NC
The plan causes backlash against student visas which guts solvency
Tiger 08 (Joseph Tiger, The Author Is A J.D. Candidate At The Georgetown University Law Center. He Graduated From
Georgetown University In 2006 With A Degree In Economics. While In High School, He Earned An Associate Degree In
Mathematics From The Santa Rosa Junior College, California, In 2003, Re-Bending The Paperclip: An Examination Of
America's Policy Regarding Skilled Workers And Student Visas, Spring 2008, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 507)
Offering all students green cards but not H-1B visas would be even more problematic. If all students were made
automatically eligible for EB status upon graduation, acceptance at an American university would, in essence, constitute a
near guarantee of future citizenship. Thus, to maintain its power to control citizenship, the government would have to
exercise even stricter control over the granting of student visas. These procedural hurdles could act as a disincentive if not
an actual barrier to foreign students interested in studying at American universities. n197 Additionally, working under a
green card has procedural hurdles of its own, not associated with the H-1B visa program (notably, labor certification). As
such, foreign students who do not wish to stay in the United States beyond a temporary period of work would face the
choice of accepting the green card and becoming a permanent resident, or leaving immediately upon the termination of F1 status.
Green cards fail- doesn't allow temporary work
Tiger 08 (Joseph Tiger, The Author Is A J.D. Candidate At The Georgetown University Law Center. He Graduated From
Georgetown University In 2006 With A Degree In Economics. While In High School, He Earned An Associate Degree In
Mathematics From The Santa Rosa Junior College, California, In 2003, Re-Bending The Paperclip: An Examination Of
America's Policy Regarding Skilled Workers And Student Visas, Spring 2008, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 507)
Offering all students green cards but not H-1B visas would be even more problematic. If all students were made
automatically eligible for EB status upon graduation, acceptance at an American university would, in essence, constitute a
near guarantee of future citizenship. Thus, to maintain its power to control citizenship, the government would have to
exercise even stricter control over the granting of student visas. These procedural hurdles could act as a disincentive if not
an actual barrier to foreign students interested in studying at American universities. n197 Additionally, working under a
green card has procedural hurdles of its own, not associated with the H-1B visa program (notably, labor certification). As
such, foreign students who do not wish to stay in the United States beyond a temporary period of work would face the
choice of accepting the green card and becoming a permanent resident, or leaving immediately upon the termination of F1 status.
STEM grads will flood the market, driving away US students- net worse for innovation
Matloff, 08 (Norman, Computer Science Professor at UC Davis, “badly misinformed George Will column” June 26,
2008, http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/GeorgeWill.txt)
In fact, Will's point that large numbers of the PhDs that U.S. universities produce are foreign students itself shows why it
DOES hurt to have these people around. Back in 1989, our National Science Foundation called for an increase in the
number of foreign students in order to keep PhD salaries down--yes, this was their explicit rationale--and moreover, the
NSF pointed out that the resulting low salaries would drive domestic students away from pursuing doctorates, which of
course is exactly what happened. (See http://nber.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html) The proposals now in Congress to give
automatic green cards to new foreign graduates in science and engineering would make things even worse than what the NSF
wanted. As mentioned above, young workers have lower wages than older ones, and almost all the new grads are young. So the proposals would swell the
labor pool at the young end, making it even harder for our Jack Kilbys to make a viable career out of engineering. No wonder
our brightest young people with top math talent are finding it far more lucrative to pursue careers in finance than in
engineering. Does that matter? You bet it does. America's only advantage over the rest of the world is its innovativeness. Most of
the foreign workers come from cultures which do not foster innovativeness and in fact tend to suppress it .
STEM grads wont solve competitiveness
Matloff, 08 (Norman, Computer Science Professor at UC Davis, “badly misinformed George Will column” June 26,
2008, http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/GeorgeWill.txt)
In other words, the muddled thinking Will exhibits here is ruining the only good thing we have going for us. So YES, it matters. Lastly, Will brings up that constant
industry lobbyist refrain that "We'll lose these people to our competitors" if we don't give them green cards. Again, the putative good ones, the ones in EB-1 (for
"foreign nationals of "extraordinary ability" and for "outstanding professors") and EB-2 (for those who are either of "exceptional ability" or possess an "advanced
degree"), are getting their green cards quickly, so we're NOT "losing" them. However: Even with green cards, the fact is that they often don't keep
their technology in the U.S. anyway. The study by UCB Prof. Annalee Saxenian found that many eventually return to their
home countries even after attaining U.S. citizenship, that many who do stay here start businesses back home, and that more than 80% share
technology with people in the home country. This may not be all bad, but it certainly shows that the shrill "We've got to give them green cards
to prevent them from helping our competitors" argument is nonsense.
Plan kills education and global diplomacy
Miano 09 [John Miano has been with the Center for Immigration Studies since 2008 and his area of expertise is in guest worker programs, particularly in how they
affect the technology work force. Mr. Miano has a BA in Mathematics from The College of Wooster and a JD from Seton Hall University. Mr. Miano is also the
founder of the Programmers’ Guild, an organization committed to advancing the interests of technical and professional workers; “No Green Cards for Grads”, July 20,
http://www.cis.org/miano/grads]
What Mr. Frank advocates is tantamount to granting universities the ability to sell U.S. immigration benefits. How much
is a green card worth on the open market? If Mr. Frank had his way, we would soon find out. The U.S. would have quickie graduate
programs spring up all over. Fourth tier and for-profit universities would set up programs tailored to foreign students. The
ability of universities to sell immigration benefits could justify high tuition prices for such programs. Consider the simplest case. U.S.
universities could market graduate programs to people who already have a PhD or MS from foreign institutions. Take one or two courses at the U.S. school and get
an MS degree in the exact same field. The university could even include it as part of the package employment. What Mr.
Frank has completely lost in his call for foreign student to remain in the U.S. is the benefit gained from such students
returning home. Foreign students create a pool of people who have learned about American and Americans in general. When
they return home they serve as American ambassadors to the world. If foreign students remain in the U.S., our national
investment in them (financial investment that could have been used to fund education for Americans) is squandered.
Plans not key to innovation
Matloff, 06 (Norm Matloff for The Center For Immigration Studies, Best? Brightest? A Green Card Giveaway For
Foreign Grads Would Be Unwarranted, http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0531-matloff.shtm)
Most F-4s Would Not Be "the Best and the Brightest." Industry lobbyists have often made the argument that the H-1B program is working
well for those who have graduate degrees, as they are the top talents from around the world. The lobbyists’ claim is that these H-1Bs are being hired for their superior
abilities, not for cheap labor. We saw above that the H-1B program in fact is used as a source of cheap labor even at the graduate level, so the lobbyists’ argument
already fails. But let’s set that aside for a moment and address the quality issue itself. Some foreign PhD students are indeed the world’s "best and brightest." I fully
support the immigration of such individuals, and have played an active role in the hiring of outstanding foreign nationals from China, India, and other countries to my
department’s faculty at the University of California, Davis. However, only a small percentage of all foreign PhDs are of this caliber, as will be
seen below. Remarkably, even some analysts who have been critical of industry’s usage of imported engineers for cheap labor are nevertheless susceptible to the
industry lobbyists’ "best and brightest" argument. They extrapolate from a few success stories to a romantic, starry-eyed view that all the foreign students are Einsteins.
Harvard economics professor Richard Freeman is a prime example. [27] On the one hand, he agrees that ...the huge influx of foreign students and workers keeps wages
and employment opportunities below what they would otherwise be. This discourages U.S. citizens from investing in science and engineering careers... Yet he then says
[the U.S.] has attracted large numbers of the best and brightest students, researchers, and science and engineering workers from foreign countries. According to the
2000 Census of Population, 38 percent of Ph.D.s working in science and engineering occupations were foreign-born—a massive rise over the 24 percent foreign-born
figure for 1990. Apparently Freeman considers all or most of those 38 percent to be "the best and the brightest." But the reality is quite the opposite. Posssesion of
a graduate degree does not imply that one has outstanding talent—far from it. The fact is that virtually anyone with a
Bachelor’s degree can be accepted into some graduate program. Thus one should not assume that workers with graduate degrees are "smarter."
In fact, foreign PhD students are disproportionately enrolled in the academically weaker universities :[28]
Econ
Innovation is high now.
Galama and Hosek ‘8 Titus Galama and James Hosek, RAND Corporation, “U.S. Competitiveness in Science and
Technology,” 2008, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf
We find that the
United States continues to lead the world in science and technology. The United States grew faster in many
measures of S&T capability than did Japan and Europe, and developing nations such as China, India, and South Korea
showed rapid growth in S&T output measures, but they are starting from a small base. These developing nations do not yet account for
a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe, and Japan.
The United States accounts for 40 percent of total world R&D spending and 38 percent of patented new technology
inventions by the industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), employs 37 percent (1.3 million) of
OECD researchers (FTE), produces 35 percent, 49 percent, and 63 percent, respectively, of total world publications,
citations, and highly cited publications, employs 70 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners and 66 percent of its mostcited individuals, and is the home to 75 percent of both the world’s top 20 and top 40 universities and 58 percent of the top 100.
No double-dip recession.
CBS News, “US Economy May Avoid A Double Dip Recession,” 9/16/2010, http://cbs4.com/CBS4yourmoney/economy.recession.double.2.1916614.html
America's economic future appears to be getting a bit brighter. In recent weeks, there have been small improvements in the
economy. The numbers may look small by themselves as they come out almost weekly, but when you add them all
together, it's enough to lead some economists to believe we should not fall back into a so-called "Double Dip Recession"
over the next few months.
Locally, Florida is now #1 in the nation for the fewest number of new unemployment claims according to the latest figures out of the U.S. Department of Labor.
It reports new layoffs are easing in our construction, trade and service industries.
Since the start of the year, local tourism has seen steady improvements over last year.
Foreign trade through South Florida is also seeing solid gains. They are all signs of enough positive changes in the U.S. and global outlook, that some economists
are now downplaying earlier predictions we could slide back into another recession despite the current lagging recovery.
Financial Planner Lane Jones of Coral Gables' Evensky & Katz: "We sorta describe the economy at stall speed. It's making enough progress to stay in
the air. But if it slows anymore, we could see more problems. That is not expected, however."
No impact to loss of competitiveness.
Galama and Hosek ‘8 Titus Galama and James Hosek, RAND Corporation, “U.S. Competitiveness in Science and
Technology,” 2008, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf
A future in which a significant share of new technologies is invented elsewhere will benefit the United States as long as it
maintains the capability to acquire and implement technologies invented abroad. Technology is an essential factor of productivity, and the use
of new technology (whether it was invented in the United States or elsewhere) can result in greater efficiency, economic growth, and
higher living standards. The impact of globalization on U.S. innovative activity is less clear. On the one hand, significant
innovation and R&D elsewhere may increase foreign and domestic demand for U.S. research and innovation if the
United States keeps its comparative advantage in R&D. On the other hand, the rise of populous, low-income countries may threaten this comparative advantage in R&D
in certain areas if such countries develop the capacity and institutions necessary to apply new technologies and have a well-educated, low-wage S&T labor force.
Emperically denied – poor student performance and scientist shortage have never triggered their impacts
Galama, Ph.D. & M.Sc. in Physics from the University of Amsterdam, MBA from INSEAD, ‘8 (Titus, “U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology,”
Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense by the National Defense Research Institute of the RAND Corporation,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.pdf)
Despite the rhetoric and the intensive action on the Hill, some voices called for restraint. The reports and testimony making a case for or arguing against an S&T crisis
are part of an ongoing policy debate. One line of counterargument is that such warnings are far from unprecedented and have never resulted in the crisis
anticipated. The author of a Washington Watch article noted that “similar fears of a STEM workforce crisis in the 1980s were ultimately
unfounded” (Andres, 2006). Neal McCluskey, a policy analyst from the Cato Institute, noted that similar alarm bells were sounded decades earlier (and in his view,
have had underlying political agendas): Using the threat of international economic competition to bolster federal control of education
is nothing new. It happened in 1983, after the federally commissioned report A Nation at Risk admonished that ‘our once unchallenged preeminence in
commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world, ’ as well as the early 1990s, when George
Bush the elder called for national academic standards and tests in order to better compete with Japan. (McCluskey, 2006) Roger Pielke of the University of
Colorado observed that such issues as poor student performance have an even longer history, with no negative outcomes.
Arguments that “certain other countries produce a greater proportion of scientist and engineering students or that those
students fare better on tests of achievement . . . have been made for almost 50 years,” he stated, “yet over that time frame the
U.S. economy has done quite well” (Pielke, 2006).
Immigrants will be employed in jobs that waste their potential.
Bárbara Castelletti, economist at the OECD Development Centre, et al., Jeff Dayton-Johnson, head of the OECD development Centre, and Ángel Melguizo,
economist at the OECD Development Centre, “Migration in Latin America: Answering old questions with new data,” 3/19/2010,
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4764
Most research on migration assumes that workers are employed in activities that correspond to their skill level. In practice
workers may be employed in sectors characterised by skill requirements different from their educational or training
background. In particular, migrants may be overqualified for the work they do. As Mattoo et al. (2005) show, this is the case for
Mexicans, Central Americans and Andean university-educated migrants working in the US. Despite their tertiary
degrees, these groups rarely hold highly skilled jobs. Worse, they may even be at the lower rungs of the skill ladder;
44% of tertiary-educated Mexicans migrants in the US are working in unskilled jobs. This equilibrium represents a loselose-lose situation. The home country loses human capital (brain drain), the host country and the migrant him/herself are not
fully employed (brain waste), and the low skilled workers in host countries (both earlier migrants and natives) can be pushed out of the
market (given that they compete with these higher-educated workers for jobs). To illustrate this phenomenon for South-South flows, we follow OECD (2007) and
compare the education level (primary, secondary and tertiary) of migrants in Argentina, Costa Rica and Venezuela with their category of job qualification (low,
intermediate and high skilled). Figure 3 shows the share of over-qualified migrants and native workers, residing in different countries, and the comparison between
foreign-born and natives. Over-qualification rates vary sharply among countries, ranging from 5% in Costa Rica and Venezuela to 14% in Argentina. While lower than
in the US, Canada and Spain where the over-qualification rates are above 15%, these results point to a high degree of over-qualification among immigrants compared to
the native-born in Latin American countries. While there are possible omitted variables, it is likely that some part of the brain waste
observed is because of the non-recognition of foreign qualifications or excessive requalification requirements for
foreigners.
Economic nationalism doesn’t cause a transition away from capitalism or global cooperation – empirics and most
qualified sources agree
Zakaria, PhD Poli Sci @ Harvard, Editor of Newsweek, 12/12/’9
(Fareed, “The Secrets of Stability,” Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425)
Beyond all this, though, I believe there's a fundamental reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last year. It is the same
reason that we weathered the stock-market crash of 1987, the recession of 1992, the Asian crisis of 1997, the Russian default of 1998,
and the tech-bubble collapse of 2000. The currentglobal economic system is inherently more resilient than we think. The world
today is characterized by three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature. The first is the spread of great-power peace.
Since the end of the Cold War, the world's major powers have not competed with each other in geomilitary terms. There have been some political tensions, but
measured by historical standards the globe today is stunningly free of friction between the mightiest nations. This lack of conflict is extremely rare in history. You
would have to go back at least 175 years, if not 400, to find any prolonged period like the one we are living in. The number of people who have died
as a
result of wars, civil conflicts, and terrorism over the last 30 years has declined sharply (despite what you might think on the basis of overhyped fears about
terrorism). And no wonder—three decades ago, the Soviet Union was still funding militias, governments, and guerrillas in dozens of countries around the world. And
the United States was backing the other side in every one of those places. That clash of superpower proxies caused enormous bloodshed and instability: recall that 3
million people died in Indochina alone during the 1970s. Nothing like that is happening today. Peace is like oxygen, Harvard's Joseph Nye has written. When
you don't have it, it's all you can think about, but when you do, you don't appreciate your good fortune. Peace allows for the possibility of a stable economic life and
trade. The peace that flowed from the end of the Cold War had a much larger effect because itwas accompanied by the discrediting of
socialism. The world was left with a sole superpower but also a single workable economic model—capitalism—albeit with
many variants from Sweden to Hong Kong. This consensus enabled the expansion of the global economy; in fact, it created for the first time a
single world economy in which almost all countries across the globe were participants. That means everyone is invested in the same system.
Today, while the nations of Eastern Europe might face an economic crisis, no one is suggesting that they abandon free-market
capitalism and return to communism. In fact, around the world you see the opposite: even in the midst of this downturn, there have been few successful
electoral appeals for a turn to socialism or a rejection of the current framework of political economy. Center-right parties have instead prospered in recent elections
throughout the West.
Canada is a better economic leader
Rob Giles, Seattle Times, “Canada's economy envy of world,” 6/20/2010, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012168540_canecon21.html
Canada believes it can teach the world a thing or two about dodging financial meltdowns. The 20 world leaders at an economic summit in
Toronto next weekend will find themselves in a country that has avoided a banking crisis, and where the economy grew at a 6.1 percent annual rate in the first three
months of this year. The housing market is hot, and three-quarters of the 400,000 jobs lost in the recession have been recovered. World leaders have noticed: President
Obama says the United States should take note of Canada's banking system, and Britain's Treasury chief is looking to
emulate the Ottawa way on cutting deficits. The land of a thousand stereotypes — from Mounties and hockey to language wars and lousy weather — is
feeling entitled to do a bit of crowing as it hosts the G-20 summit of wealthy and developing nations. "We should be proud of the performance of our
financial system during the crisis," Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said. He recalled visiting China in 2007 and hearing suggestions "that the Canadian
banks were perhaps boring and too risk-adverse. And when I was there two weeks ago some of my same counterparts
were saying to me, 'You have a very solid, stable banking system in Canada,' and emphasizing that. There wasn't anything about being
sufficiently risk-oriented." The banks are stable because, in part, they're more regulated. As the United States and Europe loosened
financial regulations over the past 15 years, Canada refused to do so. The banks also aren't as leveraged as their U.S. or
European peers. There was no mortgage meltdown or subprime crisis in Canada. Banks don't package mortgages and sell them to the private market, so they need
to be sure their borrowers can pay back the loans. In Canada's concentrated banking system, five major banks dominate the market and regulators know top bank
executives personally. "Our banks were just better managed, and we had better regulation," said former Prime Minister Paul Martin, credited with killing off a massive
government deficit in the 1990s when he was finance minister, leading to 12 consecutive years of budget surpluses. "I was absolutely amazed at senior bankers in the
United States and Europe who didn't know the extent of the problem or they didn't know that people in some far-flung division were doing these kinds of things,"
Martin said. "It's just beyond belief." The Conservative Party government of Stephen Harper that took over from Martin's Liberals in 2006 broadly stuck to his
predecessor's approach, although Harper cut taxes and, when recession struck, pumped stimulus money into the economy, with the result that Canada again has a large
deficit. But the nation is recovering from the recession faster than others, and the International Monetary Fund expects
Canada to be the only one of the seven major industrialized democracies to return to a budget surplus by 2015. Canada this
month became the first among those democracies to raise interest rates since the global financial crisis began. George Osborne,
Britain's Treasury chief, has vowed to follow Canada's example on deficit reduction. "They brought together the best brains both inside and outside government to carry
out a fundamental reassessment of the role of the state," he said in a speech. It's a remarkable turnaround from 1993, when the Liberals took office amid a $30 billion
deficit. Moody's downgraded Canada's credit rating twice. About 36 percent of government revenue went toward servicing debt. "Our situation was dire. Canada was in
a lot of trouble at that point," Martin said. "If we were going to preserve our health care and our education system we had to do it." As finance minister, he slashed
spending. A weak currency and a booming U.S. economy also helped balance the books. In the 1998 budget, the government estimated about 55 percent of the deficit
gains came from economic growth and 35 percent from spending cuts. "The rest of the world certainly thinks we're the model to follow,"
said Martin, who was prime minister from 2003 to 2006. "I've been asked by a lot of countries as to how to go about it." Don Drummond, Martin's budget chief at the
time, says the United States and Europe won't have it that easy, because the economic climate was better in the late 1990s than it is now, with large trade gains and
falling interest rates. "There's a lot to learn from Canada, but their starting conditions are worse ," Drummond said. "Even though we
were on the precipice of a crisis we weren't in as bad a shape as many of them are."
No WMD terrorism- they see it as counterproductive.
Brad Roberts, Inst Dfnse Analyses, and Michael Moodie, Chem & Bio Arms Cntrl Inst, ‘2 (Defense Horizons 15,
July)
The argument about terrorist motivation is also important. Terrorists generally have not killed as many as they have been
capable of killing. This restraint seems to derive from an understanding of mass casualty attacks as both unnecessary and
counterproductive. They are unnecessary because terrorists, by and large, have succeeded by conventional means. Also, they
are counterproductive because they might alienate key constituencies, whether among the public, state sponsors, or the terrorist
leadership group. In Brian Jenkins' famous words, terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead. Others have
argued that the lack of mass casualty terrorism and effective exploitation of BW has been more a matter of accident and good
fortune than capability or intent. Adherents of this view, including former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, argue that "it's not
a matter of if but when." The attacks of September 11 would seem to settle the debate about whether terrorists have both the
motivation and sophistication to exploit weapons of mass destruction for their full lethal effect. After all, those were terrorist
attacks of unprecedented sophistication that seemed clearly aimed at achieving mass casualties--had the World Trade Center
towers collapsed as the 1993 bombers had intended, perhaps as many as 150,000 would have died. Moreover, Osama bin
Laden's constituency would appear to be not the "Arab street" or some other political entity but his god. And terrorists
answerable only to their deity have proven historically to be among the most lethal. But this debate cannot be considered settled.
Bin Laden and his followers could have killed many more on September 11 if killing as many as possible had been their primary
objective. They now face the core dilemma of asymmetric warfare: how to escalate without creating new interests for the
stronger power and thus the incentive to exploit its power potential more fully. Asymmetric adversaries want their stronger
enemies fearful, not fully engaged--militarily or otherwise. They seek to win by preventing the stronger partner from exploiting its
full potential. To kill millions in America with biological or other weapons would only commit the United States--and much of the
rest of the international community--to the annihilation of the perpetrators.
No retaliation against terrorism-No public or international support.
Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, September 13, 2004, New Statesman, “Suppose a new
9/11 hit America…,” p. Lexis
What would happen if there were a new terrorist attack inside the United States on 11 September 2004? How would it affect the presidential election
campaign? The conventional wisdom is that Americans - their patriotic defiance aroused - would rally to President George W Bush and make him an
all but certain winner in November. But consider the differences between the context of the original 9/11 and that of any attack which might occur this
autumn. In 2001, the public reaction was one of disbelief and incomprehension. Many Americans realised for the first time that large-scale terrorist
attacks on US soil were not only conceivable; they were, perhaps, inevitable. A majority focused for the first time on the threat from al-Qaeda, on the
Taliban and on the extent to which Saudis were involved in terrorism. This time, the public response would move much more quickly from shock to
anger; debate over how America should respond would begin immediately. Yet it is difficult to imagine how the Bush administration could focus its
response on an external enemy. Should the US send 50,000 troops to the Afghan-Pakistani border to intensify the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and
'step up' efforts to attack the heart of al-Qaeda? Many would wonder if that wasn't what the administration pledged to do after the attacks three years
ago. The president would face intensified criticism from those who have argued all along that Iraq was a distraction from 'the real war on terror'. And
what if a significant number of the terrorists responsible for the pre-election attack were again Saudis? The Bush administration could hardly take
military action against the Saudi government at a time when crude-oil prices are already more than $45 a barrel and global supply is stretched to the
limit. While the Saudi royal family might support a co-ordinated attack against terrorist camps, real or imagined, near the Yemeni border – where
recent searches for al-Qaeda have concentrated – that would seem like a trivial, insufficient retaliation for an attack on the US mainland. Remember
how the Republicans criticised Bill Clinton's administration for ineffectually 'bouncing the rubble' in Afghanistan after the al-Qaeda attacks on the US
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the 1990s. So what kind of response might be credible? Washington's concerns about Iran are rising. The 9/11
commission report noted evidence of co-operation between Iran and al-Qaeda operatives, if not direct Iranian advance knowledge of the 9/11
hijacking plot. Over the past few weeks, US officials have been more explicit, too, in declaring Iran's nuclear programme 'unacceptable'. However, in
the absence of an official Iranian claim of responsibility for this hypothetical terrorist attack, the domestic opposition to such a war and the
international outcry it would provoke would make quick action against Iran unthinkable. In short, a decisive response from Bush could not be external.
It would have to be domestic. Instead of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, leading a war effort abroad, Tom Ridge, the homeland security
secretary, and John Ashcroft, the attorney general, would pursue an anti-terror campaign at home. Forced to use legal tools more controversial than
those provided by the Patriot Act, Americans would experience stepped-up domestic surveillance and border controls, much tighter security in public
places and the detention of a large number of suspects. Many Americans would undoubtedly support such moves. But concern for civil liberties and
personal freedom would ensure that the government would have nowhere near the public support it enjoyed for the invasion of Afghanistan.
Education
Science leadership is strong now – science envoys and centers of excellence.
Koenig ‘09, Science staff writer, 6/5/2009 [Robert, "Fuzzy Spots in Obama's Science Diplomacy," http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/06/fuzzyspots-in.html]
Administration officials are scrambling to add substance to President Barack Obama’s new Middle Eastern science diplomacy initiatives, mentioned Thursday in his
speech in Cairo. The President promised new “science envoys,” centers of excellence, and a “technological development” fund
for the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. The State Department and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
were working today to bring those words into focus. “Details of these initiatives will be crafted in discussion with officials in the nations where they will be based,” said
OSTP spokesman Rick Weiss. Nina V. Fedoroff, science adviser to the Secretary of State and the Agency for International Development, said that proposals
for centers of excellence “have been bubbling up from several different directions” with emphasis on issues such as
agriculture and public health. A State Department fact sheet explained that the United States “will work with educational institutions,
NGOs and foreign governments” to decide the focus and location of such centers. The new “science envoys” program could
follow the lines of a bill sponsored by Sen. Lugar (R–IN) and approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that would deploy prominent scientists
on missions of goodwill and collaboration. Fedoroff said such efforts would dovetail with evolving State Department science
diplomacy programs. Obama also announced a new regional fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries. The fact sheet said the
fund would help pay for “S&T collaboration, capacity development” and innovations with commercial potential.
Science leadership fails – political motivations corrupt its effectiveness.
David Dickson, SciDev, “The limits of science diplomacy,” 6/4/2009, http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html
But — as emerged from a meeting entitled New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy, held in London this week (1–2 June) — using
science for diplomatic
purposes is not as straightforward as it seems.
Some scientific collaboration clearly demonstrates what countries can achieve by working together. For example, a new synchrotron under construction in Jordan is
rapidly becoming a symbol of the potential for teamwork in the Middle East.
But whether scientific cooperation can become a precursor for political collaboration is less evident. For example, despite
hopes that the Middle East synchrotron would help bring peace to the region, several countries have been reluctant to
support it until the Palestine problem is resolved. Indeed, one speaker at the London meeting (organised by the UK's Royal Society and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science) even suggested that the changes scientific innovations bring inevitably lead to turbulence and upheaval. In such a context,
viewing science as a driver for peace may be wishful thinking. Conflicting ethos Perhaps the most contentious area discussed at the meeting was
how science diplomacy can frame developed countries' efforts to help build scientific capacity in the developing world .
There is little to quarrel with in collaborative efforts that are put forward with a genuine desire for partnership. Indeed, partnership — whether between individuals,
institutions or countries — is the new buzzword in the "science for development" community. But true
partnership requires transparent relations
between partners who are prepared to meet as equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit role: to promote
and defend their own countries' interests. John Beddington, the British government's chief scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when he told
the meeting that a diplomat is someone who is "sent abroad to lie for his country". But he touched a raw nerve. Worlds apart yet co-dependent The truth is that science
and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the other. Politicians need science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or — unfortunately — military;
scientists need political support to fund their research. But they also occupy different universes. Politics is, at root, about exercising power by one
means or another. Science is — or should be — about pursuing robust knowledge that can be put to useful purposes. A strategy for
promoting science diplomacy that respects these differences deserves support. Particularly so if it focuses on ways to leverage political and financial backing for
science's more humanitarian goals, such as tackling climate change or reducing world poverty. But a commitment to science diplomacy that ignores
the differences — acting for example as if science can substitute politics (or perhaps more worryingly, vice versa), is dangerous.
The environment is resilient – we’re well passed the “threshold” for collapse
AFP, Agence France Presse, September 15, 1999, “Outlook Grim For World’s Environment Says UN,”
http://www.rense.com/earthchanges/grimoutlook_e.htm
The United Nations warned Wednesday that the world’s environment was facing catastrophic damage as the new millennium nears,
ranging from irreversible destruction to tropical rainforests to choking air pollution and a threat to the polar ice caps. In a lengthy
report, the UN Environment Programme painted a grim tableau for the planet’s citizens in the next millennium, saying time was fast running out to devise a policy
of sustainable human development. And for some fragile eco-systems and vulnerable species, it is already too late, warns the report, called
“Tropical forest destruction has gone too far to prevent irreversible damage. It would take many generations
to replace the lost forests, and the cultures that have been lost with them can never be replaced,” it warns. “Many of the planet’s species have
already been lost or condemned to extinction because of the slow response times of both the environment and policy-makers; it is too late to
preserve all the bio-diversity the planet had.” Sounding the alarm, the UNEP said the planet now faced “full-scale emergencies” on several fronts,
including these: -- it is probably too late to prevent global warming, a phenomenon whereby exhaust gases and other emissions will raise the
temperature of the planet and wreak climate change. Indeed, many of the targets to reduce or stabilise emissions will not be met, the report says. -- urban air
pollution problems are reaching “crisis dimensions” in the developing world’s mega-cities, inflicting damage to the health of their inhabitants. -the seas are being “grossly over-exploited” and even with strenuous efforts will take a long time to recover.
GEO-2000.
Environmental collapse won’t cause extinction
Gregg Easterbrook, senior fellow at The New Republic, July 2003, Wired Magazine, “We’re All Gonna Die!”
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=
If we’re talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don’t measure up. A single nuclear
bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might converge in ways that you and I would
find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. Environmental collapse might make parts of the
globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn’t be the final curtain. Depression,
which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of
bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he
was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.
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.
Disease is declining – it’s not a threat
Ed Regis, former professor of philosophy and science writer, “Virus Ground Zero,” 1996, excerpted in Epidemics,
Opposing Viewpoints, 1999, p. 46
The rise of “emerging diseases,” therefore, was largely an illusion fostered by CDC’s own rapidly increasing success
at unraveling previously unsolved mysteries and discovering previously undetected microbial crimes. The irony of it
all was that the better the CDC got at identifying the pathogens that caused age-old but hitherto unrecognized diseases,
the more it looked as if scads of trailblazing new microbes were out there amassing themselves for attack, gathering
their forces, and preparing to bring us “the coming plague.” The more successful the CDC became, in other words, the
more diseased the world looked. But it wasn’t. By almost every measure, the world peoples were getting steadily
healthier: average life expectancy was on the increase, worldwide, among all races; infant and child mortality rates
were consistently declining, in both developed and developing countries; the world’s population routinely grew, and
indeed it had grown faster in Africa itself for at least the last twenty years. Outbreaks of health, however, were not
considered “news.”
There will be no pandemic: humans adapt
Malcolm Gladwell, The New Republic, July 17 and 24, 1995, excerpted in Epidemics: Opposing Viewpoints, 1999, p.
29
In Plagues and Peoples, which appeared in 1977. William MeNeill pointed out that…while man’s efforts to “remodel”
his environment are sometimes a source of new disease. They are seldom a source of serious epidemic disease. Quite
the opposite. As humans and new microorganisms interact, they begin to accommodate each other. Human populations
slowly build up resistance to circulating infections. What were once virulent infections, such as syphilis become
attenuated. Over time, diseases of adults, such as measles and chicken pox, become limited to children, whose immune
systems are still naïve.